Toggle high contrast

2005 Congress verbatim report: Tuesday

Issue date

REPORT OF THE 137TH ANNUAL

TRADES UNION CONGRESS

held in

The Brighton Centre,

Brighton, East Sussex

from

September 12th to 15th 2005

President: Jeannie Drake OBE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported by Marten Walsh Cherer Limited,

Midway House, 27-29 Cursitor Street, London EC4A 1LT.

Telephone No: 0207-405 5010. Fax No: 0207-405 5026)

SECOND DAY: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13

MORNING SESSION

(Congress re-assembled at 9.30 a.m.)

The President: Before I call Congress to order, could I just say many thanks to Cantabile who have been singing for us this morning. Your voices are really beautiful. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)

If I could now call Congress to order, thank you very much. I hope you had a good evening yesterday, and welcome to today's business of Congress.

Could I first of all remind delegation leaders that the ballot for the General Council and the General Purposes Committee takes place this morning. Ballot papers should be collected from the desk outside the TUC stand, which is situated in the ground floor exhibition area just inside the main front doors of the Brighton centre. Ballot papers will only be provided in exchange for the official delegation form so you will need that, and please note that the ballot closes at 12 noon today.

Colleagues, the business that was not taken from yesterday's sessions will be re-scheduled for later this week, and that consists of the Equality Audit presentation, and paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, Motion 8, Motion 9 and Motion 19 with paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the General Council report. I will give delegates as much notice as possible of when I intend to take the unfinished business and if at all possible I will attempt to begin taking unfinished business at the end of this morning's session in the order in which it was lost.

If I could now call on Annette Mansell-Green, the Chair of the General Purposes Committee to give a further report.

Report of the General Purposes Committee

Annette Mansell-Green : The General Purposes Committee Report has never attracted so much attention but it is nice to have it!

Congress, the General Purposes Committee have approved one further emergency motion, entitled Patient-led NHS, which will be moved by UNISON and seconded by Amicus. That is numbered E3.

One nomination has also been withdrawn. This was for Roger King who was standing in Section E for black workers from unions with less than 200,000 members. His name has been struck from the ballot paper.

In addition, the General Purposes Committee have approved a further collection which is for Make Poverty History. Delegates will recall that the Make Poverty History white wristbands were included in the Congress wallets and therefore we would be grateful if you could make an appropriate donation. Delegates will be interested to know that PFA have indicated that they will very generously match the amount collected, so please give as much as you can.

The President : I will take Emergency Motion E3 in the debate about the NHS scheduled for this afternoon.

You will have seen that I have been joined on the platform by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. There are a few telltale signs confirming that and Gordon will be addressing us in a few minutes, but he particularly wanted to be here early to join us for the presentation of the Congress Awards, which is our first item of business this morning.

Presentation of Lay Rep Awards

The President: As I am sure you will know, the awards were made in recognition of the vital contribution made by the lay activists who are the bedrock of the trade union Movement. For many years we have had the Women's Gold Badge and the Youth Award, and more recently we have added three other awards that recognise the growing number of different roles that volunteer union reps play in the workplace. We now also have awards in recognition of the work of learning representatives, of health and safety representatives, and -- of crucial importance -- the organising representatives. In the best trade union sense, we do not have individual winners as such but each year we choose outstanding representatives to accept the awards on behalf of all their fellow representatives.

Before we meet this year's representatives we are going to show you a video which will tell you something about them and about their achievements. The video has been sponsored jointly by Browell Smith, solicitors, and BT. I would like to thank them for the support they have given us, and I hope that you enjoy the video.

(The video was then shown)

The President: Now it is time to meet our award winners so I am going to hand over to the General Secretary to introduce them.

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Can we perhaps move to the presentation of the awards to the winners. The winner of the Women's Gold Badge is Lesley Mansell. Lesley has been a union member for 28 years, currently a member of Amicus, and sits on its National Women's Committee and National LGBT Committee, and was a member of the TUC LGBT Committee too. Lesley was instrumental in the creation of the Leicester Women's Centre providing advice and support on a range of employment and health issues. Lesley also set up, and for a number of years ran, a national information help line giving advice on employment issues to lesbians, gay men, bisexual and trans-gender people. (Applause)

(Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): The winner of the Congress Award for Youth is Fiona Smith. She has been the Young Members Officer at the Aberdeen City UNISON Branch for five years and is currently Chair of the UNISON Scotland Young Members Committee. Fiona is a workplace steward and safety rep, and has also been the Branch Treasurer for the past year. She has also organised recruitment campaigns in the Branch, specifically aimed at young workers, and holds one of the two young worker seats on the Scottish TUC General Council. In addition, Fiona has helped to develop a programme of school visits completing on average fifteen school visits a year and speaking to around 350 young people about employment rights and the role of trade unions. Fiona, come and receive your Award. (Applause)

(Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): The winner of the Learning Rep Award is Joanne Wallinger. Joanne is a learning room with the Communication Workers Union, and in that role she successfully negotiated a local agreement for release time to establish a learning centre in her workplace. Given that the majority of Joanne's members work on shift patterns, find it difficult to attend fixed time courses, the flexible approach of the learning centre is something that has really made a difference. Joanne come and receive your award. (Applause)

(Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): The winner of the Health and Safety Health Rep Award, Barry Gates, is a Safety Rep with the Communication Workers Union -- again! It is no coincidence in Jeannie's Presidency! Outrageous slur! As part of an initiative for the European Health and Safety Week in October 2004, he developed an information card on the dangers of asbestos. This initiative was done in partnership with the employer, BT. The card was originally planned for 1700 field service engineers in London and East Anglia. Due to demand, it expanded into other parts of the country. Eventually BT produced 39,000 copies of the card and circulated it with its own internal publications. Barry, congratulations. (Applause)

(Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Finally, the award for Organising goes to two people this year, Jessica Fagan from Amicus and Bob Woods from UNISON. First, Jessica. Jessica is a seconded rep for Amicus at Rolls Royce in Derby. In that capacity Jessica organised a project to reorganise the reps structure within the staff side at Rolls Royce, developing a new network of workplace reps and ensuring that they received the necessary support and training. Jessica also used this project to map the workplace and to build union membership, arranging workplace walkabouts and supporting reps to organise their own strategies. Jessica, come and get your award. (Applause)

(Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Bob Woods is the UNISON Branch Secretary of Barnardo's. In this role he coordinated attempts to gain recognition and to establish an effective union presence. The campaign led to a 35 per cent increase in membership and a doubling in the number of activists. A recognition agreement was signed with UNISON in May 2004 after two decades of campaigning. An important part of this was encouraging self-organisation, and with a workforce in which women make up the majority they now also make up 70 per cent of the Branch Executive. Bob, many congratulations. (Applause)

( Presentation of the Award by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Now, Jeannie, it is back to you.

The President: Thank you, Brendan. Well they are stars are they not? Makes you feel proud -- a great group of people. (Applause).

Address by Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The President: Congress, it is now my pleasure to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, to address Congress. Gordon is on what we trades unionists describe as a split shift today: during the early part of his day he is here in Brighton and the later part of the day he is in New York. It is not the sort of working practice that we want to encourage, but it shows the value that Gordon attaches to being here with us today.

Gordon, as I am sure you will know, we do have our differences with the government from time to time, and some of those differences will be aired later today in the debate on public services and public service jobs. But we certainly recognise that you have been a towering figure in this government, with a formidable record on economic efficiency, social justice and, last but not least, the cause of combating world poverty. This is the third time that you have joined us at Congress as Chancellor. Gordon, we look forward to hearing your views on how to achieve better working lives for the people we represent and you are very welcome. Thank you.

Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP, and Chancellor of the Exchequer : Jeannie, Brendan, General Council, members and delegates, let me thank you first of all for your invitation to speak. Let me thank you, Jeannie and Brendan, for your highly praised and respected leadership of the Trades Union Congress, and let me add my congratulations right at the beginning to Lesley Mansell, Jessie Fagan, Jo Wallinger, Barry Gates and and Bob Woods, the most important people here today. Let me thank you for the work you do, day in and day out, bargaining for members. You are the everyday heroes of the labour Movement who have built this Movement, who sustain it and who are its future in the years to come. (Applause)

I hope Congress will also allow me to acknowledge the work of men and women who have been good friends of mine, who are retiring from the General Council this year after years of service to this movement: George Brumwell for twelve years Secretary of the UCATT union; Pat Hawkes from the NUT, and let me thank her also for work as a councillor here in Brighton; and Dave Anderson, former UNISON President, and now let me congratulate him on being elected as the Labour M.P. for Blaydon. Thank you, all of you, for the work you have done. (Applause)

As we thank people today, let us today on this day of celebration for a great English national sporting success congratulate the England cricket team, of whom we are all proud, and let us congratulate London on winning the Olympics for 2012.

Friends, let me just add a personal note. This is a time when we remember also men and women who have served our Movement, and in particular this year two Titans who died earlier this year, Ron Todd and Jim Callaghan. Only a month since their unexpected and early deaths I know all of us would want to pay tribute today to two other Titans of our movement, Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook, both of whom died tragically and unexpectedly young, both with such a huge contribution still to make. Mo Mowlam was the People's Minister; she was an inspiration to women everywhere. Let us agree there must now be a fitting memorial to her achievements in Northern Ireland and beyond, and to her work. The passion of Robin Cook's commitment to social justice was and is an inspiration to us all, all of us who are influenced by him and people in every continent of the world. So, inspired by Robin's example, let us affirm -- as he did -- that whenever there is injustice we will seek to eradicate it; whenever there is poverty we will fight a war against it.

Tony Blair and I also want to thank all of you here today for the work you did in helping secure not just the re-election of a Labour Government for the third term, including the election here in Brighton again of three Labour Members of Parliament, but also for your efforts and your achievements in putting right at the centre of the political agenda causes that Tony and I share with you: the cause of full employment; the central importance of manufacturing; the moral and economic case for decent public services, universal and free for all; and, as the Warwick agenda to which we are jointly committed demonstrates, our commitment to fairness to all in the workplace. I am here today to tell you that even in the face of opposition from all other parties in the House of Commons and elsewhere, Tony Blair, I and the government will as a priority put into place this year and next the legislation that will honour in full the Warwick Agreements. So let me assure you that we will implement our agreement that no one should see their health or safety put recklessly at risk in the workplace, and we have announced legislation outlawing corporate manslaughter. Let me assure you on gangmasters that we will license and regulate employment so that we will protect lives by rooting out dangerous and deadly abuses. Let me also tell you that we are legislating for enhanced rights at work with the 8 week rule extended to 12. I want to thank Brendan Barber and the TUC General Council for making this a priority. On holidays and working hours, as you know, we are moving to add bank holidays to four weeks paid holiday.

Fairness at work means also fairness to the low paid, and it is because of your efforts, the initial commitment of John Smith and then of Tony Blair, that with Labour Britain now has a minimum wage, one that I am pleased to report will rise this year and rise next year, rising by 40 per cent since it was first introduced. The legal minimum wage, I am pleased to say, is now extended for the first time, thanks to your efforts, to 16/17 year olds in the workforce.

As Britain has historically neglected the importance of childcare, we are now implementing for parents -- as a result of Warwick -- a new national childcare strategy. Women's rights and women's equality have been unacceptably neglected for too long and so we are even now studying the recommendations from Margaret Prosser, the Chair of the Women and Work Commission. Our aim is to end once and for all the gender pay gap in our country.

Friends, having introduced under Labour the first winter payment for pensioners of £200, the first free television licences for pensioners, the first pension credit paid to over 2.5 million of our poorest pensioners, the first free local bus travel that is nationwide, we will, as we said at Warwick, and I am pleased that Jack Jones has been with us in our deliberations this week -- and this is the debate we will have when the Pensions Committee of which Jeannie is a member reports -- respond to the new Pensions Commission in its investigation into the capacity and limits of the voluntarist system by seeking to make sure that not just some but all workers in our country have security and dignity in their retirement. Let me add because it is morally wrong that when firms go under workers, through no fault of their own, lose their pensions. In partnership with you we have set up and are expanding the new Pension Protection Fund, and for pension funds that have previously gone under, for workers cruelly denied the pensions they were due, we have now set aside £400 million so that money is paid retrospectively to them.

Now friends, most of all on the future of the economy, and this is the central theme I want to discuss with you today. Since 1997 we have been building a Britain that is not only more economically stable than at any time for a generation, but a Britain that is using its stability for a purpose: unemployment, the lowest for 30 years; long-term youth unemployment, once 350,000 in our country under the Tories, now less than 7,000 - less than ten per constituency. Restoring full employment to the centre of economic policy was the first act of the Labour Government, and we are now closer to full employment as a result of our efforts together than at any time for a generation.

I want us never to forget when we talk about jobs that over and over again throughout the Tory years the right wing in our country had the audacity, and they had the arrogance, to lecture us, all of us in the Movement, that our objective for full employment was an outdated and distant dream. They told us you could not have low interest rates and high employment. They told us that unemployment was a price worth paying for other people's prosperity. I tell you that I will never forget how, when starting as an MP in 1983, in a constituency with thousands of people unemployed, I met hundreds of coal miners, shipbuilding workers, steelworkers and people in other industries thrown out of jobs at the age of 50, or before, who never expected they would work again. I met young couples who, having lost their jobs, then lost their homes. I met youngsters, once bright eyed and hopeful, under the Tories rejected, discarded, dejected, even before they had had a first pay cheque.

None of us must forget how the experts wrote off three million unemployed, how the commentators fell for the idea that unemployment was inevitable. Let us remember how many lost heart, how they succumbed to that propaganda that, as manual tasks were mechanised, as digital and computer technology replaced the jobs of skilled workers, we could bury for ever the idea that we could have an economy founded on full employment. I tell you, we the labour and trade union Movement, never lost heart. We never fell for this defeatism. We never surrendered our goal of full employment. When we passed resolutions for jobs, when all of us marched for jobs, when we rallied for jobs, when we campaigned for jobs, we were upholding to the world ideals I believe all of us uphold to this day, that mass unemployment is not only unfair but inefficient, and we were sending out an even bigger message -- the philosophy that I was brought up with in a mining and industrial community -- that we do not pass by on the other side, that our mission is to build communities where we look out for each other, where we feel each other's sorrows, where we share each other's pain, and that is the theme that runs like a golden thread through the history of our Movement, a belief that injustice should not happen to us, injustice should not happen to anyone, principles that we taught each other through hard times of solidarity, not selfishness, and they are as relevant today as ever.

When people tell us again that the impact of globalisation, the rise of China and Asia, mean that we have to lower our aspirations, when they tell us that as manufacturing becomes global -- as it has -- that we must accept somehow that full employment and good decent paying jobs are a thing of the past, I tell you that in the same way as we met together the challenge of mass unemployment with the New Deal, that in eight years has created two million jobs in this country, we should agree now that as long as we make the right long-term decisions, only if we make the right long-term decisions, can we together meet and master an even greater challenge for our times, the challenge of globalisation.

Let me tell you the scale of the challenge we face. In the last 18 months the doubling of oil prices is just one visible sign of the speed and the scale of global economic change. Asia's manufacturing output is now -- unbelievable but true -- greater than that of Europe. Asia is now consuming 30 per cent of the world's oil and China nearly ten per cent. Once only responsible for ten per cent of manufactured exports, developing countries will soon be responsible for 50 per cent of these manufactured exports. On its own, let us remember China now produces 30 per cent of the world's TVs, 50 per cent of cameras, 70 per cent of photocopiers, 90 per cent of children's toys, perhaps soon 60 per cent of all the world's clothes. At no point since the industrial revolution, friends, has the re-structuring of global economic activity been so dramatic. At no point has there been such a shift in production -- Asia moving from the fringes to the centre of the new world economic order.

At no point in our history has the speed and scale of technological change been so swift and so persuasive. Think back only to 1997 when we came into government. Then there was no digital TV, there were no DVDs, there were no video phones, there was no broadband, there was virtually no texting. Just eight years ago only ten per cent were on the Internet, only ten per cent had mobile phones, and so if in only eight years we can see such dramatic technical change then think of the impact in the next eight years of new technologies on occupations, on industries, on businesses and on jobs.

This is not, as it is sometimes said, a race to the bottom with China and India that will only be met by protecting our home goods, shutting foreign industries out, hoping the world will go away because they aspire -- and I have just returned from Asia and China -- not to race us to the bottom, but to be high skill, high technology economies. China and India are now turning out more engineers, more computer scientists, more university graduates -- four million in total each year -- than the whole of Europe and America put together. Therefore, the answer for our future will lie not in protectionism but in radically upgrading our skills, science and technology and this is the route to full employment for our times.

Colleagues, there is nothing more important to me in the next few years than preparing and equipping our nation to meet and master these global challenges ahead. I do not disguise from you the scale of the changes, but we -- the British working people - can, instead of being the victims of globalisation, become its beneficiaries. Throughout our history this labour Movement, faced with awesome challenges, huge responsibilities, has succeeded in meeting them to the benefit of working people. Together out of the ruins of war we built the welfare state. Together out of the chaos of private medicine we created the National Health Service. I now want us to work together on a long-term economic reform plan for global success for Britain.

Today I issue an invitation to the TUC, and to trades unions as well as to business, to enter into a discussion with the Treasury and with government in detail on how a more skilled, more adaptable, more enterprising Britain can make the right long-term decisions so that we succeed in the next stage of the global economy and can remain true to our goal of full employment opportunities for all so that, facing these future economic challenges that are greater than in 1945, mastering technological change more dramatic than in any century, we can -- working together in the interests of prosperity for all -- ensure we turn global change from a threat to us into an opportunity and then into a full employment Britain.

Let me tell you, and particularly our manufacturing unions here today, that the global challenge strengthens rather than lessons the case for manufacturing and investment in manufacturing in our regions. As we agreed with you at Warwick, we will give new support to manufacturing, investing in science, technology, transport, infrastructure, new innovations in our regions and in the new manufacturing and advisory service. Our Manufacturing Forum, now up and running with full trade union representation, is today -- at your request -- looking at public procurement so that British companies are no longer unfairly denied contracts and markets across key sectors of the European economy, so that British workers and British industry will secure the fairest deal. We will honour our promise that manufacturing should not be seen as a part of the old economy but that together we will build modern manufacturing strength for the future of Britain.

Friends, if China and India are turning out four million graduates a year and more engineers and more computer scientists and more software engineers, then we in Britain, a small country, cannot afford to waste the talents of any child. We cannot afford to write off the potential of any young person. We cannot afford now to discard the abilities of any adult, and it is because the skills of our workforce are now the commanding heights of the economy, it is because the skills of working people are as they should always have been, the most critical means of production, it is because it is increasingly the skills of working people that give every company value and give nations comparative advantage, that new principles must govern education and training in ensuring good, well paying jobs in the future of our country.

Education should no longer be just from 5 to 16. It should start at three and full time educational opportunity should be available to 18. Every teenager should have the right to further education and every adult the guarantee of training and basic skills. Let us salute in each of our unions today's trade union pioneers of the skills resolution -- 12,000 men and women, one of whom we rewarded today with a certificate, who are trade union learning representatives in the workplace every day bargaining for skills. Let us salute the 100,000 who have come back into learning through the trades union Movement in over 400 learning centres around the country, the two million workers who are engaged in skills for life programmes, the employer training pilots that are moving from the voluntarism that failed in the past and ensuring that for time off workers now have money to obtain the new skills they want and need.

I can also tell you today that to support the new Trades Union Academy, proposed by the TUC, Ruth Kelly and Alan Johnson, we will provide over the next two years £4.5 million, part of a total investment of £8 billion in skills in this country. This shows that we will answer the Asia challenge not by becoming resigned to a Britain of low skills and high unemployment but by creating a Britain of new skills and new jobs. I tell you straight, Britain can win in this global economy. We will win because we will not compete on low pay but on high skills. We will win because we will not respond to globalisation by lowering our standards in the workplace, but by raising them. We will win because we will not adjust to global change by protectionism and neglecting investment but by investing more and for the long term. This is nothing less than the economic battle for Britain's future. Upon winning this battle, by focusing rigorously on priorities that matter, we meet the future financing needs of our public services, we will tackle the war on poverty and ensure that the potential for full employment becomes real in the years to come.

I also tell you straight that in the face of that global challenge, from which there is no hiding place, there is no safe haven other than equipping ourselves by investing in the future. If we are to succeed, there must be no return to fiscal irresponsibility, no return to the economic short termism of the inflationary pay deals, no return to the old conflicts and disorders of the past. There can be no retreat from demanding efficiency and value for money as well as equity as we renew our public services and reform them. There is no future for a global trading nation like ours trying to erect protectionist barriers with the rest of the world. Just as we need stability in inflation and stability in interest rates for businesses and home owners we need stability in our industry policy - stability in industrial relations, stability in our trading relationships with the rest of the world. We will build this stability for a purpose: it is the one sure route to full employment for our generation and to the needs of prosperity not just for some but for all. Every time we will act as a government to tackle the risk to stability and to growth, risks that are already today reducing European growth to one per cent -- much of Europe is now in recession; European unemployment is rising to 20 million -- risks that have now risen from the doubling in oil prices in recent months. But global challenges need global solutions. It is because we understand the problems that are faced by hauliers, by farmers, by motorists, by ordinary consumers right across the country faced d with gas and electricity bills at a time of this doubling of oil prices, and because we will never be complacent about these issues, that the first action we must take is to tackle the cause of this problem, ensuring concerted global action is taken to bring down world oil prices and to stabilise all markets for the long term. In the last few days alone I have discussed our plans with more than 30 Finance Ministers and spoken to representatives of all the world's leading economies because, firstly, this is at root an oil problem of demand outstripping supply. OPEC must respond at its meeting on September 19 by raising production to meet rising demand.

Secondly, lack of transparency about the world's reserves and plans for their development undermine stability and cause speculation. The world must call on OPEC and all the oil producing countries to become more open and more transparent in what they do.

Thirdly, from the additional $300 billion a year in revenue OPEC countries are now enjoying, and the additional $800 billion available to oil producers, there must be additional new investment in production matched by investment in rising refinery capacity.

Fourthly, the search for alternative sources of energy and greater energy efficiency are urgent not least to tackle climate change. The World Bank should set up a new fund to support developing countries investing in alternative resources and greater energy efficiency.

Fifthly, poor countries and poor people should never be left defenceless against oil and commodity price shocks. The IMF should agree, as a matter of urgency, a new facility for countries hit by these shocks and where there are windfall revenues a special trust fund should be created where oil producers help debt ridden poor countries to write down their unpayable debts.

At each point in tackling this problem we must have the strength to take the long-term decisions that will get oil prices down. It is by securing economic prosperity, insisting that the benefits go not just to a few but to everyone, that we will achieve another goal -- finance to build world class public services in Britain.

Let me say that, because of our commitment to public services and their renewal, we are -- as promised at Warwick -- extending the local government agreement right across the public service to bring to an end the two-tier work force. Let me here publicly from this rostrum thank -- as I believe you will do later today -- Britain's public servants who, in those anxious hours, facing a terrorist threat on July 7, and in the days and months beyond, rose to the challenge, worked tirelessly, showed bravery, dedication and commitment to tend the wounded, comfort the bereaved, protect the anxious and serve the public first.

Let me take this opportunity to say publicly what is often left unsaid and taken for granted, and thank all our emergency public services. Workers in our hospitals, from the doctors, nurses and nursing auxiliaries to porters, ambulance men and women, cleaners, and catering staff - men and women who show not only exceptional skill and professionalism but every day also demonstrate extraordinary care, compassion and friendship, which makes us proud of public services in Britain.

Teachers and the teaching assistants, the school dinner ladies and caretakers who at their very best show with their dedication day in and day out that every child and every child's future counts first.

And in our communities, public servants and local government workers pioneering new services from childcare and job help to neighbourhood wardens, carers whose unbelievable compassion and support can transform people's despair into hope, home helps and support staff whose commitment and humanity show that public service can be a calling and not just a career. And proving that with investment and reform, Britain can be a beacon to the world for the highest standard of free universal public services.

For, friends, there is indeed a second reason for winning the challenge here in Britain for universal free public services that are the best in the world, so that not only just British people can benefit from these services but that we can offer hope that public services, universal and free of charge, are the way forward for developing countries, too.

For, as we will tell the world at the Special UN Summit that starts tomorrow on making poverty history, it is only by building universal free schooling and ending charges for pupils, it is only by creating universal healthcare and ending fees and charges for health that the people of Africa and developing countries can even begin to eliminate poverty, disease and ill-health.

In my eight years as Chancellor, I have visited on your behalf some of the poorest parts of Asia and the poorest parts of Africa. I have seen the faces of people crushed by poverty upon whom all the troubles of the world seem to bear down. I have met mothers in Asia who, I knew, that in using every ounce of their own energy to save the lives of their new born infants were about to lose their own lives. I have heard children in Kenya demonstrating and chanting the demand for 'free education' for every pupil instead of charges. I have met women in Mozambique who waved their pay cheques at me demonstrating that no matter how hard they worked they could not afford to pay fees, as they had to, for schooling for their young children. I have met some of the twelve million Aids orphans in Africa who, having lost both of their parents, face exclusion through having no money from both education and the possibility of health even when some of them have Aids themselves. I met only a few weeks ago in Tanzania an Aids victim who could not afford to visit a hospital, who had no money even to visit a doctor, who could not afford to pay for drugs to relieve his pain, and he said to me, 'I know I am despised because of Aids, but are we not all brothers?'

I tell you that for the one hundred and twenty million children who did not go to school today and for the 30,000 children who face avoidable death from disease today, there is not a chance to escape disease, illiteracy and poverty if they are charged for healthcare or if there are fees for education; no hope at all for the poorest communities of the world without free and universal public services that we have championed here from Britain.

Make Poverty History is the theme chosen by your President for this conference this week. Let me thank you, Brendan, for speaking magnificently when we attended the rally in Edinburgh a few months ago to Make Poverty History. Let me thank every trades union in the great traditions of our internationalism for being the driving force in the Make Poverty History coalition, and let me, therefore, congratulate you for your key role in winning for the first time in our history one hundred per cent debt relief for the poorest countries; in exposing agricultural protectionism and in exposing the scandal and waste of the Common Agricultural Policy; in securing a commitment not just to double aid to Africa but that eleven European countries now promise 0.7 per cent of their budgets spent on development aid, and we are demonstrating the truth of the belief on which our Movement was founded that as individuals we are not powerless but, acting together across the nations, we have the power to shape history.

But I say to you today, as we look to the future, and recognise not just what we have done together but what we can do in the coming years starting with the UN Special Summit this week, let the new demand from trades unionists, based on our own experience here, from churches and faith groups, from Make Poverty History campaigners from all over Britain and the world, let the new demand be that to truly make poverty history Africa must win the battle we have had to fight in Britain as well. There must be universal and free schooling for every young pupil and there must be healthcare, universal and free, as the beginning of justice for the poorest citizens of the word.

When people say that finance free universal healthcare and schooling for the world's poor is an impossible dream, let us remind ourselves that two hundred years ago people said that an end to slavery was an impossible dream. One hundred years ago people said that a free National Health Service and free education for children in Britain was an impossible dream. Just 20 years ago people said that the end to apartheid and Nelson Mandela's release was an impossible dream. Just a year ago people said that one hundred per cent debt relief was an impossible dream.

Our ancestors knew how much easier it was to be unambitious rather than to aim high. It was simpler always to be conservative than to seek change. It was less difficult to take your own share than fight for everyone to have a fair share. It was always more comfortable to see progress as moving up on your own instead of all of us moving up together. It was always less demanding to succumb to vested interested than to take them on. But instead our pioneers held fast to the vision that progress is everyone moving forward together.

And as we look at the challenges ahead - building through global change, full employment, modern manufacturing strength, ending child and pensioner poverty, building the best public services and, yes, the elimination of poverty around the world, let us agree, in the finest traditions of our Movement, that we do not settle for second best but that we reach high; that we never lower our sights but that we strive to make once unrealisable dreams come true, and in the spirit of the highest ideas of our Movement, let us acknowledge the great causes worth fighting for today: a society founded on equality, driven forward by a commitment to justice, dedicated to fairness for all, a Britain worthy of our pioneers and a Britain and a world true to our ideals. Friends, we achieve our ideals best when we work to achieve them together. Thank you. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Gordon, for that moving and challenging speech. You certainly gave us food for thought on the economic challenges we face in today's world and what you yourself called 'The Great Cause of World Poverty'. I am sure that Brendan and the TUC would want to accept your invitation to work with the Treasury on the Movement's response to those challenges. Thank you very much, and thank you for finding the time to come and address us today.

Learning, Skills and TUC Education

Learning and Skills

Barry Lovejoy (NATFHE, The University & College Lecturers' Union) moved Composite Motion 20.

He said: I am moving Composite 20 on lifelong learning. In moving this motion on lifelong learning, I would like, first of all, to remind ourselves of the position of the Labour Government after two years in office, outlined in its publication Learning to Succeed. David Blunkett said: 'Lifelong learning can enable people to play a full part in developing their talents, the potential of their family and the capacity of the community in which they live and work. It can and must nurture a love for learning. It also contributes to sustaining a civilised and cohesive society in which people develop as active citizens in which generational disadvantage can be overcome'.

I would like to put on record my union's belief, and I am sure that of Congress, that we absolutely share this vision for lifelong learning and, indeed, as was outlined by Gordon earlier. We acknowledge the injection of funds into the system during the past three or four years, the support for learning reps and the announcement of the Union Academy.

All affiliates to this body, the TUC, generally have taken up the challenge of lifelong learning. Indeed, we have been at the cutting edge of those developments through our work through learning representatives and the wonderful work of trade union education which is reflected in the nine grade 1 assessments of those centres in the past three or four years. Indeed, all our affiliates have continued to provide basic education for our reps but also more in the form of an extension of educational rights and opportunities for our members because we are committed to that because it is a fundamental move for social justice.

Whilst recognising these advances and applauding our work in this area, we believe, however, that recently the Government have lost their way and, indeed, have actually missed some good opportunities to make some radical reforms around the learning agenda. There remain a large number of barriers to our work and that of other people in producing lifelong learning. Learning reps continue to face the barrier of lack of time and an ambivalent attitude of employers towards providing decent learning opportunities for our members.

So, therefore, this motion calls for statutory rights to negotiate on training to be established, including statutory rights for learning committees and a legal entitlement to paid time off for all our members for education.

We believe that the Government missed a golden opportunity earlier this year to address the pernicious division between academic and technical education. The Government chose to ignore, generally, the view of the Tomlinson Report which advocated one over-arching diploma recognising those distinct pathways for giving equal status and esteem for technical education and academic. The problem is that, in terms of meeting the needs of the minority of people who take A levels, it continues that divide and that divide means that technical education and vocational education is treated as second class.

Ruth Kelly has recently described colleges as 'the engines of social mobility'. We totally agree with that. Further education colleges provide opportunities, mainly to working class people, first and second chance choices and also to black and ethnic minority students. The problem is that those engines need fuel and the major fuel of any public service, and in particular colleges of education, is the people who work in them. My members and members of other trade unions - the support workers - face a situation of continuing low pay and poor working conditions in those colleges. The majority of lectures are still paid up to 10% less than their school teacher equivalents. Support workers still continue to have low, poverty wages in some respects in further education.

Further education is still run by an army of part-time employees who have recently been called an army of Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. That is not an indication of their dress sense but an indication of the fact that they are dedicated professionals but working under outrageous conditions for the 21st Century.

The simple fact is that there is not enough money. We call on the Government to make this matter a priority. My union says that if £5 billion can be paid towards the illegal occupation of Iraq, then that money should be spent on extending life chances rather than ending life chances for our people. I move.

Jack Barnett (Educational Institute of Scotland) in seconding the composite motion, said: President and colleagues, in seconding, I would like to focus on the issues within the composite related to the Union Learning Fund and learning representatives, and present Congress with a number of reasons why these are worthy of your support. First of all, I speak in recognition of the fact that Union Learning Fund initiatives follow in the long and proud trade union tradition of promoting learning, of supporting the learning needs of members and working in partnership with employers and Government, central or devolved, to demonstrate a collective commitment to learning. Secondly, my union commends, as the Chancellor has done this morning, the response of a wide range of affiliates to the opportunities presented by the Union Learning Fund.

In Scotland alone, since the year 2000, at least 23 trade unions, including my own, have accessed the £3.6 million made available through the Scottish Union Learning Fund and have expended their capacity to promote and support learning in the workplace.

Central to all of this has been the development of the role of the union learning reps, more than 1,000 of whom are now active in Scotland, pioneering a diverse range of learning projects. This is not just about helping non-traditional learners access learning, important though that is. This is a life-long learning rights agenda and it applies to all workers.

The message I bring you today is that teachers and lecturers are learners too, and ULR's have an important role to play in supporting their learning, so much so that the EIS aspires to having a union learning rep in every school and FE college in Scotland.

A third reason why Congress should support this motion is because trade union involvement in learning not only allows us to respond to a core need of our members but, in doing so, it can also have a positive impact on the way the union is perceived. It can transform attitudes about what a trade union is and what a trade union does. This gives us an opportunity to reach out to sections of the workforce which traditionally we have found difficult to engage in membership or active participation, like younger workers, women and black and minority ethnic workers.

In my own union, for example, 50 per cent of our learning reps are women, 65 per cent of our learning reps are first-time activists and 60 per cent of our learning reps, who are first time activists, are women.

Finally, colleagues, the composite recognises that there are still barriers to overcome and one of the most significant of these is the negative attitude of some employers.

So in supporting this composite today, let us send out a challenge to these employers to meet their legal obligation but, above all, to work in genuine partnership with the trade unions and government to develop the learning potential of their workforce/our members for the benefit of all. Please support.

Joanna Brown (Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists) speaking in support of the composite motion, said:

Congress, I am speaking on the section calling on the TUC to support unions which wish to develop European common platforms. The concept of the common platform arises from the EU Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. The directive will permit professions to develop common platforms which will give their members the automatic right to practise in other Member States. Common platforms will promote mobility for professionals within the EU whilst, at the same time, providing an assurance for employers and consumers that these people are able to practise to an acceptable standard. It is important to point out that this concept is not about harmonisation of education and training, which would actually be illegal under European law, but rather about establishing a common set of outcomes and competencies.

In case all of this sounds a little elitist, the definition of a profession is interpreted very widely in the EU and may be applied to occupation beyond the traditional professions. We are talking about workers who have some sort of qualification.

So why are we asking the TUC to provide support? Primarily, it is because the initiative for establishing a common platform must come from the professions themselves. The British trade union or professional organisation must work with its counterparts in other European countries and come up with a proposal to present to the European Parliament. The Parliament will then consult with the national government in deciding whether to adopt the platform. Any of you who have been involved in European matters will realise that this is not very straightforward.

The SPC has just begun to try and establish a platform for podiatry. We have discovered that it is our job to consult with other stakeholders, such employers and service users, otherwise the Commission is unlikely to accept our application. Also the application must be supported by professional bodies in 20 out of the 25 EU Member States. This will be something of a challenge for us as our profession does not even exist in some of the new Member States where podiatry tends to be carried out by doctors. We have not yet worked out how to get over this hurdle and would benefit from some kind of help. So we are asking the TUC, firstly, to facilitate advice and information for unions which are interested in promoting common platforms for their members and, secondly, to provide links to sources of expertise and influence in Europe, such as the ETUC.

For many workers, despite what we are told, mobility in Europe is still just a theoretical concept. By sharing our knowledge and experience, we will be able to make the single market work for our members. Please support.

Jim McAuslan (British Air Line Pilots Association) supported the composite motion.

He said: The British Air Line Pilots Association supports Composite 20 and in particular that part beginning with the need for UK Plc to predict and provide for trained professional aircrew. So it was, Conference, that I was uplifted to see the headline on page 101 of the Annual Report and echoed by the Chancellor: 'Employer Training Pilots'. Not so, my friends. Pilots, as in trials; not pilots as in flight crew.

The bleak reality is that employers have, essentially, opted out in the training of flight crew, preferring to leave it to the vagaries of the market. It is so typical of the vagaries of the market that just as UK aviation enjoys some long-awaited growth and the demand for pilots increases, we find that the supply drives up because potential pilots were scared off following the last economic downturn in UK aviation. It is tempting for a trade union to use the market to our advantage and to our existing members' advantage by treating the labour supply tight, stir up a bit of fear about cheap foreign imports on the back of the Hellios crash in Greece last month and watch salaries go up as employers struggle to recruit and retain flight crew. But in today's global market this will only result in airlines moving off-shore and basing themselves nearer to the labour supply. Yes, we could extract a short-term salary premium but at the expense of long-term growth on these shores.

UK Plc's approach towards training pilots does not help itself. It is assumed that, if you want to become a pilot, you must be a bit of a toff, pursuing glamour and it being nothing more than a gentleman's pastime. The truth is that most of the pilot intake over the past few years has been self-sponsored and it will cost the individual between £70,000 - £100,000 plus VAT. Most will have re-mortgaged their houses or used their redundancy payment or begged or borrowed to raise the money to then go through a lengthy training period to get a job flying, often for nothing as a junior first office, and for a couple of years, until they get a chance of getting a good job, and that does not always get delivered. It is brutal and it is not the way that a highly skilled workforce will develop on these shores. Yes, we would support the Chancellor's and the Treasury's call to engage in discussion about this situation.

It is not just special pleading, colleagues, or elitism, because without trained aircrew fewer airlines will be setting up in the UK, fewer airlines mean fewer aircraft, fewer aircraft mean fewer loaders, fewer cabin crew, fewer air traffic controllers and fewer jobs, which is why, Congress, we are calling for a different headline in next year's Annual Report that employers are training pilots and that UK Plc is supporting the improvement of the UK pilot base. We support the composite.

Tony Burke (Amicus) speaking in support of the composite, said: In supporting the composite, I am referring, specifically, to the need for sector training levies. Each year at Congress we argue the case to improve our members' skills and long-term futures, but the fact is that after years of urging employers to pay for skills, we still have a long way to go to compete with our overseas competitors.

Many UK employers, in their short-sighted approach to business, still look towards cheap, low paid and poorly trained workers. They wonder why we have skill shortages in a number of industries and why productivity is low. Let's just look at three examples. The 2002 Construction Industry Training Board Skills Foresight Report claimed an estimated shortfall of 37,000 electricians until 2006, requiring an annual increase of more than 7,000 apprentices. The same study said that there was a shortfall of 30,000 plumbers for the same period, requiring an annual increase of 6,000 apprentices. In printing, research carried out in 2004 found that more than 40 per cent of employers had done no training at all for the previous 12 months.

President, in the commercial printing industry we have got the employers to agree to a voluntary system, which is that 0.5 per cent of company budgets are to be allocated to training. If that does not work, the Government have warned our industry that they will be prepared to introduce a compulsory sector training levy.

Congress, Amicus believes that unions have done much to improve the skills of our members during the past decade, as the Chancellor referred to this morning. The Union Learning Fund has exceeded expectations and our union learner reps are doing a brilliant job in improving access to skills. From our experience, the learning and skills agenda is a wonderful organising tool. However, President, we are still working within a system which allows employers to choose whether they train or not.

The training needs of workers can never be fulfilled whilst employers are allowed to duck this issue and we need firm measures if we are to reverse this terminal decline. That is why we need to keep the pressure on the Government to introduce statutory training levies where it can be demonstrated that employers have failed their industries. In addition, we need the Government to introduce training within the scope of collective bargaining where union recognitions provide for an obligation to negotiate with workplace reps in relation to training.

We also have to remember that training is not just about improving productivity but it is about our members' future.

Congress, too many employers have been getting away with refusing to train workers for far too long, so I ask you to support the composite. Support investment in our members to win better skills and better learning opportunities, and where employers do not train, let's make them pay. Let us make sure that our members get the opportunities for learning and skills that they deserve.

Peter Pendle (Association for College Management) supported Composite Motion 20.

He said: Colleagues, we are pleased to support NATFHE on this composite and we want to refer, briefly, to two specific issues. Firstly, it remains a scandal that a funding gap of more than 10 per cent exists between schools and college students undertaking the same or similar courses of study. Recent research by the Learning and Skills Development Agency has proved that the gap exists and is damaging students' opportunities. The Government continue to refuse to address the issue. We do not want to have funding for school sixth form students reduced, but we want further education students to get the same.

The result of the funding gap is that pay and conditions of those working in further education suffer, but, perhaps more importantly, the funding gap is discriminatory. Recent research has shown, for instance, that black and minority ethnic 16 - 19 year olds are much more likely to go to further education colleges than to school sixth forms. On average 40 per cent less is spent on their education than their white equivalents. ACM believes that this amounts to both political and institutionalised discrimination, so let us remove the funding gap now.

Secondly, recent funding cuts have been directed at learning support budgets in further education colleges. These funds have, in the past, been used to support the most disadvantaged learners in our society. Especially worrying is the fact that the cuts have included a reduction in the funds for childcare for learners. The Government want to see more people returning to employment but, at the very same time, they encourage the Learning and Skills Council to cut the funds which support them to get the qualifications and skills to do so. Please support the composite for a properly funded further education sector.

Paddy Lillis (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) in supporting Composite Motion 20, said: Colleagues, lifelong learning has inspired and enthused membership more than any other issue in recent years. My union launched its lifelong learning campaign just six years ago. Since then a staggering 12,000 of our members have returned to some kind of learning. People excluded from any formal education before, now benefit from the basic skills, vocational and personal development training. That is not just of enormous value and benefit to them, but it means the ability to learn through the union adds value to membership. It helps to raise our profile and build our organisation. It is good for attracting people to us and holding them there and that is why we have invested further.

We have now trained more than 500 people to become learning reps. They are carrying out vital work with employers and learning providers to promote education and, of course, offering encouragement and support to our members. They do a fantastic job for our people. That is why we need to go on building around them.

That means workplace learning committees. Learning committees are not just about good intentions but about action; a working mechanism, colleagues, where vital decisions are made about everything from learning providers to financial backing. We have already made some progress. Companies like Tesco, Sainsbury's and Shop Direct have already set up workplace learning committees with us, fundamental to creating a learning culture in the workplace. Enlightened as it is, it is still a voluntary approach, colleagues.

So, like the reps themselves, we need committees on a statutory footing to make real progress. We already have a legal framework for reps to establish health and safety committees. It would be simple and effective to do the same for learning reps and their committees. Nearly 200 Westminster MPs backed that point of view earlier this year. They saw the point and they were right. We need to go on building and workplace learning committees by law are an integral part of it. Thank you.

Frances O'Grady (The Deputy General Secretary): Thank you. The General Council has asked me, very briefly, to give an explanation with its support for Comp 20 on learning and skills.

The General Council, in particular, welcomes the recognition given in the composite motion to the contribution of unions to progressing this agenda, and in particular our 12,000 union learning representatives nationwide.

The composite motion also welcomes the commitment of the Government to vocational education and training, but it does, quite rightly, raise concerns about the new skills academies, including the concern that they may be created outside of the FE sector and based on an employer-dominated model. However, many unions will want the opportunity to use their influence on the development of these skills academies, especially through union representation on the boards of sector skills councils and in seeking a seat at the table on the governance of these new skills academies so that we ensure that these academies adopt not just an employer dominated model but, instead, an employment led approach and that they are strongly tied into the FE sector. Thank you.

The President: Congress, I do have other speakers who have indicated a wish to speak in this debate, but I am going to move to the vote because I am conscious that I do not want to lose any more business this morning. We are trying to pick up lost business from yesterday. I am going to move to close this debate.

The President: The General Council supports the composite.

* Composite Motion 20 was CARRIED.

The President: That completes Chapter 6 of the General Council Report.

London bombings - tribute to the emergency workers - GS Statement and debate.

The President: Chair, we now turn to Chapter 4 of the General Council's Report on Economic and Industrial Affairs, which is on page 50 of the Report. At this point on the Agenda, I would like to ask Congress to reflect on the terrorist attacks which took place in London of this year on 7th and 21st July. In a few minutes, I will call the General Secretary to move a statement on behalf of the General Council.

However, before that, I think it is appropriate that we pay our respects to those people who died in the attacks and it is also right that we pay tribute to the many transport and emergency workers who played such a vital role in ensuring the safety of the public during those traumatic events. In recognition of their tremendous work in representing both themselves and their fellow workers, I would like to call on stage the following:

George Psaradakis. George is a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. On 7th July George was driving the number 30 bus on which 14 people died in the explosion in Tavistock Square.

Fanny Takyi-Michais. Fanny is a police community support officer and a PCS rep. Fanny was one of the first people on the scene after the explosion of the bomb on the bus at Tavistock Square, directing people to safety.

Adam Levy. Adam is a biomedical scientist at Great Ormond Street Hospital and an Amicus member. Adam acted as a runner for a surgical team, looking for trolleys and blankets and making sure that people could get through to the switchboard.

David Moore. David has been a London firefighter and an FBU branch official for more than 20 years. David attended the Edgware Road incident on 7th July and helped to rescue passengers from Underground trains.

Richie Hilier. Richie also attended the Edgware Road incident as the driver of the fire engine from Kensington Fire Station. Richie was responsible for checking in and out the emergency workers who went below ground to rescue passengers.

Mark Maybanks. Mark is a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union and was the driver of the number 26 bus on which a rucksack bomb was planted on 21st July. Fortunately, the bomb failed to explode and there were no casualities.

Olanayi Falayi. Olanayi is a station supervisor and a member of the RMT. Ola was one of the first people on the scene at Aldgate where he spent more than an hour underground, getting the injured out of the damaged carriages and walking them along the track to safety.

Mark Belkin. Mark is a UNISON member and a paramedic team leader at Islington Ambulance Station. Mark was called out to treat the injured at the site of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square.

Catherine Mayes. Catherine is a development planner for London Underground and a TSSA member. Catherine helped to arrange protection for the search and rescue teams at Aldgate and worked to get the District Line running back to normal for the following morning.

Robin Mayes. Robin, Catherine's husband, is a station supervisor on London Underground and a TSSA rep. On7th July, Robin helped to evacuate Liverpool Street Station. He then walked to Aldgate Station where he helped rescue passengers from the exploded train.

Finally, Andrea Shields. Andrea is a paramedic and a UNISON member. On 6th July she was one of the ambulance workers who treated the injured and cared for the dying, first at the site of the bus bombing and then at Russell Square tube station.

Congress, I now ask that you join me in standing for a minute's silent tribute in memory of those who died in the events of 7th and 21st July.

(Congress stood in silent tribute)

Thank you, Congress. (A standing ovation)

Let me say to you, the workers, who were able to join us today. We are incredibly proud of you and I know that your unions are incredibly proud of you. Thank you.

(The emergency workers left the platform to a standing ovation)

General Council's Statement on the consequences of the terrorist attacks on London

The President: I now call the General Secretary to move the General Council's Statement on the consequences of the terrorist attacks on London. May I remind Congress that Motion 52 has been withdrawn in favour of the General Council's Statement.

Brendan Barber (The General Secretary: President and Congress, it was right that we began this section by paying our respects to those who died in the London bombings and by paying tribute to the transport and emergency workers who coped so heroically in the aftermath. Whatever other issues arise as a result of the attacks, and there are many of them, nothing can take away from the fact that whenever we consider about this issue, our most immediate and most deeply felt thoughts are those of respect for the dead and praise for those whose efforts saved lives and reduced suffering.

The other issues that we now need to consider are covered in detail in the General Council's Statement. It is a long statement which reflects the range of issues that we, as trade unionists, need to address. Firstly, there is the need to draw practical lessons from the attacks and to ensure that trade unionists are involved in that process. We have made a positive start and the Government and some employers have been to the fore, but more needs to be done such as training, better communications and better use of technology, but most of all the involvement of staff is essentially an element in raising safety standards and in ensuring that we are as prepared as we can be for any future attacks, whatever their form and whenever they may occur.

These are not just issues for those working in the areas of greatest risk - transport and public buildings. Today everyone in every workplace may be vulnerable to some degree, and it is for us and our workplace reps to ensure that management are taking their responsibilities seriously in involving our representatives in their contingency planning.

It was notable that, in the first few days after the bombings, there was a tremendous sense of solidarity to be seen and felt around London. Some unexpected people were using that trade union term 'solidarity'. Communities came together in a way we have rarely seen before. People became more aware of just what a diverse city our capital is. We are, as Ken Livingstone so aptly put it, the world in one city, and we are proud of that.

Unfortunately, that was not a universal feeling. During the past few weeks I have been out visiting some of the communities which are experiencing an insidious backlash. I have been with General Council member Mohammed Taj to visit Beeston, the part of Leeds that found itself in the media spotlight when it became clear that that was where some of the suicide bombers came from. We also went to east London and to the Midlands. We were told what others have confirmed, that since July 7th the number of racist attacks has risen. Alongside that is the daily sense of hostility, abuse, threats and general intimidation in some parts of the country that makes life insufferable for those whose only crime is to look and sound different from their abusers.

During the summer we published a report which demonstrates the scale of the divide that exists within our country. It showed that some racial groups experienced disadvantage way out of proportion to the rest of the population. For instance, almost 7 out of 10 people from the Pakistani or Bangladeshi communities are officially classed as poor compared with just 1 in 5 of the rest of the population. So this gross inequality demands action, so we look to the Government, to employers and to other authorities.

However, we can do some things ourselves. I know that our solidarity with disadvantaged communities is genuinely appreciated and we need to continue to show that solidarity in the long run and not just when the cameras are there. We can also look to work with others. Our statement mentions three groups, the first of which is the educational institutions, which have a role to play in promoting diversity; the media, which has a duty to avoid stereotyping and, on a different scale, women's groups and women within the disadvantaged communities who, as other examples have shown, can help to bridge divides and counter extremism in whatever form.

The link between the terrorist attacks in London and the situation in the Middle East and Britain's presence in Iraq have been widely debated. Our view is clear; that the threat of terrorism would be reduced if there was genuine progress towards peace in the Middle East and if British forces were not engaged in Iraq.

We are working with our international trade union colleagues towards those goals and will continue to do so, not just because it would reduce the threat of terrorism here, but because it is right to do so.

Finally, with the increased threat from terrorism, it is inevitable that the Government should look at measures to minimise that threat. Again, our view is clear. We recognise the need to counter the threat and we welcome effective measures, but we also value our civil liberties. In the case of any new legislation, we would need to be convinced that the value is truly proportionate to its effect in making society safer. Congress, I commend the General Council's Statement to you. (Applause)

Gerry Doherty (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) said: :I am pleased to indicate to Congress that we were delighted to withdraw motion 52 and to support the General Council's Statement, indeed, to thank the General Council for its initiative in this respect.

As Brendan said, the length of this statement only serves to indicate the number and the breadth of the issues which this real tragedy has brought to the surface. In the few minutes that I have, I would like to concentrate on one or two of those issues. The 7th July is a date that will be for ever burned in all of our memories, certainly anyone who was around the vicinity of London on that fateful morning. Our headquarters are at Euston Station. I arrived there at about nine o'clock that morning. We had indications that there was something wrong in the Underground. About an hour later we actually heard the bomb explode around the corner in Tavistock Square. At that stage there were uncertain indications that it might be a power surge, or something else, but it was evident quite earlier on that it was a terrorist attack.

Anyone who was around there at that time felt the real surge of sympathy, concern and admiration for the people who were standing on this platform for the way in which they reacted that morning. We have lived in the aftermath of it ever since. Anyone again who travels around London looks twice now when someone is carrying a rucksack in the Underground, and that is an unfortunate side event to this.

However, a week after those events and before the second wave of attacks a fortnight later, we had a meeting with Tessa Jowell, which occurred just before the event in Trafalgar Square. A number of the people who were on the platform this morning were at that meeting. When I listened to the firsthand experience of those individuals, I felt enormous admiration for them in how they carried out their work under those terrible circumstances.

As we all know, the public ethos of public service workers came magnificently to the fore. They were praised in the media on this occasion. As we know, trade union members are vilified. I repeat, they came through magnificently! When I sat down to try to write an effective speech, I found that mere words do not do justification to the admiration that we all feel. However, it was predicted that a terrorist attack was going to happen in London. In fact, it was said that it was inevitable. Despite all that, when it did happen, it was a terrible shock to us all.

Were we prepared for it? Probably not, but I think the services reacted magnificently, as I have already said. However, we have in the future to anticipate that public services and public transport, in particular, is a target for terrorists because it gives them such publicity.

So what do we do? Total security is difficult to achieve in a mass transit industry. Put yourself in a place of a worker in London Transport. If you work in a ward in a hospital, if you are a teacher in a school or if you are in a factory, you know that the terrorists are not after you, but London Transport workers think that they are now. We have to give them all the support we can.

Brendan has mentioned about what we do with the Muslim communities. This organisation, the Labour Movement, has to stand shoulder to shoulder with our sisters and brothers in the Muslim Movement. With a name like "Doherty", I am third generation Irish and I know what happened in the past to the Irish communities. We cannot blame a whole community for the action of a few. Support the General Council Statement and I ask you to do so wholeheartedly.

Ruth Winters (Fire Brigades Union) said: I only wish the balcony in the hall was as full as it was when Gordon Brown addressed us earlier!

I come to the rostrum as a tired woman. Some of you know me and, I can assure you, it was nothing to do with the drink last night! I am tired of listening to some people thank us in the way that they do. Gordon, on behalf of the Government, thanked us today. Maybe he should have stayed and damned well listened to us now. They called us "friends", but friends do not do to each other what this Government are trying at the moment to do to the Fire Service and other public services. (Applause)

It is a bit hypocritical and a bit rich when you hear somebody speaking on behalf of the Government who only a couple of years ago called us "criminally irresponsible" for taking action that it was right to take and, on the other hand, trying to call us "heroes". I think that is an absolute disgrace.

We fully support the General Council's Statement and particularly the fact that it calls for action. It calls for action in that this Government should review the situation in terms of what has happened since the London bombings.

We are workers but we are also members of the public. We recognise what happened that day and we recognise the fact that we were not the first on the scene. Underground workers and the public, ordinary workers going to their workplace, were the first on the scene and we went there, as other emergency services did, to help and assist. We also had people affected by it. The sister of one of our delegates was on the bus and miraculously escaped unhurt. We are thankful for that.

I have to say we often hear that we have a listening government. They asked us in the Election to vote for them because they were willing to listen. Well, listen to the advice we give you in the Fire Service and stop ignoring what we ask you and tell you!

We dealt with Lockerbie before. I was on duty at Lockerbie. In the past we have dealt with the Manchester bombings, the floodings in Boscastle, the Northern Ireland bombings and the London bombings. What we will not deal with is the crap that is put in front of us at the moment: Manchester Square Fire Station in London was closed down a week before the London bombings; five fire appliances are disappearing, or on their way to disappearing, and 180 jobs in London have gone. Only the other night in the West Midlands, 20?odd machines came off the run. They had run out of fire engines because of this Government's policy on standards of fire cover. Approximately 900 jobs in emergency fire control rooms are on their way out and this Government are using the excuse that it is to make us better fighter terrorism.

It is an absolute disgrace and it should be stopped. Government, do not tell us you are going to listen. Act on what we are telling you and stop listening to senior civil servants talking crap! (Applause)

We work in a service where equality is actually dropping off the agenda. It is absolutely right that the Statement mentions racism, but that happens to our workers as well, our black members who are in the minority, our women members and our gay and lesbian members. That has to be stopped. I am glad that this Statement mentions the Middle East and the war in Iraq, because we have to live with the consequences and effects of what this Government do. It is about time Tony Blair got his head out of the sand and stopped trying to defend the indefensible position on the war in Iraq. (Applause)

Finally, our members would happily forego the praise, the heroism and all the compliments we receive to get back the resources and the respect our profession deserves, and we are a profession. The Government should not just listen to us but act on what we say. Do not start off a meeting, which we attended two days after the bombings, by thanking us and then try to justify why you are going to get rid of hundreds of our jobs.

The last thing I will say, Chair ?? I am sorry, but it is very important ?? stop giving us platitudes, Government, and change your attitude. Please support the Statement.

Garry Winder (Public and Commercial Services Union) supported the General Council's Statement.

He said: PCS stands in sympathy and solidarity with those whose lives were tragically touched by the events in July. Our thoughts go out to those who have lost loved ones or who were injured in those horrific attacks. PCS condemns absolutely such violence against innocent people. We pay tribute to the emergency services, transport and public sector workers, some of whom were PCS members, who responded with great courage and professionalism. In particular, I want to mention our police community support officers who were some of the first on the scene, particularly at the bus bombing, tending the injured until the emergency services arrived. They had to make some very difficult decisions in harrowing circumstances.

It is right that the Government address the security issues and reviews how well we respond to major incidents. However, that does not mean that our long?cherished civil liberties should be eroded because of terrorist threats. The TUC must defend civil liberties, making it clear to Government that erosion is not acceptable to trade unions and the general public. We have already seen how a shoot to kill policy went horribly wrong and how continuing intervention in Iraq creates mistrust and indignation in Muslim communities.

There is an alternative: tackle the inequalities in Britain. If you are a young Asian man, you are twice as likely to be unemployed than if you are white. You are far more likely to live in poor housing, rely on State benefits and be subject to racism and prejudice. Is it any wonder that they can feel disconnected from the wider community? It is this sense of disconnectiveness and this estrangement that provides a fertile recruiting ground for those who preach hatred.

The far right play on the worry and fear that followed the bombings, stirring up more hatred and prejudice. Some of the tabloid press pick up on this with negative stories about immigration and asylum. Immigrants ?? "immigrants" means black and Asian ?? are being held responsible for taking our jobs, our welfare, our identity, our corner shops and for the atrocities in July. This view of immigration is a misguided philosophy, a religion peopled by demons rather than saints and martyrs, spurred by fear rather than hope and disintegration rather than integration. The challenge is to break into this cycle of prejudice and hatred. This will not be achieved by ever more Draconian police powers. PCS will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim Association of Britain on 24th September at the Rally for Peace and Liberty.

The trade union Movement will continue to fight racism and race poverty. It will support the improvement of community relations and our members always stand ready to support and protect the public they serve. Thank you.

Barry White (National Union of Journalists) said: President, Congress, the NUJ welcomes the General Council Statement about the tragic attacks in London and also the General Secretary's introductory remarks. We would particularly highlight the reference in the Report to the role of the media and its powerful role in emphasising solidarity across different communities. The Report also highlights the negative role it can also play in simplifying, stereotyping and characterising groups in ways which play into the hands of those who are determined to undermine the solidarity we need continually to build.

Take, for instance, the Daily Express of 27th July, which told us in the usual measured and objective Express language that the "bombers are all sponging asylum seekers". This showed an amazing foresight, particularly because at the time of writing, the identity of two of the suspected bombers was unknown! Then there was a report in the Evening Standard, which carried an article claiming that a Central London Islamic book shop had been selling pamphlets urging Muslims to wage Holy War. The claim was denied by the son of the owner. "We had constant abuse and threats with people threatening to kill us and fire bomb the shop", he told the September edition of the Mayor of London's paper, The Londoner.

In addition to increasing racially motivated attacks and fear in those communities, which has already been mentioned, much of this type of coverage was designed to create a groundswell of support for the exceptional powers subsequently demanded by the Prime Minister in his "let no one be in any doubt the rules of the game are changing" speech of 5th August, which advocated an authoritarian and anti?civil rights agenda much loved by the Murdoch media, The Express and the Daily Mail. Let us be clear, you do not defend democracy by undermining hard?won democratic rights. It is not only in war reporting that truth is the first casualty.

We know that the press is free from the impartiality regulations which govern broadcasting and this allows them to be as partisan as their owners choose. We need to build our trade union membership within the media industries to give some solidarity and protection to journalists who are prepared to stand by ethical standards of journalism. That is why the TUC campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill and the motion on a conscience clause proposed by the NUJ are so important.

The time has come for our Movement to give the issues of media reform a much higher priority. Thank you.

Steve Warwick (UNISON) supported the General Council Statement.

He said: Congress, as someone who was in London on the day of the terrorist attacks, I want to pay tribute to all of my fellow public service workers who did so much in the aftermath of the bombings to help the public who were caught up in those terrible events. I saw firsthand the work they did and was both proud and glad to see nurses working alongside bus drivers and police alongside tube workers. Whatever we think of the policies since the 7th July, we should be grateful for the help and protection they all offered us on that day.

However, speaking on behalf of my union, UNISON, I would like to clarify our position on three particular areas. First, on the day on which the Home Secretary is having to face some questions on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, I think it is totally wrong to group together his death with the victims of the 7th July bombs. Jean Charles was not killed by a terrorist bomb. (Applause) He was killed as a result of a police shoot to kill policy. That is why we expect the Independent Police Complaints Commission to ensure that justice is done and this appalling policy is properly reviewed.

Secondly, a passing reference to Britain's presence in Iraq is an inadequate reflection of the obvious connection between our actions in the Middle East and the terrorist motivation. We must not forget that the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is the terrorist who places no value on innocent lives, but at the same time it is simply wrong not to acknowledge the part the Iraq invasion has played in stirring up feelings against both our Government and our country.

Thirdly, we must in no way dilute our opposition to attacks on civil liberties. Our civil liberties are at the heart of what we should be fighting to protect. If we are not careful, the knee-jerk reaction to the 7th July will be an attack on the very rights that we want to protect.

Unions have always had a proud tradition of fighting for freedoms because historically and currently in other parts of the world attacks on civil liberties have been used against us. That is why the TUC should be in the front of the queue when it comes to scrutinising, questioning and testing the legal challenges being brought in.

Therefore, with these three qualifications in mind, Congress, I ask you to support the General Council's Statement. Thank you.

Mohammad Taj (Transport and General Workers Union) said: President and conference, I intend to address two issues contained within this excellent General Executive Statement. First, I deal with extremism. There is much that Government, institutions and the wider community can do, yet, as a Muslim, I say the Muslim community must take the lead in dealing with extremism.

It is insufficient to keep repeating that Islam is a religion of peace. It is insulting to say that suicide bombers were criminals and, therefore, they are not Muslims. It is true they were not criminals. A criminal is someone who steals your car; a criminal is someone who nicks your DVD player. These people were psychopaths, but their madness did not come out of nowhere. There are strands of misogyny, obscurantism, homophobia and anti?semitism that run through Muslim communities. There are elements, tiny but significant, that espouse a toxic mixture of self?pity and aggression. These things help to turn ordinary young men into suicide bombers. It is the duty of every decent humane Muslim to help put our own house in order first.

I will turn to another matter: Tony Blair's proposals to ban some Muslim organisations. I have fundamental disagreements with these organisations, but I cannot agree with banning them. You see, it is quite simple. If an organisation does something which is against the law, arrest those involved. If an organisation incites something which is against the law, put them on trial and let a jury decide. Otherwise, let people speak their mind even if what they say is offensive or just plain barking mad.

We are all protected by two great forces. It is not the Army; it is not the police. The two great forces that protect us all are democracy and freedom of speech. It is dangerous to mess with them. Conference, I ask you to support this Statement. Thank you.

Janine Booth (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) said: I work as a station supervisor on the Piccadilly Line on London Underground. I would like to thank Congress and the General Council for your acknowledgment of the work of London Underground and other workers on the 7th and 21st July. However, I also have some bad news for Congress. I have to tell you that, despite the bombings, the near certainty of further attacks, the essential role of staff in saving lives and the reassurance and protection that passengers get from visible staff in stations, despite all of these things, London Underground management is planning to cut staffing levels on our stations.

Chief station staff will soon achieve at last our long?awaited, hard?fought?for 35 hour?week, but the company is trying to pay for this by cutting staffing rather than through public funding.

On the stations where I work and am the Union rep, the company plans to cut station supervisors and station assistants. The effect will be reduced safety, worse customer service, increased workload and stress for the remaining staff.

Our message to our employers and to the Government has to be: "Do not praise us only to attack us." If Gordon Brown really respects London Underground workers, as he says, then he will reverse the public private partnership and bring London Underground back into public control; he will fund it properly and he will stop these cuts in our staffing levels. (Applause)

When I told my workmates I was coming to the TUC Congress, they said to me: "Janine, tell them about what the company is doing to staffing levels on our stations. Tell them that they are trying to cut the staffing and ask them to support our fight." So that is why I have come here. We ask all your unions and the TUC to support the Underground union's fight against these station staffing cuts.

If the employer presses ahead with this and forces us to take strike action to defend your safety and our working conditions, we hope that we will see you on our picket lines. If that happens, we hope that the media, the Government and the Mayor of London will remember that Underground workers are heroes instead of treating them as villains, which they have done during previous strikes. Thank you.

The President: Thank you. I will now take the vote on the General Council's Statement on the consequences of the terrorist attacks in London.


(The General Council's Statement was adopted)

The President: We now continue with Chapter 4 of the General Council's Report on economic and industrial affairs.

School Education

Hilary Bills (NUT) moved Composite Motion 13.

She said: I am President of the National Union of Teachers. I am proud of the fact that the National Union of Teachers has been leading the way with others in the fight against the introduction of privatised education through the Government's programme of academies.

This is not a comment upon the individual school communities. The National Union of Teachers wants all schools to succeed. Like Estelle Morris, who has been so critical of academies, we believe in standards, not structures.

Academies are about the introduction of a system which breaks down the local community of schools, undermines local democracy and, quite frankly, is the worst way of tackling the effects of deprivation on achievement.

I was recently in Canada trying to explain to some teachers what the academy programme is about because, unfortunately, the privatisation of education is a global trend. I told the listeners that an academy, according to the Government, was a publicly funded, independent school set up to raise standards in disadvantaged areas. The Government want 200 of these academies by 2010 and that faith schools are permitted to give priority of admission to children on the basis of a religious affiliation.

Then I said: "The funding goes like this. The Government give the sponsors £2 million, no strings attached, and then the sponsor has to match the Government with £20 million." The Canadian teachers were absolutely appalled at this arrangement. It was at this point my husband tugged my sleeve and said: "I hate to tell you, hon, it is the other way round. The sponsor puts up £2 million and the Government matches it with £20 million." In recent months that has even gone up to 35 million in some areas.

It beggars belief that this Government intend to roll out a £5 billion programme which takes schools out of local education authority control and the accountability of the local community and puts them into the hands of private sponsors. The ability to raise the £2 million seems to be the sole criterion for sponsoring an academy.

Who are these private sponsors? Sadly, I have to tell you that the evidence so far shows that these sponsors in the main are rich businessmen and faith groups. Have you ever heard of anything for nothing? Well, of course not. They all have their own private agendas. The Christian fundamentalist, Sir Peter Vardy of Reg Vardy Cars, sponsors the academy in Middlesborough. Children are taught as fact that Darwin's evolution is just one theory and creationism is at least equally valid.

Likewise, the proposed Archbishop Ramsey Academy in Southwark includes in its Sex and Relationship Education Policy: "We need to recognise that some authorities believe that sex education may actually promote sexual experimentation". You have to remember that this is being delivered using money diverted from funds that could be funding locally accountable, democratic communities of schools.

Since 1998, the National Union of Teachers has had a central unit which monitors and advises on the commercialisation and privatisation of education. So what have we found so far? First of all, detrimental changes in staff conditions of service and a huge staff turnover; pupil selection is back; local children cannot attend their local school; parents with cars and who can travel are the ones who are likely to apply for the academy and when disruptive pupils are excluded, other schools have to pick up the cost.

Out of the current 14 academies ?? listen to the figures, folks ?? eight are achieving in line with neighbouring schools, two are performing below and two have been put into special measures. In other words, OFSTED thinks they are failing schools! It sounds like a pretty good scheme, doesn't it! So I hope you have the message.

So what do we want? The National Union of Teachers is calling on the TUC to plan a campaign involving initially a conference this Autumn, after which consideration is to be given to plan a national demonstration opposing academies; a campaign against pupil selection; a fight for schools to be accountable to the community through their local education authorities and, finally, a campaign against the Government's strong arm tactics which force local education authorities into having academies in their areas. We want all children to achieve. We must not let this flawed system get in the way.

Helen Connor (Educational Institute of Scotland) seconded Motion 13.

She said: Nine years ago, one of my colleagues, who happens to be in the room today, stood here as an EIS delegate talking about smaller class sizes. No change there, then! However, there has been an enormous change in the last nine years, not least, the Labour Government elected on a platform very much of education, education, education. So why am I standing here now talking again about the need for smaller classes and why is that so crucial to the future of our children's education? I would like to give you four main reasons for that.

Firstly ?? and the Chancellor touched on this this morning when he was talking about the need for our education system to adapt and change and the need to challenge technological improvements and technological advance in our society - a flexible curriculum is crucial to the future of our youngsters. However, we cannot have a flexible curriculum if we are working in classes of 30 and beyond. Why should education be simply for the academic? In a society that is changing, education must meet those changes.

Secondly, day in and day out we hear of discipline difficulties within our schools. Scotland is no different from anywhere else in that respect. I reiterate, we are not saying that smaller classes would get rid of discipline difficulties, but they very clearly would allow us to focus on the youngsters' needs and, hopefully, remove the blame culture that we live in nowadays when everything is blamed on schools and education. Involving youngsters is crucial and to involve youngsters you must have smaller classes.

Finally, and possibly most importantly, there is the agenda of social inclusion. We are clear that social inclusion does not and should not mean mainstreaming every youngster, but it does mean including many youngsters with special needs. If this concept is to be successful for everybody ?? I stress everybody ?? then this integration must take place in classes small enough for everyone to benefit.

Colleagues, I could continue, but time does not permit. The key to all of this is resources, both human and financial. We are looking for a commitment from the Government to smaller classes throughout education. Falling rolls gives the Government an ideal opportunity to do this. Maintaining the number of teachers despite falling rolls would not be additional cost. Youngsters are our future. They deserve the best. Support this motion.

John Chowcat (National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants) supported Composite 13.

He said: I am focusing on the practical implications of the Government's introduction of stronger internal market competition within our school system in England and the related New Relationship with Schools Initiative.

Currently, Government ministers' very open encouragement of more academies in our cities and of effectively independent foundation status for secondary and primary schools reflects a much deeper Government push for choice and market?based reforms across the public sector generally. However, the hard evidence from overseas tell us that more competition between local schools can generate very unwelcome consequences.

New Zealand went very heavily for "parent power" and choice and market forces in its school system some years ago. They completely abolished their equivalent of our local education authorities. They let the market reign. The results include very sharply differentiated educational outcomes for children. The poor white and the Maori children attend the "sink" schools. The more articulate and the better resourced middle class parents send their children to upmarket schools elsewhere. We have to make absolutely sure that no version of that experience comes to this country.

We need a genuine and a really open debate about this. Julian Le Grand , Professor at the LSE, who is the intellectual guru of internal market theory and public services, became a key Government adviser at Downing Street last year. He is very honest about this project. In a pamphlet published in 2003 by the Policy Network called "Models of Public Service", he concedes that the evidence for internal markets "has to be treated with some caution" and he concluded at the end of the pamphlet: "It would seem that experimentation in this direction would be desirable". Congress, we are now in that experiment.

The related New Relationship with Schools initiative is all about reducing the role of LEAs in local school improvement. In a Parliamentary answer to an MP's written question on the 6th June, Schools Minister, Jackie Smith, confirmed that the Government is not going to fully fund the introduction of the new school improvement partner roles. So that means that LEA finances, already stretched, are going to be further squeezed. We know from the training and the design of the training of the new school improvement partners now coming through that the role looks increasingly like an inspectorial role, a totally unnecessary OFSTED mark II, when what is needed is a highly professional and developmental role that will actually support local schools.

The answer to this is real government investment in this project and meaningful consultation with all the parties concerned. I hope the DfES will listen to that. These are vital issues for the future of our school system. Please support Composite Motion 13.

Kenneth Bell (UNISON) said: Conference, academies are just one part of the Government's radical agenda for primary and secondary education; an agenda that is promoted under the guise of investment and choice. It is actually about bringing the market into education, about giving the private sector a key role and about privatisation. The Government's Building Schools for the Future programme is key to achieving this agenda. It is a programme aimed at rebuilding and refurbishing every secondary school throughout the country over the next 10 to 15 years. It is a £40 billion?plus programme that is now going to be extended to the primary sector.

Of course, we welcome the investment, but the conditions attached to the Building Schools for the Future programme are totally unacceptable. BSF is being used to deliver the Government's target of 200 academies. Councils are actually being blackmailed. They are being told: "If you do not adopt academies, you do not get the investment." In the north east of England, Durham, Newcastle, Sunderland and Northumberland councils are going to go for a total of nine academies. All this is directly linked to the Building Schools for the Future programme. Three, at least, of those councils were vehemently opposed to the academies in principle but have succumbed.

However, it is not just about academies. Under the Building Schools for the Future programme, the major funding mechanism is PFI. This means cleaning, caretaking and catering are all threatened with privatisation. As a result of this, in Newcastle alone, 1,000 mainly part?time women workers' jobs are under threat during the next year. Conference, is it not a nonsense for Tony Blair to prioritise school meals and for Gordon Brown to praise public sector workers, cleaners and school meals workers, when thousands of them who currently work in schools are going to be threatened with privatisation under the Building Schools for the Future programme? (Applause)

Councils are also expected to establish a local education partnership. This partnership will be 80% owned by the private sector. This local education partnership will deliver the Building Schools for the Future programme, but it is also expected to develop and implement education policy. The local education partnerships are a Trojan Horse, which will reduce the role of education authorities in the short?term and, unfortunately, replace them in the long?term.

Building Schools for the Future means academies, PFI schools, privatising cleaning and school meals and the private sector having a key role in education provision. Councils are being forced down this road. In the north east, Ruth Kelly said recently that was not the case. Either she is mistaken at best or she is lying at worst because our experience is councils are told: "You do not get the investment unless you adopt these policies."

In the northern region, under the auspices of the northern region TUC, we have brought together the ATL, NASUWT, NUT, GMB and UNISON, campaigning against academies, against privatisation of education, publicising the threats of Building Schools for the Future and arguing for an alternative. However, there is an urgency to translate this into a national context. This motion lays the basis. We urge you to support and to move as quickly as we can to defend our children's education. Thank you.

Andy Bellard (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) said: Industrialists and entrepreneurs who have used their financial strength to bully Labour governments into concessions which help entrench their power now seek to influence and control education, which might otherwise be free to educate and empower working class people to achieve finally a fundamental and irreversible shift in power.

The "Academies programme" allows unacceptably high profiles for non?elected capitalists to influence the state education system. A much vaunted purpose of academies is to help the most deprived urban communities, but the enormous sums of money thrown at academies would be better spent improving a much wider group of schools instead of being wasted in 50% higher start up costs. The iniquitous penalty imposed on local authorities that have declined to accommodate academies is a national disgrace.

Congress, who is it who would impose such a system? None other than our Prime Minister and his unelected Minister of Education, Andrew, now Lord, Adonis. (Applause) They ignore the Commons Select Committee which called for a halt in the expansion of the programme because of its profligate use of public funds and failure to deliver significant improvements. They turn a deaf ear to the words of experienced education professionals who urge caution and a halt in expansion until there is proven success. They carry on regardless, for this is part of the Blair legacy.

Adonis makes unsupportable claims about the "academy effect", but his education credentials are limited and when I hear him talk about schools, I am minded to recall The Bard: "... I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow"!

There is no proven academy effect; there is no benefit from private sector involvement; there is no rapid sustained improvement in GCSE results; there is no requirement for academy teachers to be GTC registered and there is no public accountability.

On the other hand, there is PriceWaterhousecooper's spin concocting progress from thin air; there is a reduction in inclusion and a rise in selection; there is a cementing of social division; there is a cynical attempt to portray comprehensive schools as failing despite the best ever results; there is a shift in control of pedagogy, curriculum content and education vision from education professionals to unaccountable businessmen and religious extremists. There is a reduction in democratic control.

Congress, what we face is continued Government hostility to highly successful comprehensive state education derided by ministers in favour of an insidious scheme to hand control of state education to the private sector. (Applause and cheers)

The President: I think you have a few supporters there, Andy!

Hilary Bills (National Union of Teachers) said: In exercising my right of reply, I cannot believe there is anyone in this hall who does not understand the issues in front of us. I did call ?? it is in the motion ?? for a conference very soon on this very issue. Having heard such wonderful contributions from other unions, I really think that should be taken forward. I ask the TUC to do that with urgency.

* Composite Motion 13 was CARRIED.

School education and inclusion

Christine Blower (National Union of Teachers) moved Composite Motion 21.

She said: Before I move this composite motion, which is the work, essentially, of the NUT and the AEP, I want to say just a very few words about the AEP General Secretary, Brian Harrison?Jennings, for whom this is his last Congress in that role. Colleagues will know of the work Brian has done and the extent to which he will be missed by colleagues in the education sector.

However, moving to the composite, the Every Child Matters agenda is about improving the lives of all children. It is an inclusive agenda which aspires to outcomes for every single child, which the NUT has long identified as extremely important. They are these: Every child should be safe, healthy, able to enjoy and able to achieve, able to make a positive contribution and should ultimately be able to achieve economic well?being.

No one could disagree with these. The task which faces us is how to achieve them. The NUT supports the Every Child Matters agenda because we see it as a way of achieving genuinely child?centered services and to do this in conjunction with parents and the community at large. However, multi?agency working is, of course, vital to this. It should be about better co?ordination and effective communication, not about engaging in confusing dialogues or any kind of perception of the interchangeability of professionals. Both education and social services must be protected in terms of financial and organisational distinctions.

Therefore, it is a big agenda with the major challenge of co?ordination between care and education services without undermining the role of teachers in both teaching and learning and, very importantly, in the pastoral aspects of a child's school life or, of course, by fudging the proper and legitimate distinction between education and children's social services.

Extended schools are a key feature of the Government's vision and this programme is progressing apace. By 2006, it is expected that there will be at least one extended school in each LEA. However, many schools already see themselves as extended and many do provide additional services and facilities and are very pleased to do so.

The NUT/DfES research commissioned by the National Foundation for Educational Research in 2003 highlighted the need for a bottom up approach to these developments. School communities should be able to identify their needs for services and then call on financial and organisational support from local educational authorities in order to be able to provide them. This must not and simply cannot be allowed to be about existing staff being expected to do more and more and more.

The NUT believes that extended schools can only be successful if, as the composite says, "schools receive sufficient resources for new and appropriate accommodation". I have heard colleagues from support staff unions, for example ask: "Well, if schools are going to be open from 8.00 to 6.00, when is anybody going to be able to clean them?" These considerations are, of course, quite significant and must not be overlooked.

The Government's vision in the children's workforce strategy looks to retaining staff through training and career development. The NUT supports this. However, success depends on employing and training sufficient teaching and support staff and in paying them properly to support and benefit children's education and to provide high quality services, which we would all want for all of our families. This is not a low cost option.

In the NUT's education statement, Bringing Down The Barriers, we called for specific funding to support collaboration between schools. We call on the TUC to urge the Government and employers to audit and fully cost the reforms. Seed corn funding and some other short?term funding will not deliver these changes and it certainly will not secure them in the long?term.

As the House of Commons Select Committee noted: "The initial set up of Children's Trust arrangements is likely to be costly and yet minimal funding has been directed to them." I do hope the Chancellor has noted that and is about to remedy it.

As the composite makes clear, we support a more inclusive society. We recognise the key role of education establishments in providing for the needs of all learners. The NUT is committed to campaigning to ensure that all local authorities maintain or re?establish a full provision to address issues arising from children and young people's behaviour.

There is much excellent work being done with children who have social and emotional difficulties. However, as the composite says, every learner should be entitled to the provision they need and when they need it. In short, every child really does matter. Please support


Charles Wood (Association of Educational Psychologists) supporting Composite Motion 21 said: Let me first thank the NUT for its kind comments on our retiring General Secretary. The AEP president is pleased to second this motion from the viewpoint of inclusion, the inclusion of parents, the inclusion of children, the inclusion of young people and their families into the hubs of their communities. We welcome the holistic view recommended by the Every Child Matters agenda. We welcome the demands of the Government to put our children at the centre of the services, but we have noticed a sleight of hand in the Government's recent pronouncements. We knew that there would be no new money when the Government started to focus on behaviour. They were implying that if a young person presents difficulties it is okay to remove them: social exclusion, not social inclusion, is what they were saying.

A few weeks ago ministers were extolling the values of special schools. The AEP values the work of special schools but we fear, though, that the Government's praise of these special schools has more to do with removing your children with special needs from their local schools, no doubt to boost the exam tables and results from mainstream schools.

Congress, the AEP does not have an agenda to abolish special schools but it does have an agenda to make them unnecessary. Recent government pronouncements, we believe, are a cynically irresponsible attempt to make individual children at fault for the lack of examination successes. That is patently not the case. The AEP motions that are subsumed in this composite are about showing that the system is failing the children, particularly those with behavioural difficulties and special and additional needs. We seek to remind the Government that social inclusion is about inclusion and participation in our own communities and not being educated away from them. Remember, your child being educated in a different school from your local school not only excludes the child from the local community, it also excludes you the parents.

Congress, the AEP believes that to achieve all this schools need to offer a relevant curriculum to all our children. Resources need to be adequate to allow teachers to meet the needs of all our children. Support for children with special needs and behavioural problems needs to be relevant support to help them achieve. Most important of all, our hardworking school teachers need better training to support and develop these most vulnerable of all our children. If you think it cannot work, then look at Newham, a fully inclusive education authority and yet according to this week's Observer one of the top 20 LEAs. Congress, the AEP requests you to support this motion.

Angie Rutter(Association of Teachers and Lecturers) supporting Composite Motion 21 said: ATL supports the desire of a more inclusive society but what does inclusion mean? We all know that inclusion should involve all; it should benefit the individual and enhance the community. Inclusion, in its true sense, will promote tolerance and understanding, as well as help us appreciate difference but for many inclusion has become associated with a lack of support, a lack of training, and under-resourcing. Without these resources there is a real risk of inclusion leading to exclusion of other groups of learners. Unless parents are appropriately supported, staff appropriately trained, and schools appropriately resourced, the promotion of a false inclusion agenda can compromise teaching and learning. Real inclusion requires long-term planning, resources, and vision. It cannot be done on the cheap and it should not be tokenistic.

To be sure of what we mean ATL has constructed three simple tests; these help us to have a common understanding of what are often complex and very emotional issues. Our three tests are: firstly, that everyone should be entitled to the provision they need when they need it; secondly, that schools and services are enabled to provided fully for the needs of all learners; finally, that a learner's needs should not be compromised by anyone else or be at the expense of another. These tests recognise the principal needs of understanding, resources, and equality. Inclusion means valuing diversity, understanding difficulties, and recognising and respecting individuals so that all feel they belong. It should not be used as a smokescreen for inactivity. It is crucial that the Government make these three principles a reality and Congress must persuade them to act now. Please support this composite.

Sonia Kodiak (Educational Institute of Scotland) supporting Composite Motion 21 said: In Scotland, too, inclusive education remains a challenge for teachers, pupils, and parents. Despite increases in funding from the Scottish Executive there still remains a gap between aspiration and reality. The reality is that inclusive education is expensive but in Scotland money allocated for it centrally can sometimes be spent locally to plug holes in other areas of council spending. If all the necessary resources are not provided in schools, how can our aspiration to meet the needs of all pupils be truly addressed. Sufficient numbers of classroom teachers and support staff are clearly required, and all staff must be offered appropriate staff development. Teachers should not be made to feel they are failing best to support particular pupils' varied additional needs when they have not received training on how to do so.

Partnership with parents is crucial for pupils learning, especially it could be argued when pupils have emotional and behavioural difficulties or have additional support needs. The pressures today on some parents are such that it can be difficult for them to establish and sustain partnerships with schools. Home-link teachers and EAL teachers are examples of staff who play a vital role in bringing together home and school but too often these services are not adequately staffed.

In Scotland, as my colleague indicated earlier, we acknowledge that the majority of young people will be educated in mainstream schools. Should class sizes be reduced? This would further assist inclusion allowing teachers more time to interact with individual pupils. However, we must accept, too, that for some pupils far more additional support is required and that can only be found in the form of specialist provision, such as special schools, or units linked to mainstream schools.

Education both north and south of the border must be adequately resourced if it is to counter or compensate for the poverty, depravation, and social exclusion which still remain in our communities. Education should provide all children with the learning conditions they need to gain all the skills necessary to become active citizens and learners throughout their lives, to enrich not only these lives but our countries. Congress, please support.

Mary Turner (GMB) supporting Composite Motion 21 said: Congress, the Government's Children's Workforce Strategy starts with an obvious truth; that truth is, of course, that you have to invest in the workers who look after our children if you want every child to have a decent start in life. It is great that the Government is looking at the Danish early years and childcare model. We are used to the Danes showing us how to do things. That is a sour point with Sven and the England team; things have got worse for them but, hopefully, they do not get worse for us. It will take a huge investment to transform our childcare sector from private nurseries paying the minimum wage into the highly trained, well paid, childcare profession they have in Denmark.

Congress, I would like to continue the Scandinavian theme and deal with a topic that many of you in this hall know is very dear to my heart, the importance of healthy food in schools and nurseries. It is time we stopped divorcing the school meals from education. Feed the child, feed their body and feed their mind that is as valuable a part of the education system as learning. The motion talks about providing for the learning needs of every child, including those with behavioural difficulties.

In Finland some years ago they made the very simple discovery, that if you feed the children well so much else follows, truancy drops, behaviour improves, exclusions decrease, teenagers are in school for lunch, not out on the streets getting into trouble, and children can concentrate for longer and learn more. Feed the body, feed the mind. Every child matters in Finland and every child gets a healthy nutritious lunch, for free. A universal school meals service with carefully planned menus is published each week in the papers so that parents can see what their children will be eating. I have been telling everyone in the Government who will listen about this for years. It is a shame that it took Jamie Oliver and his publicity machine finally to get some action.

Congress, from September school meals and local authorities are getting a bit extra to spend on meals but it is peanuts, and you know what happens if you pay peanuts. I want to see the Government invest in a high-quality, free school food service. Educational achievement would go up and children would no longer be prevented from learning because of poor diet. It would be worth every single penny.

I will close with these words. Yesterday we won the Ashes. Somebody forgot to mention that the women showed the way earlier: the women's cricket team - well done.

Congress, I am now going to end on a sad note and I think it is one that you, parents and grandparents, must go back and remember. At Unison's fringe meeting yesterday to which I was invited, there was an MP who told us that it is now proven that today's children will die before their parents. We must make sure that today's parents are not receiving the ashes of their children through lack of funding by our government. Thank you.

Chris Tansley (UNISON) supporting Composite Motion 21 said: Do not forget where the Government's proposals in Every Child Matters and the Children's Workforce Strategy actually came from. They came from the Laming Inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié which found what we in Unison had been saying for some considerable time, that under-resourced, overworked, child protection work combined with a lack of communication between different agencies would inevitably lead to further tragedies.

Unison, the union that represents workers in all these agencies, from social workers, social care workers, to health workers, early years workers, and school support staff, recognises the need for closer, integrated work in the area of childcare, and said as much to the Laming Inquiry. We also said that structural reform on its own was not good enough; it must be accompanied by resources to make sure that it worked. We must now make sure that closer working arrangements do not lead to deskilling of those workers trained and skilled in particular areas of childcare, child protection, and child development.

We fully support the call in the composite for sufficient resources to fund fully the cost of these reforms, to ensure that properly trained and skilled staff continue to be the lead workers for every vulnerable child. Congress, every child matters but so does every worker in every agency concerned with that child. Congress, please support.

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Congress, one of the issues that this motion deals with is the very important issue of children with special educational and additional needs, including behavioural difficulties and their need for appropriate teaching and support. This is a complex area where there is serious professional debate on the most appropriate means of achieving social inclusion. What is clearly agreed is the need for high-quality training and support, including in particular the need for educational psychology resources. The motion reflects the importance of ensuring that educational psychologists are fully included in the discussion and planning on meeting such children's needs.

The General Council wanted me to emphasise that point and on that basis to express our support for the motion.

Christine Blower (National Union of Teachers) said in reply: I just want to say that our children are our future. I entirely accept the comments of other colleagues. This is a golden opportunity for us to work together in the public sector to ensure that no child does slip through the cracks and to make sure that we protect and advance the cause of public sector workers in this important area. Thank you.

* Composite Motion 21 was CARRIED

Equal Rights

The President: We now turn to Chapter 2 of the General Council Report, Equality Rights, at page 27. Congress, the TUC Equality Audit is one of the most important pieces of work that we do at the TUC. It allows us to examine what we are all doing to promote diversity within our own organisations. You will all have received copies of the 2005 Equality Audit in your packs. I now call on the General Secretary to introduce the TUC's Equality Audit. Brendan, thank you.

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): President, Congress, it used to be the case that the hall would mysteriously empty when equality motions were debated; some people, and I am sure that none of you are among them, saw equal opportunities as a soft issue best left to those who were not involved in cutting edge negotiations. But, colleagues, make absolutely no mistake about it, there is nothing soft or optional about equality today and nor is it a sectional interest. I do not need to remind anyone in this hall of the consequences of inequality and a divided society; it can quite literally be a matter of life and death, as we have seen so tragically in New Orleans.

Delegates, our Equality Audit Report is yet more evidence that unions make life better for millions of working people. This Equality Audit gives us valuable information about bargaining in an increasingly important area of working life and employment law. It tells us what we do well and what we could do better.

There have been fundamental shifts in society in the labour market in the last two decades and our bargaining agenda is changing to meet these challenges and changes, but we need to continue to make sure that we are representing the needs of all workers. The last audit that we conducted set a benchmark on union rules, representation, and structures, and in 2007 we will do a comparative exercise to see how far we have achieved our targets against that benchmark.

The 2005 audit surveyed collective agreements, the area highlighted last time. As a result, next month you will be able to access the new electronic TUC bargaining for equality database that will give details of all the agreements listed in the report. It will be a great resource for all negotiators, especially in new areas of employment law like age, religion, and belief. You will be able to see the terms of collective agreements in other sectors and build on the experience of others.

As unions we want to continue to play our part in a genuinely diverse society and in turn we want to be seen as lively, diverse, and modern organisations, but to do this we need more local and regional negotiators to promote equality agreements like the ones included in this report. We have seen what an impact union learning reps have had and so we are calling on the Government to build on that success by introducing new statutory equality reps in every workplace.

Colleagues, Congress is the time of the year when we come together to review progress and we should take pride in the headway that we have made on issues that are so important to the daily lives of our members. We certainly have no room for complacency. Our future depends on our ability to organise all workers and really to become a movement proud of its diversity. If you read the special focus on women in the report, you can see that progress has sometimes been patchy. While there have been some increases in the number of women national and regional officers, some union committees have fewer women members now than a few years ago. The number of women and black branch reps still falls well short of reflecting our membership.

I hope that every union in this hall will use this Equality Audit to help track progress in your own organisations, make sure your negotiators get a copy, use it when you are thinking about your own bargaining agenda and, like some affiliates are already doing, use it to inform an audit process of your own. We have a proud record of representing workers in all walks of life. We have made working life so much better for so many people but this Equality Audit is a real practical tool to help us take that work on to a new level. Congress, I commend this report to you.

Organising and Rights at Work

The President: We return now to Chapter 1 of the General Council Report, Organising and Rights at Work, and the section on Young People, which is page 22. I now call paragraph 1.19 and Motion 8, Trade Unionists in the Classroom. The General Council support the motion.

Trade Unionists in the Classroom

Pete McLoughlin (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) moved Motion 8. He said: As trade unionists living and working in the 21st century we know that building membership and organising effectively has to be the top priority for the Movement. We know that unless we grow in number and meet the organising challenge we cannot grow in influence. We know that unless we reach out and engage with young people we have no long-term future. The reality is that, in spite of the increased focus on and real investment in recruitment and organising, we are still not getting through to enough young people. Many have no clue what trade unions are, even less know what they do, and even less see the relevance of them. If they have a view, it is often the stereotypical negative cloth cap image portrayed by a hostile media. Most are unaware of their basic legal rights as employees. Would any young people at school understand the social justice dimension and that trade unionists are an essential ingredient of a free and democratic society?

These are the daughters and sons of workers who grew up during the Thatcher years of assault on trade unions. They have little or no personal experience, no family heritage of trade unionism. As a result each group of workers that has entered the labour market over the last 20 years has been less and less likely to join a union. As union density continues to decline, the decline is more marked amongst young people. Only 11% of workers under the age of 24 are union members. Only 16% of working students see unions as a source of advice and help at work. Research shows that once in the labour market individuals tend to remain in or, more importantly for us, out of a union.

We need to do more individually and collaboratively to get the message across. It is not enough to leave it to recruitment drives and campaigns aimed at those who have jobs. We have to do more to encourage and facilitate trade unionism before young people get jobs. This means we have to target schools and colleges. There has been a long tradition of individuals in the Movement taking part in school visits, industry days, and similar activities, but it fell into abeyance by and large with the imposition of the national curriculum.

The opportunity has now returned with the introduction of citizenship into the curriculum. This has given us the chance to develop a more strategic approach. The TUC and some affiliates have grasped this opportunity. I know Unison has helped fund a guide and resource book for teachers. The T&G has produced speaker packs. NASUWT and other teacher unions have activists who teach the subject. The TUC has put on Citizens at Work educational conferences and published a resource pack for 14 to 19 year olds entitled, A Better Way to Work. Now there is the Trade Unionists in the Classroom initiative, with panels of speakers made up of young union reps trained and accredited to deliver talks in schools and colleges about rights at work and the importance of trade unions. Using real life experiences of young trade unionists to illustrate some of the issues that young people are learning about in the curriculum makes it real, makes it relevant, and gives it some street 'cred'. The project has enabled a more coordinated response to requests from schools.

The NASUWT and some other unions have been working with the TUC to promote this offer. I know I do not need to convince anyone of the importance of tapping into young people but, Congress, we bring this motion to raise the profile of this vital element of organising and to urge all affiliates to get involved in the programme and develop resources and initiatives. We need to fight to keep alive the whole concept of trade unionism in our society. We need to fill the gap created by the assault sustained on the Movement in previous decades. We also need to protect our young people from exploitation. We cannot afford to wait until they enter the labour market. There has to be a corrective to the blinkered, biased, and bloody-minded picture painted by the media and others. A scenario where young people see joining a union as a normal and natural part of working life has to be our goal. This may not be that much of a sexy motion, Congress, but it is a key one.

John Colbett (Communication Workers Union) seconding Motion 8 as a trade unionist and as a school governor, said: It is vital for the future of the Trade Union Movement that we raise the profile of trade unions in the national curriculum and make young people aware of the role of trade unions in championing workers' rights and protecting people in employment. We need to counter the negative perceptions of trade unions portrayed in the media and to communicate clearly to young people the positive work done by trade unions and the benefits of joining a trade union.

Equally important, as the motion says, is the need to secure social justice and the TUC's classroom project is central to the achievement of a number of key social policy objectives. One such objective is to tackle discrimination, which includes eliminating the pay gap that exists so starkly between men and women. Challenging stereotypes in the workplace needs to start early so that the offensive, outmoded, and unproductive view of what is men's work disappears from a range of possibilities in the minds of school students.

The TUC has done much valuable work through its trade unionists in the classroom project, for example, setting up panels of young trade union speakers to deliver talks to children about rights at work and the role of trade unions. The Department of Education and Skills is engaged in some of the TUC's work in schools. Most notably (and this supports the issue of tackling gender stereotypes) the DfES has part-funded the Computer Club for Girls project run by the E-Skills Council, with support from the TUC. Currently women represent only one-fifth of the IT workforce and this project aims to redress the balance by making IT more attractive and accessible to women. More specifically on the TUC's Trade Unionists in the Classroom project, the Department for Education & Skills has jointly published a leaflet together with the TUC to encourage trade union members to become school governors, particularly in inner city and disadvantaged areas.

These are valuable initiatives but if we are to maximise the reach and potential of the Trade Unionists in the Classroom project, we need to do more to engage government and the Department for Education & Skills to work with and support the TUC in pursuing the objectives highlighted. We believe that a sense of urgency is now required in pursuing actions to achieve the objectives set out in the motion. The requirement to report back to Congress in 2006 will help propel this project over the coming year and a report due in a year's time will help us assess progress on this very important issue. Please support.

* Motion 8, with amendment, was CARRIED.

Youth Matters - Green Paper on Youth Policies

The President: I do have time to take Motion 9, Youth Matters - Green Paper on youth policies. Delegates, the General Council is seeking remission of this motion from The Community and Youth Workers' Union so I call the General Secretary to explain the General Council's position. I will then call then call the Community and Youth Workers' Union.

Brendan Barber (General Secretary): Congress, the General Council met last Thursday to consider its attitude to this motion. It is sympathetic to the majority of points in the motion, for example, the need for 4,000 more youth workers and a proper funding stream for the youth service. These are points which the TUC would reflect in our response to the Green Paper. Nonetheless, the General Council has some reservations on subparagraph (iii). We know, for example, that some affiliates are concerned about another reorganisation of the Connection service; in addition, subparagraph (iii) of the motion calls for a new system of regulation, licensing, and continuous professional development for all those working with children and young people. This would be overseen by a general youth and children's workers council.

Currently, there are already separate regulatory systems for teachers, social workers, or probation officers. Equally, there are key groups of workers who do not have a regulatory system, such as nursery nurses, play workers, or teaching assistants. This motion effectively calls for them all to come under the same regulatory system, which would mean very substantial changes to some tried and tested arrangements.

So, while the General Council supports much that is in motion 9, we do have some reservations about the third subparagraph and we are proposing to convene a meeting of all the unions with an interest in the issues in subparagraph (iii). In the light of that, we are requesting the CYWU to remit this motion to the General Council.

The President: I call on The Community and Youth Workers' Union and I put it to you, are you prepared to remit the motion?

Doug Nicholls (The Community and Youth Workers' Union) moved Motion 9. He said: Yes, President, we are prepared to remit. We are taking a novel approach this year on the basis that we have had a number of motions on youth and community passed unanimously by Congress over the years. There has been not as much action from the General Council as we would have liked but we have some commitments for action in the remission and the statement this year, and we very much hope that the General Council will be able to take those positive points forward on which we are all agreed.

However, we would like to move and second the motion so that a number of points can be put down on the record. I will do that as briefly as I can.

Of course, our intention in subparagraph (iii) was not to replace any existing arrangements but to highlight the fact to Congress of the massive investment we have seen in our sector. There are tens of thousands of new jobs that have been created but there are no qualifications required, there is no regulation, there is no proper training and service support for the staff involved, often in very vulnerable and sensitive situations with children and young people.

We think that Congress needs to express a very genuine concern for child protection and ensure that these new services that are developing can have public confidence. No one here would want to send their child to a school where there were unqualified teachers. No one here would take medical services where there were unqualified hospital and other medical staff. That is the case for many working-class communities who are expected to entrust children and young people to those without qualification and regulation, and it is dangerous.

We must not let our difference on paragraph (iii) distract us from all the other points on which the General Council and all the unions are united. The heart of the unity is to support the youth service, and there are three particularly important reasons for that at this time.

  • Firstly, the youth service is about social and political education. Many youth service organisations have on their official curriculum the promotion of trade unionism and collective action.
  • Secondly, it is the one public service outside schools which is closest to young people. Young people choose in their hundreds of thousands to be involved in the youth service. For the Trade Union Movement to be seen fighting for that service is helping us to reconnect with the real interests of young people throughout the country. That service is based on many of the same principles that we have as a movement, solidarity with the disadvantaged communities.
  • Thirdly, youth services outside schools is the only service which treats young people as equal creative citizens and engages them properly. Above all, it is the service which recognises that if you support and encourage young people, social behaviour and academic performance, and emotional development, improve. It is the only service which is based on the principle of democratic engagement of young people.

Frankly, the General Council's excellent report on Iraq in that last section, at page 41, about the need to re-engage young people and bring about community cohesion, will not happen without proper investment in the services which our members support. Young people are not the hoodies, yobs, and hooligans of the gutter press and some politicians who seek continually to demonise the young. It is the youth service that counteracts most of those stereotypes.

In every study that has been done internationally it shows that where there are professional youth workers a whole range of things improve for young people, for example, crime rates go down. It is long-term and much more cost effective to invest in prevention rather than punishment and cure, yet still we see jobs are being created with £100m and huge investment into ineffective youth offending schemes, a policy based for young people more on punishment than prevention. It costs £26,000 to keep a young person in a Young Offenders Institute for six months yet the average investment by a local authority in preventative youth services is £72 a year.

The Government does recognise the importance of the youth service to some extent and reinvested last year the sum of £500m, given to local authorities, but because that funding stream is not properly protected they only spent £300m of that on young people. The Government have supported the demand of our union and the National Youth Agency, that we have a ratio of one fulltime nationally qualified youth worker for every 400 young people in the country. To meet that target we need 4,000 more workers in the field, and we hope that is going to be strenuously advocated by the TUC.

This motion gives a key to the need for the Movement to re-engage with young people and the dangerously wide gap that exists between the Trade Union Movement and young people can be filled, if we are seen as a movement to start advocating as strongly for this set of services as we do for many others.

* Motion 9 was REMITTED

The President: Congress, I wish to remind you there will be another collection outside the main hall, this time for Make Poverty History. In your delegates wallets you will have found a TUC white band, which is designed to be sold for £1 each but we left them with you on trust. I would be grateful if you could make an appropriate donation more than generously enough to cover the cost of the TUC white band. I also think it is worth reminding you that we have a commitment from the Professional Footballers Association that they will match pound for pound what we raise, so please dig deep; if you put in £5 we get £10, if you put in £10, we get £20, and so forth.

I can also tell you that you managed to collect or donate a phenomenal amount for the Gate Gourmet dispute, the total collected was £2,626.03. I know there are a lot of teachers in the hall but on straightforward arithmetic I think that works out about £4 per delegate, which strikes me as very generous.

Could I also again remind you that there are various meetings taking place this lunchtime and you can find them detailed in page 15 of the Congress Guide. Thank you for cooperating so that we could pick up a lot of lost business.

(Congress adjourned to 2.15 p.m.)

TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

Congress reassembled at 2.15 p.m.

The President : May I say to Cantabile how wonderful we thought your singing was. Thank you for singing to us. Your voices are positively like velvet. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)

If I could call Congress to order, please. Thank you very much.

Delegates, in a change to the printed programme in the Congress guide the Skills/Productivity video, which was scheduled for this afternoon, will not now be shown. But before moving on with the programme of business I would like to draw your attention to the best exhibition stand competition. A voting form is included in the Congress Guide and should be completed and returned to the TUC Stand No. 18 at the front entrance to the Brighton Centre by close of business on Wednesday afternoon, tomorrow afternoon. You will also find that there is the traditional delegates' questionnaire, which is on your tables. I would be grateful if you could post those in the boxes provided in the hall. Thank you very much.

We start this afternoon's business by introducing the Fraternal Delegate from the Labour Party. This year it is an old friend, the Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP. As many delegates will know, Ian is a long-standing friend of the Movement. As Chair of the Labour Party he has the difficult task of bringing together the two wings of the party, the trades unions and the constituencies. Ian does a magnificent job in striving to ensure that the party pulls together and never forgets its roots in the trade union Movement.

Ian, you are really warmly welcomed here today. I am delighted to see you and delighted to ask you to address our Congress. Thank you, Ian.

Address by Ian McCartney, Labour Party Fraternal Delegate

Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP (Chairman of the Labour Party): Brothers and sisters, I genuinely stand proud today here on behalf of the Labour Party as its Chair in the year that we won the historical third term Labour Government for the first time in the party's history. I want to echo Gordon's thanks to Brendan and Jeannie and endorse his words to retiring colleagues and the friends we so tragically lost in recent months. I would like to take a brief moment to mention one person in particular, Ian Hepplewhite. He will be known to many of our National Union of Journalist colleagues here today. Ten years ago I got the credit for a successful fat cats campaign, which led to the national minimum wage. Ian was a young Labour Party Press Officer who actually devised the campaign. He was a committed socialist and trades unionist, respected by all in the political lobby. All his family and friends are truly distressed that such a wonderful young man with so much yet to contribute was taken so quickly from us.

I am also proud of what we have achieved in the Movement in the last eight years. I have my eyes fixed firmly on what I hope we can achieve together in the next four or five years, and hopefully a term of government after that.

I was also pleased that I came yesterday when I met a number of men and women who were sacked by Gate Gourmet Company. I was struck by their quiet dignity, which is so in contrast to the actions of their employer. These are the people we got into politics for; these are the type of vulnerable workers that the Warwick Agreement was designed to help, and we have a responsibility to do our best by them.

We have come a long way in the Movement since we met here last year. It gives me particular pleasure to address you at such a proud time in the nation's sporting history. After so many years of disappointment we watched with breath all summer long. It was a tough contest but finally the whole nation got the result we had been dreaming of: Scotland 2, Norway 1. (Laughter) (Applause). I remember last year's Congress very well. There had been a few headlines running up to the event in the national and local press that I was for the high jump. I ask you, the high jump! Things got so bad that some of my friends thought I should go and look for a new job. Tony Ridley was very supportive. He phoned me up and said 'I have set up a job interview on a building site in London.' I met the foreman. 'Can you make a cup of tea?' I said, 'I certainly can.' 'Can you drive a forklift truck?' 'Why? Good grief, how big is this tea pot?' Colleagues, like many in this room today I have never had much luck with employers. I can remember one particular case. He called me into his office and looked me straight in the eye -- well, actually, he sat down first and looked me straight in the eye. He said 'McCartney' -- when they say your surname first you know it is going to be trouble, it is always the same -- 'For the first time in my life I am going to mix business with pleasure. You are fired. Don't darken my door again.' There is no pressure, is there. Tony Blair and I have made up since then though!

After eight years as a Minister the civil service get to know you, PCS and FDA members in particular. Apparently it is rumoured that every working day with me is like Christmas Day. They do all the work and some fat guy in a suit gets all the credit. I was watching with trepidation this morning up in the gallery, listening to Gordon Brown. It is always impossible to follow him. He always has that powerful oratory. He weaves into his speech all the things that have brought us into the labour Movement and he underpins it by his record as the Iron Chancellor. I can assure you this is not just for show. He takes his reputation for prudence very seriously. Last summer he asked me to go to Kirkcaldy and speak at his constituency party. He invited my wife and I round to his house. We got there, we found they were stripping wallpaper from the living room. I said to him, 'Are you decorating, Gordon?' He says, 'No, we are moving house.' I have more but I will keep them for another year!

Congress, this is an extraordinary moment for the Labour Party and the trade union Movement. In some senses you can say it is the best of times and, if we are not careful, the worst of times. It is the best of times because we won a third term, the Tory Party is still in chaos, we have delivered near full employment in every region in the country, in our kingdom, and trades unions have the opportunity to grow for the first time in decades. Yet it could be the worst of times. The turnout at the election was too low, there is less trust in politics and politicians and, to a lesser extent, trades unions than ever before. All political parties face declining membership and activists. Trades unions are not growing despite two million extra jobs in the economy.

I want to start today by looking at the positive things we have accomplished, and will continue to accomplish, before moving on to some of the challenges we face. I want to offer my thanks to the trade union Movement for the support in ensuring the delivery of a third-term Labour Government. I want to pay tribute to the unprecedented work of the affiliated unions that played such a vital part in a victory in the key marginals, but also to the work of countless individual trades unionists from every union, affiliated or not, working in every constituency to help the Labour Party make history. A majority of 67 in a third term, a majority of 159 over the Tories, an election where Michael Howard won fewer MPs than we did in 1983. A majority of 67 -- people said we actually lost. Well, I tell you what, colleagues, if we had that majority of 67 in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and even in 1997 would any of you not have accepted it? We did win and we deserved to win.

A third term means Labour is starting to break free of the shackles of being the natural party of opposition, debilitated and unable to get things done. Opposition is a breeze for politicians. You get up in the morning, express indignation and anger -- if John Humphreys lets you get a word in -- by lunch time you pass a resolution and at night you go home to bed and put the lights out. What has changed for the worker? Nothing, absolutely nothing. This third time in power means we have the opportunity to build on the steady progress we have made together since 1997. It means millions of working people will benefit from our third term policies. It means the Tories remain in the same leadership crisis they have been in for a decade.

Being in government is hard; it means making all sorts of decisions, many of them very difficult. It is not always that you can square a circle, choices always are difficult, but I would rather be in government than face the barren wasteland of opposition. I would rather have the opportunity to provide leadership than to snuggle up to another generation of opposition. Eight years into Government it is time to acknowledge the challenges we face, as a party, as a Movement, as a country, meeting the challenge of globalisation, addressing the concerns of Europe's citizens, delivering justice for working people at home and abroad both at the workplace and in the wider communities and societies, meeting the challenges of an ageing society. The Warwick Agreement and our Manifesto acknowledged all these challenges and much more besides.

I believe the start of this term is also a time for hope. I joined the Labour Party, the trade union Movement, 40 years ago because I was a young optimist. As human beings we can all make mistakes. We all have frailties and we all face difficulties along the way but I still remain an optimist. My grandparents and parents had nothing other than an innate belief in justice and solidarity, an absolute commitment to economic and social justice and a strong belief that each and every generation of working people had the responsibility to each other to work to pass on to the next generation a better world than the one we entered into.

Why should we be optimistic? Why do we need to be optimistic? Because their values were our values, and it is those values that should continue to inspire us as they inspired them. I believe that Labour values offer us a way forward as we address the challenges ahead. Labour values tell us that driving towards full employment is the best way to deliver economic and social justice. Labour values tell us that a well-trained, well-rewarded, respected workforce will be a workforce better equipped to succeed in the global economy. Labour values tell us that injustice and poverty can and should be addressed through the creation of a modern, enabling welfare state. Labour values tell us we should give working people the choice and excellence in public services, a privilege that only a very few rich have always enjoyed and had. Labour values tell us we must continue on a journey to build a vibrant and secure community. Labour values tell us that an international Britain must be a force for good in the world. Those shared values give us something else, shared responsibilities not just in the best of times, they also sustain us in the worst of times. The Labour Party and trade union Movement need to apply their values to the hopes and aspirations of today's communities. The labour and trade union Movement need to change so that we look, feel and sound like the communities we seek to serve. The labour and trade union Movement need to change so that we reach out to new people who support our values. The labour and the trade union Movement need to change so that we can organise and campaign together imaginatively and effectively on the issues that matter to our people.

With the support of the trades unions, Labour will be renewing the way we make policy at our conference here in Brighton later this month. We will also be renewing the way we campaign so that we do look like, feel like and sound like the communities we seek to serve as a political party.

How does Congress want to be remembered at the end of this week? Can the union Movement, in the face of national and international change, still inspire people to join a successful growing organisation, a Movement that can support the interests of working people and supporting their interests encourage them in the public and the private sector to join a trade union? Labour is committed to modern growing unions; we said so in our Manifesto and it is a commitment we intend to keep. I believe it is vital that we see a period of sustained trade union growth reversing a generational decline. In 1979 the TUC had more than 12 million members; today that figure is just over 6.5 million. In those days there were so many collective agreements that unions, employers and the public and the private sector, even my own union the Transport & General Workers Union, at that time opposed a national minimum wage; collective bargaining was the King.

If we are to build a trade union Movement for the future we need a strategy for growth. The government has a role in this. We are committed to implementing the Warwick Agreement in full, but the fundamental challenge is one for trades unions themselves: the fundamental challenge is that 50 per cent of the current work force in Britain have never ever joined a trade union not for one single day or week. This brings a double whammy. TUC research shows us that if a worker has never been a member their children, as they enter the labour market, will probably never join a union either. Already only ten per cent of young workers are in a union. The vast majority of our members are older workers. This gives us a simple message as trades unionists: we need to reach out and grow or we can slowly die out. Left unchallenged the very culture of trades unionism is at risk of fading away. The next four or five years is a window of opportunity for the trade union Movement. I hope we can agree that we cannot afford to squander our opportunity by wasting time in barren disagreement and empty rhetoric. I am not saying that we will not disagree, that would be unrealistic. There will be genuine issues where there will be differences of opinion, but that should not stop us moving forward on the basis of shared values, shared objectives and a plethora of agreed policies.

I want union members to know that the unions are working and the government are working with them and good employers are working with trades unions too, to make the workplace safer, fairer, and their hours more family friendly. After eight years of a Labour Government we cannot just keep sending out a message that unions are losing out, almost hard done by. Unions need to be seen by millions of people as an effective, successful voice for workers in the workplace. I have had some union members say to me that the Manifesto commitment on bank holidays is meaningless as many union members already have this benefit, and there lies the challenge to us all. The people who will benefit most from this change in the law are the very workers who need trades unions most, the most vulnerable in the most vulnerable patch of the economy. Trades unions need to work with us when we introduce these new rights, to campaign nationally to get these workers into trade union membership and secure their rights and much more for them. In this family of ours there are still some people who think having a Labour Government is a bit of a luxury. There are some who still shout out, claim treachery or cry 'sell out'. These comments are designed to undermine the vast majority of us who want to work together positively in a partnership. They can mask, unfortunately, what can be on occasion legitimate trade union concern.

Just look around the world, name me a government anywhere in the world that invests huge sums of resources into trade union modernisation. I will give you one: this Labour Government. Name another government that invests in trade union learning. I will give you one here: this Labour Government. Name me a government that is committed to improving and increasing employment rights, with over 50 new employment rights in the past eight years. I will give you one: this Labour Government.

It is clear to me that there are more opportunities for union growth than there have been for decades elsewhere in the world. Less than a decade ago, the Australian Labour Party lost office and the right returned to power. What happens when the right returns to power? It is a depressingly predictable story. The right are rewriting Australia's workplace laws, taking away people's most basic rights at work. Firstly, they are abolishing protection for unfair dismissal for all employees in companies with less than 100 staff. Secondly, they are giving support and cover to employers to cut take home pay, reduce employment conditions and workers who refuse can be sacked. Thirdly, they are changing the way the minimum wage is calculated so that it can be set at a lower rate. Fourthly, they are keeping unions out of the workplace and ending the ability for workers to bargain collectively with their employer, and much more besides. As we are here this week, the Australian Labour Party and the TUC in Australia are spending their time and their hard earned resources fighting against these new laws. That is what happens when the right is in power.

That is why it important here in Brighton this afternoon that we are clear and remember for a moment those long years of opposition. We never want to go back to them. But we should never take power for granted because the responsibility as part of the Movement is to ensure that people always see us a being on your side because, if the right ever return, it will be our people who will immediately be suffering. Here in Britain the Tories have been there, they have done it, they have worn the T-shirt. They wrote the text book -- do this, do this; we will never forget it. The Tories are looking for a new leader. One policy will unite all their candidates. Not every Tory is anti Europe. They are not all pro-hanging. One or two of them are in favour of banning fox hunting. But one thing unites them all, they are all anti-union to their finger tips. What else do all these candidates for the leadership stand for? All of them opposed every piece of employment legislation introduced by this government over the last eight years. They all opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage. All of them stood at the last general election pledging to cut investment in public services and cut the wages of low paid agricultural workers, and much more besides.

In the past few days some guns have been trained on Labour Ministers. The Tories have been busily promoting a Flat Tax for Fat Cats. Let us be clear, the tax stays flat for the fat cat but there is a mountain of a tax increase for Britain's hard-working families to climb. If you hear anyone telling you that the Tories, or Ken Clarke in particular, would be more in touch with working people's aspirations than Labour, help them please to a darkened room, they have obviously got a migraine.

Today's Labour Government holds the Presidency of both the G8 and the European Union. Through the Presidency and with the strong support of the trade union Movement, our government are delivering so much that we can all be proud of -- proud of the terms of aid, debt cancellation, trade justice, and action HIV/AIDS. There is an anti-malarial programme, which will save 600,000 children's lives a year. A programme to ensure that polio, once a cause of disability and poverty across the whole globe, is now on course to be eradicated by the end of this year. I am sure we are all proud of this because this was down to you, having the courage to campaign for and get a Labour Government elected and re-elected. People who you will never meet, never have a conversation with, have had their lives transformed, many saved, by your actions because it is in the end down to us working together. It is not just the senior politicians but to sustain them in their policies it needs people like you to sustain the commitment. Does anyone seriously think the G8 would have been making decisions of this magnitude without the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? That is the difference between being in government and being in opposition.

During the Presidency of the European Union, I think it is vital that we help shape our continent around the priorities of its working people. I believe that it is Labour's values that offer a way forward. In the months ahead it is the centre left that must keep Europe moving in a progressive direction; it is the centre left that must take on the big issues such as developing social models for Europe that ensure that social justice and economic growth go hand in hand. Some people argue that the current European social model works in all circumstances, but can someone explain to me why we should support without reservation a model that has left 20 million men and women, many of them trades unionists, on mainland Europe, on the dole? Of course, the Labour Government and the labour Movement in Britain do not have all the solutions but across Europe we can learn from each other. Those in the European TUC, those in government and those in opposition, from the centre left and progressive politics, can and should work together, but we can be proud of what we have so far achieved.

Some people say our approach is neo-liberal and Thatcherite. I think that is very offensive. We lived through the Thatcher and Major eras. We were elected to deal with the consequences of them. If we had all been pessimists and oppositionalists we would have gone under. But we were better than that. We had values, we rescued them at a Labour Party Conference back in Bournemouth in 1985, we stuck to them, we campaigned on them, and put traditional values in a modern setting. We built a coalition of people to support these values. Our challenge now is to sustain that coalition, bring people back on board both to support us and join us and bring new people to us. We have to do something no party has ever managed in political history: we have to renew ourselves in government, not go to opposition to manage a change. I am sure if pushed there is only a handful if people in this hall who are not proud of what we have done so far in the last eight years. We in the labour Movement need to show the confidence to come up with progressive solutions that build a strong economy, modernise our health and welfare systems, improve security for our children, workers and older people across all communities.

Brothers and sisters, let us understand one thing above all else, if we as the left do not rise to these challenges, difficult as they might be, one thing is certain: the right will not only exploit these issues for their own ends, they will come up with their own solutions. Let us not go there. It is our traditional values of economic and social justice that brought us the Warwick Agreement in 2004 and last year we made significant progress. We remain committed to implementing it in full. The agreement is for the whole Parliament, not just for the first few weeks afterwards. We developed it together, trades unions and the party activists from constituencies, and we should be proud of that.

I have always believed that the Labour Party and the trade union Movement can be partners in change, as we apply our values to the 21st century. As an optimist I still do. The prize is great. We can be the generation of labour and trade union activists that breaks the cycle of the 20th century, that saw the Tories as the natural party of government and us as the natural party of opposition. For 100 years or more we in the Labour Party have always been told -- and almost always accepted -- that our Movement did not have the capacity to govern the nation. We are only there as a safety valve, in power for a few years, fall out with each other, than hand power back to the Tories. I do not buy into that. With all the humility I can muster, I do believe we have the intellectual capacity, the values, to run a successful economy and build a successful country fit for all our people.

I believe that because of our experiences in everyday life we have the capacity to tear down the barriers that stand in the way of the life opportunities of so many of our fellow human beings here and around the world. Over the next few years do not let us talk ourselves out of power. Have confidence that every minute of every day of every week that there is a Labour Government an individual or a community will have their life chances transformed for good. We can make this century a time for progressive values -- values of economic and social justice, values of full employment, values of public service, values of a proactive welfare state, tearing down the barriers of poverty and inequality. These are our values. These are our challenges. This is our time. This is our opportunity to do the right thing by the pioneers who went before us, those here and now and those yet to come. Let us go and do it. We are up to it. Good luck and thank you. (Applause)

The President : Thank you, Ian. You are always welcome at the TUC. I have the great pleasure in presenting you with the gold Badge of Congress.

(The presentation was made)

Ian McCartney : Colleagues, this is a very moving moment actually, to get this. My Dad is watching. As members of the T&G will know, he was 71 years a member of his trade union. He is not very well at the moment so he will be looking at the Conference. I want to say Dad, this is for you. Thanks. (Applause).

Energy and Climate Change

The President : We return to Chapter 4 of the General Council's Report, Economic and Industrial Affairs, page 62, the section on Energy and Climate Change and I call Composite Motion 16, Energy and Climate Change. The General Council support the composite motion.

Paul Noon (Prospect) moved Composite Motion 16. He said: Climate change is a fact, not an opinion. Scientists -- including members of my union in the Meteorological Office -- have tracked the rise of global temperatures and monitored its impact. The evidence is there for all to see: heatwaves, drought, extreme weather episodes, all happening with increased regularity and severity. The government's Chief Scientist, Sir David King, told us recently that there is now more carbon in the world's atmosphere than at any time in the last 55 million years. We have melting ice caps, rising sea levels that threaten the existence of some countries.

The situation will get worse, far worse, unless action is taken now, nationally and internationally, to tackle the causes of global warming, mainly greenhouse gas emissions and particularly Co2. On this issue the government have a good record in at least two respects: first, priority has been given to dealing with climate change during the Presidencies of the EU and the G8. The continued refusal of the Bush Administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol is shameful and dangerous, and the UK and the international community must push hard for an international framework for dealing with this global issue. Hurricanes happened before Katarina and they will happen again, but it is important that the link between human activity and weather change is understood in the US and elsewhere.

The Chancellor this morning mentioned the measures he is taking on the current energy crisis, and I respect the actions he is taking, but perhaps the answer is not simply to pump more oil but to use energy more efficiently and to move towards sustainability.

The other area in which the government have a good record is that since 1997 they have involved the trade union Movement through the Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee, a joint body co-chaired by Environment Minister Elliot Morley and through which the government consults unions on sustainability issues, because this is a trade union issue. Not only does the trade union Movement have something to say about the big issues of the day -- and this is one of the biggest -- we are also profoundly concerned about health and safety, and health and safety for our members in the wider community does not end at the workplace. We are also affected because moves to a low carbon economy will have a profound effect on the future employment and skills requirements. There will be opportunities and also problems and we have to deal with both. We also need to insist that employers deal with environmental issues through their trades unions.

This composite calls unequivocally for the creation of a Sustainable Development Fund to help joint activity, and this small investment would reap benefits many times greater than the sums involved.

The composite also covers energy policy integral to dealing with climate change. Here the UK Government are less good. The 2003 Energy Policy White Paper leaves the UK dangerously dependent on imported gas and oil, themselves Co2 generators. Not only does this raise real dangers for the continuity of supply -- and when the gas runs out in Norway we will be at the end of some very long pipelines from some very dangerous places - but it will also have some very serious economic and financial implications. Householders and industry have experienced a foretaste of this in the recent hike in gas prices. We need greater diversity of supply and particularly from UK non-Co2 sources. This means wind power and other renewables and we are in favour of investment in all these areas. It also means a continued place for domestic coal and I am sure the NUM will say more on this in seconding the motion. It also means a continuing role for nuclear power generation, at present contributing more than 20 per cent to the UK's electricity base load, but with all but one of the UK's nuclear power stations due to close by 2020 a balanced affordable assured and environmentally friendly energy policy is required to continue the nuclear contribution, and this must mean new generation capacity.

As trades unions we are collective organisations and only collective organisations will deal with the question of climate change. All our experience is that if we as trades unions act on these issues we will connect with the new generation of environmentally aware young people entering the workplace. For their sake and for ours we must take action now. Please support the composite. I move.

Steve Kemp (National Union of Mineworkers) seconded Composite 16.

He said: It should be clear to delegates attending this Conference that there is an energy crisis as I speak to you today, an energy crisis that in reality has been around now for twenty years. I am proud that the NUM has consistently warned that the day would come when the dash for gas and the butchery of the coal industry would lead us to be paying a very high price for our reliance on gas reserves that have a finite value. Witness then the dreadful announcement last week by British Gas that prices are to go up not 5 per cent, not 10 per cent, but 14 per cent, which you the consumer is going to pay. This is the second massive increase in what consumers have had to bear in the past twelve months and the reasons given echo the warnings given by the NUM, and other unions to be fair, for all most twenty years: one, higher oil prices; two, the relentless dash for gas which has depleted our natural gas reserves. Congress, the proverbial chickens are now coming home to roost to make us pay for the incompetent folly of, first, a vindictive Tory Government and then unbelievably an energy policy perpetuated under New Labour.

The British coal industry could and should have been allowed to contribute like it has done in the past to this nation's energy security. The Kyoto Agreement signed by the present government will be a stern test of Britain's resolve on this subject and one as stated in the motion that will have an effect on future employment and, indeed, skills requirements. Whether the cash rich and very powerful green lobby like it or not, we believe that coal will inevitably be a key player in a future energy mix. While we support clean coal technologies the fact is that the government are importing coal from just about anywhere: 35 million tons of the stuff came into the country alone last year. The 2000 Energy White Paper was a cop out, failing to address the energy needs of this country in a succinct and clear manner, culminating in our reliance on foreign imports, the results of which are now clear for everyone to see.

The NUM believes and understands the need for a balanced integrated energy policy including gas, nuclear, coal and renewables to give Britain a stable energy mix whilst at the same time obviously protecting the environment. Congress, the government need to grasp the nettle on energy and grasp it quick: 35 million tons imported, 180 pits in 1984, 8 pits in 2005. Britain's miners and their industry have been closed down. It is now decision time: yes to a greener environment; yes to securing clean air for future generations; and yes for the retention of a coal industry mined by British miners.

Patrick Carragher (BACM-TEAM) supporting Composite 16 said: I want to make a couple of brief points. The previous speakers have covered much of the ground that needs to be covered in relation to this motion. When I started out as a young union official back in 1980 the coal industry globally produced 4 billion tons. That figure currently is 5 billion and it is set to grow as the developing economies of China and India continue to expand. So there is no doubt that coal in global terms will continue to be a major component of the energy mix.

The reason for highlighting this is that if we are going to address the issue of climate change, then we are going to have to do that through clean coal technology and carbon capture. It is the developed countries -- the US, Japan and the UK -- that have the opportunity to capitalise on that and to transfer that technology to the developing countries.

The second point I would like to make is that the last White Paper on energy fudged decisions on new nuclear build and what the role for coal is going to be. Those decisions can no longer be left in the current Parliament; they need to be taken now. If they are not taken the danger is that we will go head long into over-dependence on one fuel, which cannot be good, and there will be a danger that the lights will go out. Why do I make that last point? Coal is the only component in the energy mix that allows the grid to manage the variation in load that occurs at tea time, when Coronation Street comes on, and so forth. It is absolutely essential for there to be a coal component, and within that we need an indigenous component. As the developing countries demand grows the international market for internationally traded coal is going to be tight, and it is therefore essential that the government take a responsible attitude to the indigenous coal industry. I ask for your support.

Barry Montgomery (GMB) speaking in support of Composite 16 said: Britain has been fortunate in having indigenous supplies of fossil fuels and the ability to design and manufacture world leading technologies. . However, we are in danger of squandering this advantage by not having a coherent long-term energy policy. The government have set targets for the UK which are tougher than those agreed at Kyoto, yet here we are in 2005 already falling behind. Why? There has been insufficient investment in alternative technology, let alone a debate on the new generation of nuclear power.

The government are still relying on market forces to make these changes, and what have market-let policies resulted in so far? Premature reduction of the UK coal industry, more imported coal, premature depletion of UK natural gas resources, more imported gas from more volatile sources such as the former Soviet Union, and, very important, skill shortages, and government loans to stop British energy going bankrupt. The UK had a world lead in wind farm technology but left it to the Danes, the Germans and the Spanish to develop it. We had a world lead in tide and wave power but only one pilot plant in the Orkneys. The Portuguese have ordered three full size plants from the UK, but the next orders are not likely to be made in Britain but made in Portugal. We have had the ability to build clean coal plants for many years but do we have one? No. If you want to use solar where is it made? Again, not in the UK but in Germany. We have number of small companies manufacturing microgeneration plants in the UK but when it comes to the price to be paid for any excess generation returned to the grid the government say it is up to the market.

If you want to have a safe, cleaner environment we need an energy policy linked to the needs of the country, the price we pay for it, security of supplies and jobs. Congress, remember energy in the wrong hands can be dangerous. We need long-term manufacturing of equipment in the U.K.

I ask you to support. Thank you.

* Composite 16 was CARRIED

Greening the workplace

Michael Walsh (Community) moved Composite Motion 17.

He said: The G8 Summit this year focused on curbing global warming as well as making poverty history. In both areas the British trade union Movement is, as usual, on the side of the angels, but we rarely get any credit for this, particularly in respect of environmental issues because we are seen as producers of the harmful emissions, part of the problem rather than the solution.

The work of the Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee gives a convincing riposte to that view. TUSDAC makes a substantial contribution to finding solutions by developing forward thinking and effective measures to combat this most urgent global challenge - urgent, and the timing of our efforts is crucial.

In the next 25 years about 10 trillion pounds will be invested in meeting global needs for energy, but only a small part of that amazing total will be spent in the UK, which presently accounts for between 2% - 3% of all global carbon emissions. Through the TUC we could be a model for trade union involvement internationally in action at the workplace and in the community to promote sustainable development. We could play a crucial and irreplaceable role in helping to steer the investment into clean energy technologies. We could help steer it away from locking into new plant- avoidable global warming emissions for decades to come.

Through TUSDAC the TUC is mobilising constructive union responses to the challenges of climate change, but we could be even more effective. Our motion would press the Government to acknowledge and enhance the trade union role of greening the workplace. It would mean amending the ACAS Code of Practice and recognising workplace environmental representatives, and they would need to be equipped with skills and knowledge to fulfil these key responsibilities, so we need public support for training courses open to working people who are ready to take on a workplace environmental role.

Our engagement is for the common good of our society and our children and grandchildren. But we also have a direct interest in the jobs which may be lost and gained today through the environmental decisions we take. Of course, there are opportunities to create jobs in the renewable technology being created now, and we believe that the Government should advance research and development in these technologies in the context of the national strategy for manufacturing.

Sometimes it seems that the climate change strategy envisages the complete demise of British manufacturing. It seems, even, that senior ministers contemplate this with some equanimity. Hence, the 'let them stack cake' remark at a time when the T&G and other unions were trying to save production at MG Rover. But the loss of British manufacturing industry would not help tackle global warming. On the contrary, production lost in Britain would be made up in other countries where the chances are that energy efficiency would be lower and emission rates higher than in the UK. Yet the present British liberalised pricing policy means that British industry pays a minimum of 10 per cent more for gas than all other EU countries. For electricity we also pay top whack along with the Germans, Dutch and Italians. This makes it most difficult for the steel, ceramics, glass and other British industries to compete in the EU, and steel is an infinitely recyclable and an environmentally friendly material. The loss of this industry would weaken our capacity as a nation to combat climate change.

Delegates, carry the motion and keep up a proud TUC record of advancing the common good.

Kim Gainsborough (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) in seconding the composite motion, said: President and Congress, imagine what it would be like to be unable to breath properly, to cough, wheeze and splutter, to gasp and grab at the air, desperate to get enough into the lungs. It is terrifying. You never know if the breath you are taking will be your last.

Every year respiratory physiotherapists treat many thousands of people with lung disease. These people report that poor air quality worsens their symptoms. As you will know, road transport is a major cause of air pollution. Government targets for safe levels of nitrogen dioxide should be less than 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Earlier this year, a study by the CSP found that levels in parts of London were more than twice that level. Even a stroll along the promenade here in Brighton exposes you to higher levels than that deemed safe.

Another pollutant emitted by diesel vehicles are those nasty noxious particles known as PM-10s. These irritate the airways and find their way deep down into the lungs causing breathing difficulties even in healthy people. Studies show that exposure is attributed to thousands of deaths and new cases of asthma and bronchitis each year. The World Health Organisation states that there are no safe limits for these particles and yet the CSP study found that high levels of PM-10s exist in areas across the UK. Clean air should be a right, not a privilege.

We at the CSP call on the General Council to lobby the Government to ban high polluting vehicles from our city centres, to force all diesel manufacturers to fit filters to their cars and to make public transport clean, reliable and affordable. As individuals we can lobby our councils to improve facilities for cyclists and campaign in the workplace for cycle allowances and other incentives to discourage car use. So think before jumping into your cars. Even the RAC motoring organisation proposed that people make short journeys by foot. Walking and cycling for those of us who can will improve our own health and make a valuable contribution to improving air quality for those whose very lives depend on it. Thank you.

Ivan Monckton (Transport and General Workers' Union) in supporting the composite motion, said: I am a member of the Rural and Agricultural Workers' Section of the T&G. The RAAW has been at the vanguard of environmentally sound trade unionism for at least the 30 years that I have been involved.

Let me give you a little bit of history. 245-T has never been officially banned but, in effect, banned because of a campaign led by our trade union. That is Agent Orange for those of you who do not remember, and you used to be able to buy it in practically any shop in the country.

We have promoted pesticide reduction policies; we have promoted organic agriculture; we have been against blanket afforestation with Sitka Spruce and, lately, we were very active in the anti-hunting campaign. At this present moment, we are campaigning for the use of bio-ethanol. So we have a proud history within the T&G and within the agricultural section.

The first part of this motion calls for Government on environmental reps, on ensuring that the skills and training is in place and on developing awareness. It calls on unions to negotiate sustainable workplace agreements. I can tell you, colleagues, that we need to do a little more than that. If we are not going to be accused of ticking a little box which says we are green or attaching a green flag to our headed notepaper, then we are going to have to do more. Just think of Investors in People. Does the Investors in People flag mean that the firm is a good employer. We all know damned well that it does not, and we have to make sure that we are truly environmentally-minded and not just carrying a green flag.

What do we need to do? Well, first of all, we need to train our environmental reps. We have some money from whoever, but we need to train our own environmental reps when we get them. We need to do a lot of soul searching, colleagues. For a start, how about an environmental audit of all our individual unions' policies. It sounds pretty easy, but many unions, including my own, would have difficulties in doing that, but those are the sort of issues that we are going to have to take on board.

We need a change of culture and we need to do a lot to develop awareness of our own members. If we can do this, along with the actions that we have asked for from the Government, our members will be working in a healthier and safer environment. What is more, we will be ensuring a future for our great grandchildren. Finally, we will become attractive to young people. Just look around the room. There are not many people under 30 here. When you heard the choir earlier on, ask yourselves how many of those would be natural trade unionists? If we take on board environmental issues and act with integrity, those people who we heard earlier on will be joining our union in the future.

The President: I am going to move to the vote. The General Council supports the composite.

Composite Motion 17 was CARRIED.

Re-nationalisation

Ian Lavery (National Union of Mineworkers) moved Motion 61.

He said: If the coal industry is not re-nationalised, there will not be a coal industry in the next 18 months. That is the stark reality of the situation and that is why the NUM has put this motion forward at this TUC Conference. It is not a scare tactic but a fact of life.

The Energy White Paper produced in the winter of 2002 said that coal had a small role to play. It occupied two lines in a very thick document. But how do we best deliver the coal to the nation? There are two options. The first option is that we leave it in the hands of UK Coal, one of the worst employers in the history of mining, or we take it back into public ownership. Since privatisation in 1995, 22 out of 29 collieries have closed. We produced in 1995 53 million tonnes of coal. Last year we produced less than 6 million tonnes. We have now, roughly, 3,000 miners left in Britain.

I have to explain to you the role of UK Coal. They are absolutely despicable. They have conned, connived, deceived and lied about their intentions in relation to the coal industry. We attended a meeting not so long ago and they explained, 'It is not a coal industry any more, Mr. Lavery. It is a business. Will you stop calling it 'an industry''. They explained that they were not committed to coal but committed to the shareholders, and that was the most important thing for UK Coal.

In the last six months, they have closed one colliery, mothballed two collieries and put one colliery in the Colliery Review Procedure. Last year they closed the Selby complex in Yorkshire, which was the jewel in the crown. It was producing coal at £1.20 per gigajoule. On the spot market at this point in time, it is £2 per gigajoule. It was the crime of the century, but they were allowed to get away with it by the Labour Government.

Last week the Rossington mineworkers, the last pit in the Doncaster coalfield, were notified by UK Coal's six monthly financial statement that their colliery was to close. There were not meetings, no consultations, no texts and no megaphones. Financial statements! They have no affinity with coal but they have an affinity with land development, and that is exactly what they are doing. They are changing the industry from coal to land. In the Cannock Loft, they have the land which they bought when they bought the collieries in 1995, which is colossal. They have 49,000 acres of prime land. They are getting in excess of £100 million of your money and my money in terms of Coal Industry Aid - CIA. One hundred million! They basic criteria for Coal Industry Aid is to maintain jobs and maintain collieries. They have done exactly the opposite and the Government have not done a thing to stop it. In fact, the role of Martin Wicks, the new Energy Minister, has been absolutely atrocious. The NUM wrote to him two months ago and a month ago regarding a meeting to discuss the industry and we have not had a reply since.

However, he has met with the scab union, the UDM, on two occasions. The UDM is not recognised by the Labour Party or by the TUC, yet a Labour Minister is meeting them rather than meeting the NUM. It is an absolute scandal, comrades.

But, at the end of the day, we have to look at the situation facing us. Should any particular form of energy, be it nuclear, gas or coal, be left to the vagaries of the free market? Of course it should not. We need to look at each industry individually. I am a firm supporter of the re-nationalisation of everything that has been privatised, but this motion is in relation to coal.

Comrades, this motion represents common sense for Britain. By the year 2020 we will be a net importer of energy to the tune of 90 per cent, 70% of which will be gas from the most unstable of countries. We have the workforce, we have the technology, we have the reserves and we have the ability to burn coal cleanly. Why do we not do it. Thank you.

Alan Donnelly (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen) seconded motion 61.

He said: The future of our country's energy supply and of the deep mine coal industry is in real peril. The destruction of Britain's pits and the ripping up of the mining communities was the most vindictive and political sabotage of modern times. For fifty years historians will be asking themselves, 'How the hell did the Tories get away with that?' However, today we have to deal with the potential final elimination of the coal industry.

UK Coal is not just a mining company but a property company. Some of the land on which the surviving deep mines are found is now worth a fortune and provides a big incentive for private owners to asset strip the industry by shutting mines and flogging the land. That explained the closure of Elkington, the last deep mine in the north-east. Publicly we are told that the pit had to be closed because of flooding. In fact, the problems had been solved. Rest assured that if any of Britain's handful of remaining deep pits encountered the slightest problem they will be closed.

Within a few years, if the Government allow to continue market forces to run the industry, all our coalmines will have gone. Conversely, the price of oil is rising rapidly, the supply of gas is not assured and open cast mining will continue to be met with public hostility. If not, we will see a greater amount of imported coal, another source of energy which cannot be guaranteed, which will affect our balance of payments.

Whilst competitor countries are developing their coal fields, we are closing ours down. This is economic madness. On top of that, the death of the remaining pits will cost thousands of jobs in the pit areas and related industries. We really are at a crunch time in mining. We have to put as much pressure on the Government as possible to save our industry and to secure the future of our energy supplies.

Congress, when I arrived in Brighton on Saturday, I walked along the seafront like everybody else and I could not believe where, in this land that we live on, which lies on a bed of coal, and surrounded by water which was once polluted only by fish, it all went wrong. Whilst I was walking along the beach, it came to me where we went wrong. Not all the donkeys are at the seaside.

Tim Davison (Amicus) in supporting the motion, said: Let me tell you that I am on the Amicus Energy & Utilities National Sector Committee.

Chair and Congress, the production and consumption of energy is a key issue which must be addressed now. All of us are acutely aware of climate change and the threat that is posed to the environment. The reduction of carbon emissions is essential to prevent global warming and to protect the environment for future generations.

In March of this year Amicus held a conference entitled 'Energy in Crisis'. Amongst the many issues discussed were the consequences of the UK's reliance on imported energy. We already import half our coal supplies and by 2020 we could be dependent on imported energy for three-quarters of our total primary energy needs.

We share concerns that a reliance on imported energy will create a dangerous dependency on energy from less stable parts of the world. An over reliance on foreign imports from one energy source will, inevitably, make the UK industry and consumers hostage to energy price hikes. British Energy recently announced that its gas and electricity prices would rise by 14% and other big players, such as PowerGen and EDF, are set to follow suit. For the old, the vulnerable and less well-off fuel poverty will not be made history.

Amicus supports a balanced energy policy that promotes the use of all available energy in the most productive manner possible and to the best economic, social and environmental effect. This should include conventional fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, renewables and nuclear, all of which we believe are essential components in a balanced energy policy. However, reserves of coal in the UK remain large and contribute significantly to the security, flexibility and diversity of energy supply. With the right level of investment in clean coal technology, there is a long-term future for the UK's deep mine industry.

The development of clean coal technologies and options for carbon capture will contribute towards cutting greenhouse gases and are supported in the Government's White Paper. Restoring the UK's international lead in clean coal technology could help develop a strategically important export industry. We do not envisage a return to the former glory days of the British coal industry. However, investment by the Government in a new generation of coal-fired power stations is essential to secure the security of supply and fuel diversity.

The re-nationalisation of the coal industry requires the investment of public finances. This means putting money back into the mines to ensure that they run efficiently and safely.

We applaud the NUM for the work it has done on raising the issue of energy in the UK. Now is a crucial time for the UK to take stock of the energy crisis and to look to develop its indigenous energy supply.

We call for immediate Government action and intervention to re-invest in the coal mining industry. Please support. Thank you.

The President: The General Council is supporting Motion 61.

Motion 61 was CARRIED.

Industrial Policy

Derek Simpson (Amicus) moved Composite Motion 10.

He said: Congress, I was very heartened this morning listening to Gordon Brown's contribution. One of the things that I found extremely pleasing was the fact that he affirmed quite clearly that the Warwick proposals that we agreed with the Government and through the Party prior to the election would be honoured and implemented in full. I think that is quite important. I have heard people suggesting that there may be some backsliding on Warwick, and it was heartening to have the Chancellor's confirmation.

However, our concern is that Warwick was only the start of a process. What we need to know is where we stand currently and in what direction we will travel. We are firmly convinced that the absence of full employment protection rights, as applied in the rest of Europe and watered down in the UK, leaves UK workers at greater risk. It is easier, cheaper and politically expedient to dismiss UK workers than it is to dismiss our colleagues in Italy, France, Germany or comparable advanced countries in Europe. That is a situation which sees our jobs disappear at a faster rate than elsewhere.

We keep getting told that we do not want to have the unemployment levels of Germany, without, of course, acknowledging the economic problems of Germany of the reunification process. We keep getting told that manufacturing decline is a worldwide phenomenon but no explanation as to why it declines at twice the rate in the UK than it does in France. I keep telling people about the railway industry. As the second largest user of the rail product, who do we have only one train builder, and we nearly lost that without a campaign from this Movement, yet there is not a German train built outside of Germany and there is not a French train built outside of France. Why is it that we cannot organise ourselves to support and protect our industries?

Also in Warwick is the question of procurement. We need to ensure that the Government's immense spending power is utilised to promote, at every possible opportunity, UK employment.

What is important to me in this period when people are speculating about the future of the Government and who might replace the Prime Minister is an indication of the direction. Warwick is where the weather cock sits at the moment. Some of us who were involved in that process know that some of the points were like pulling teeth. Do we now seek Warwick as the high water mark, the point beyond which we cannot go in the reform of employment law, or do we see it as a staging post along the way to a full, level and equal playing field with the rest of Europe? I want it to be the latter. I want our members, I want the people of this country, to know that our Labour Government are leaving no stone unturned to do for us what governments in other countries do for their workers. I do not want false protections and I do not want to see other people at risk and cost because of our protectionism, but when we talk about a level playing field I do not mean a level playing field by bringing our conditions down to those of the third world or eastern Europe. I want a level playing field that sees trade unions, trade unionists and workers in those countries brought up to our level. I do not want to see long-term, proper core skilled jobs, for example, being replaced with temporary, part-time agency workers. I do not want those jobs being replaced in such a way that the only way we achieve equal pay in our society is to make sure that wages fall to the level at which they keep women's pay. I want to see a situation where - perhaps Congress would look to the back of the hall to the DARA banner - where we protect those jobs. Here is an example of highly skilled workers, with a massive investment a facility in St. Athem, second to none for the maintenance of aircraft, yet those workers are going to lose their jobs. Those are the jobs that we should be protecting. Those are the jobs that Gordon referred to that we should be developing.

Why were you not on your feet giving the Chancellor a standing ovation for a speech that took every emotional button that you could expect? I'll tell you why, colleagues. It was because his speech was at odds with the reality. We are losing the jobs we need to keep and we are intent on making sure that we do get the advances so that we do not lose the Government we want to keep. Thank you. (Applause)

Debbie Coulter (GMB, Britain's general union) seconded Composite Motion 10.

She said: Congress, the European Union Presidency is a golden opportunity for this Government to champion high skill, high quality manufacturing industries as a focus for job creation. Instead, the Government are on a sales drive to export their flexible labour market policies. I say to any country which finds these salesmen knocking on the door, 'Don't be fooled because the job creation record that they are trying to sell you is built on shifting sands'. These here today, gone tomorrow jobs condemn a growing section of our labour force to work in poverty and chronic insecurity. I want to tell the Government: don't present us with false choices between economic prosperity or strong employment and social rights. The point is that without these rights the fruits of prosperity fall only to the wealthy few.

The UK is way down the productivity league, yet we are working the longest hours in Europe. The Government are fighting tooth and nail to keep the 48 hour opt-out. It is madness. How can we take seriously their commitments on work life balance and help for working parents when the Government are quite happy for people to work 50 or 60 hours a week to suit employers.

In relation to our temporary and agency workers, once again the Government are among the ringleaders, blocking equal treatment rights which would stop the Gate Gourmet's of this world using agency workers as scabs.

These wrecking antics must stop, and I call, instead, upon the Government to use the Presidency positively to stamp out once and for all the despicable country of origin principle in the EU Services proposal and to embrace public procurement as a means of promoting a strong UK industrial base.

Tell me this: how can it be right that Remploy workers - not the highest paid workers in the land and, yes, Gordon, renowned for their efficiency and value for money - who make the security work wear for the MoD and the chemical warfare suits that our emergency workers now rely on, are having their livelihoods threatened as such critical work is shipped off elsewhere? I hope that you will join with me in expressing support for those workers in their current struggle. (Applause)

Congress, in our response to the latest public procurement consultation, the GMB has made a little suggestion to the Government, and it is that since schools, hospital and GPs all have to stand up and be held accountable through league tables, why should not the same apply to any contractor who wants a public contract? Let's have a league table based on contractors' employment standards, their ability to run to budget and to complete on time. Let's put integrity back into how public money is spent, let's give Britain a secure industrial future and let's support Composite 10.

Terry Eden (Connect) speaking in support of Composite Motion 10.

He said: I want to focus on public procurement and the role it can play in driving forward social and environmental goals and, in particular, raising labour standards. The money public authorities spend on buying goods and services amounts to £108 billion every year from major capital projects to buying office stationery. Our public money supports private business. It is right that our public money should be used to encourage the private sector to support social goals. It is in the public interest that companies invest in high labour standards and measure which protect the environment. It is in the public interest that companies are good employers, and it is in the public interest that public authorities should go beyond laying down simple technical specifications for goods and services. Contracts should oblige companies to meet social and environmental goals. For example, in the interest of equal opportunity and social cohesion, publicly funded contracts should require companies to be actively committed to race equality. I have chosen this example because, in a Cabinet report, the Government themselves have recommended this course of action.

As we heard yesterday from Ken Livingstone, the LDA is already working hard to ensure that the Olympic contracts set new standards in social justice.

A new European law, which must be implemented by January, enables and encourages the inclusion of social goals in the tendering process. There is support from some sections of the business community; those good employers who invest in high labour standards but have to compete with those who do not.

The Government, however, appear very reluctant to make any practical steps in this direction. All around we hear the sound of dragging feet. Commitment to real progress from the heart of the Government is lukewarm at best. Value for money is defined too narrowly. Complaints about burdens on business are accepted too readily and social goals are abandoned too easily. That is why we must keep up the pressure. Writing social goals into public procurement contracts is not difficult. It is not in conflict with EU policy and it can be done, and unions, both in the public and private sectors, can work together to make sure that good intentions become real commitments. Please support.

Len McCluskey (Transport and General Workers' Union) speaking in support of Composite Motion 10, said: It was interesting listening to Gordon this morning, just as we did when he toured the trade union conferences this summer declaring the Government's commitment to manufacturing. Well, they were fine words, but let us just reflect on the position since Labour came to power.

Eight hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is about 20% of the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing cannot just be seen as an isolated part of the economy. There are thousands of workers in the services sector whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant manufacturing base. We have just seen the collapse of Rover and the devastating effects and consequences for the community, and although brave efforts were made and the saga is on-going to keep car production at Longbridge, the truth is that the policy options were severely limited. That is why this composite calls for the Government to be prepared to take a public stake in key enterprises. It is about time the Government's thinking got in touch with public thinking. Ninety per cent of British people, according to ICM research commissioned by the T&G, believe the Government should be doing more to support manufacturing. That should come as no surprise when this Government, despite the Chancellor's words, offer 30% less support to industry than our European counterparts. In France the level of support is twice that in the UK. In Germany and Italy it is three times higher. Colleagues, is it little wonder that we continue to decline at an alarming rate?

The T&G welcomes the establishment of the Manufacturing Task Force and will continue to use this as a means to get practical support, not just words and sympathy. At Warwick the Government committed themselves to promote a procurement strategy to safeguard UK jobs and to review best business support, but some people in Government seem to think that a level playing field means stopping other governments from supporting their own industries. That is not a European level playing field; that is a European scorched earth policy.

As Brendan Barber said yesterday in his excellent address to Congress, we do not expect to see a Labour Government - I repeat, a Labour Government - undermining social Europe. Whilst the European Parliament voted to end the 48 hour opt-out from the Working Time Directive, our Government insists on its retention. While the insidious neo-Liberal Services Directive has seen opposition all across Europe, our Government, in their Presidency, want to help to push it through.

Comrades, I have not come here to bash the Government. I just want them to listen to the millions of ordinary workers who are as frustrated as we are. We do not want to grow the economy through low paid jobs and burger bars or by opening up public services to private capital. We want good quality, high waged jobs which provide decent employment and can fund first class public services. Please support.

Ivan Moldaczuk (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) spoke in support of Composite Motion 10.

He said: Chair and Congress, every year 40 per cent of construction output is for public sector work, and one would think that with the Government and other public bodies being both client and paymaster this would make a real difference in the way that workers would be treated on site. Unfortunately, since the 1980s, when the Thatcher Government outlawed contract compliance and scrapped the Fair Wages Resolution, the over-riding determinant in awarding contracts has been price, irrespective of whether this means no direct employment, no training, no pension provision and no minimum safety standards. With much of the work being sub-contracted to the bogus self-employed so as to gain tax advantages and not pay employers' National Insurance contributions.

After eight years in Government it is high time that Labour started taking the social dimension of work seriously, and here we welcome the small steps taken by the Scottish Parliament to address this issue.

In 2012 the Olympics come to London with large areas of the capital becoming one giant building site, providing employment for many young people in construction for the first time. It is high time that the Government took a lead. It is time the Government changed their procurement policies by insisting that bogus self-employed labour is not used on public contracts; by insisting that provision for training exists on site and that all workers are processed through the Construction Skill Certification Scheme; by insisting that minimum standards exist regarding health and safety and pensions, and by making sure that those contracts with a bad health and safety record are excluded from tender lists.

Finally, Chair, we have to be crystal clear on the issue of effective auditing and verification, without which the impact of these objectives would be blunted. Support the composite.

Graeme Henderson (PROSPECT) spoke in support of Composite Motion 10.

He said: Congress, the Government are currently consulting on a better Regulation Bill. This is based upon Philip Hampton's, who is the CEO of Sainsbury's, that highly profitable company which has gone through so many problems, euphemistically titled report 'Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement', and also a Better Regulation Task Force Report, where the spin doctors worked overtime to come up with the title 'Less is More'.

Together these reports contain proposals which are totally inimical to us as trade unions and a threat to us as consumers. One of the central proposals is to reduce by a third the total number of Government regulatory inspections. This is not based upon any risk or cost-benefit analysis which features prominently in Hampton's report, and as such he is guilty of the very thing that he decries. Hampton lists the largest regulators by expenditure, which we suspect is, in itself, extremely significant.

PROSPECT has 8,000 members involved in regulation, in areas as diverse as HSE, the State Veterinary Service, MCA, English Heritage and the Insolvency Service, just to name a few. Our view that inspection is the major reason why companies comply with legislation is based upon clear experience and evidence.

Do Ministers and others have short memories? Who can forget the burning pyres of cows, sheep and other livestock as a result of foot and mouth? Who can forget the smell of roast beef and lamb wafting across our countryside?

A recent outbreak of Newcastle disease, which, by the way, has nothing to do with the failure of the football team to win a major trophy, recently resulted in the mass slaughter of 9,000 pheasants and led to a ban on exports worth £140 million. We, in PROSPECT, recognise that pheasant may not feature on the dining tables of most trade unionists, but it certainly shows that self-regulation does not work.

Do we forget BSE and the damage which was done not only to the economy but also to the country's reputation? Congress, in the field of health and safety, all the available evidence, including HSE's own independent research, shows that the best motivator of companies to comply is the fear of getting caught. In addition, other research shows that most employers welcome HSE's inspections. This view has recently been endorsed by OSHA, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, in the United States, that inspections lead to higher compliance. This is an extremely welcome statement from George Bush's America, but as a revelation it is probably as revealing as George Bush's inquiry into his own incompetence.

However, there are some things that we would support, such as higher fines for recidivist employers who continually offend, but we reject Hampton's assertion that this will, and I quote, 'improve compliance and reduce the number of inspections required'. This is completely counter-intuitive. Higher fines will not act as a deterrent unless there is an effective system for inspection, regulation and enforcement. It is essential that the TUC and individual unions campaign against the deregulatory movement which is taking place in this country. Thank you.

Basil Morriss (Community) speaking in support of Composite Motion 10, said:

President I am grateful to you for letting me contribute to the urgent plea for the Government to make the survival of British manufacturing the foremost economic objective for Britain. I speak for a union determined to see that the values of solidarity and support are sustained in British communities built around manufacturing. Those communities are under threat from the continual loss of good jobs in manufacturing which now offers fertile ground for racism and religious fundamentalism.

Those communities have every right to prosper and they deserve more from our Government which have achieved a relatively fast rate of growth but we have paid dearly by losing jobs at an alarming rate with many industries decimated.

Our Government need to take this issue as a priority. We noted Gordon Brown this morning pledging to do so, but it is our third term and strong action is overdue.

The CBI and other employers' organisations, for their part, are obsessed with resisting the further development of a strong framework to guarantee respect for the rights in employment and for working people in the European Union. They, too, are failing in their responsibility to fight the corner for British manufacturing. These failures explain why Britain has low rates of public investment in research and development, and why we should be the ones whose ideological attachment to market forces make our public procurement policies the least helpful to national producers among EU countries.

The Government must act to deliver their Warwick commitments. They must push out the boundaries in promoting manufacturing jobs through public spending. They must drop their insistence of non-intervention where other governments use their powers to the limit to attract and sustain manufacturing in their own countries.

Our textile industries have suffered in an unprecedented way. Interpretation of EU rules on procurement has left workers the poor relations and we have come off far worse than our colleagues in Europe.

We ask you to support the motion. Thank you, President.

The President: The General Council supports the composite.

* Composite Motion 10 was CARRIED.

Education Funding

Steve Wharton (Association of University Teachers) moved Composite Motion 14.

He said: The regrettable decision last year to introduce variable top?up fees from September 2006 will do little or nothing to reverse the decline in higher education funding. It will reduce rather than increase participation in higher education from lower socio?economic groups. By virtue of its contribution to the United Kingdom, higher education, as with further education and compulsory education, should be funded by and from progressive general taxation. That is how you ensure that those who benefit financially put back what is a right and fair proportion of what they have taken out.

When it comes to contributing to HE and FE, and let us just look at the situation of the staff who work in this area, for more than 20 years salaries in higher education have declined by 40% in real terms compared to average earnings, as the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged. Report after report has said that something has to be done to address salaries in the sector, and yet the Government have shirked their responsibilities in this area by pretending that top?up fees will put more money in and solve the funding problems.

Vice Chancellors and principals, those who supposedly lead universities and whose own wages are, strangely enough, determined by remuneration committees with settlements which far outstrip anything they ever give their staff, played the Government's game and said they needed variable top?up fees to address the funding crisis in the sector. They even went so far as to tell Alan Johnson when he was Minister for HE and Life Long Learning that at least one?third of the extra money coming in from variable top?up fees would go towards staff wages. That is what he told Parliament when the Bill was going through its various stages. Yet, this year, when we started negotiating with representatives of vice chancellors and principals, they played fast and loose with us, telling us that they could not guarantee any such thing in 2006 when the top?up fees are introduced. "Oh, no", they said, "the pattern of funding for higher education was not clear." They could not necessarily commit to this. There was the whole question of looking generally at enhancing the student experience.

Congress, I ask you, how are you going to enhance a student's experience when he or she is having to work so hard to pay his or her loans and fees that his or her assessment deadlines slip or he or she is taught by overworked and under?paid staff who are not even going to be given the money the vice chancellors said would be coming into the sector? (Applause)

President, Congress, the purpose of this composite is to take the VCs and principals head on. It is about making them face up to the promises they made to Government in getting them to introduce the iniquitous variable top?up fee regime and the inevitable marketisation of higher education that will follow. We need to make sure that top?up fees are not a disincentive to entering HE. We need to make sure that at least a third of the extra money goes into staff pay packets, as vice chancellors and principals said it would. We need to resist the marketisation of HE that top?up fees will bring with the inevitable impacts on access for those whose inability to pay will conflict with their ability to learn.

As the rest of this composite motion makes clear, our colleagues in the FE sector have similar funding problems without the luxury of the promised top?up income. We should also not forget that 12% of HE is now delivered in an FE context. Despite their best efforts, dedication and commitment, how can those already under?funded colleagues hope to deliver when already demoralised staff are asked to do more with less?

Support this composite. Make vice chancellors and principals face up to their responsibilities, ensure that top?up fees and marketisation do not prevent from attending the very people the Government say they are intended to help and ensure that those who work in post compulsory education, FE or HE, get proper pay and recognition for the hard work they do.

Peter Pendle (Association for College Management) seconded Composite Motion 14.

He said: ACM is pleased to be seconding this composite motion. We will concentrate our comments on the second part of the motion on further and adult education. Two years ago, this Association brought a motion to Congress calling for Level 2 entitlements for adult learners. That motion was carried and we were delighted to see the Government take our collective advice and introduce such an entitlement about a year later.

Adults lacking a Level 2 qualification now have an entitlement to study a Level 2 course free. There are even some modest grants available to the least well?off learners. Furthermore, we are seeing the first shoots of a Level 3 entitlement.

All this represents significant progress in creating better success to learning for many disadvantaged people. However, the resources that have been diverted to support the Level 2 entitlement and other priorities, such as Schools for Life and the National Employer Training pilots, have come at the cost of other areas of adult provision. The situation is further exacerbated by the policy that gives 16 to 19 year?old provision first call on resources, particularly as we are experiencing a 16 to 19 year?old bulge just now.

The Government consider that there are some areas of adult provision in respect of which it is reasonable to reduce the state subsidy and increase the price to individual learners. We agree that relatively affluent learners merit less support from the public purse. We concur that where cash is limited, the available resources should be targeted on creating the right learning opportunities for people with no or few qualifications who have difficulty in accessing the job market.

However, that has not been the impact of the current funding arrangements. Special needs students, people needing basic skills tuition and the first step courses that bring members of our least integrated communities into education are amongst those who have been hit by the cuts in adult provision. Furthermore, people who want to study an element of a Level 2 course as a step towards a full qualification rather than study a full Level 2 course straight off do not fall within the Level 2 entitlements. Whilst there are positive aspects to the current policy, the negative side is that it has caused colleges to cut a great deal of provision which colleges offer those many learners who most need state supported learning opportunities. Colleges have to turn these people away.

We call on the Government to recognise the funding of adult education, to reconsider the funding of adult education, to increase the resource to support not only L2E, National Employer Training pilots and Schools for Life, but also those other aspects of adult provision that are critically important to social inclusion and cultural integration. Please support the composite motion.

Stuart Herdson (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) supported Composite Motion 14.

He said: ATL are happy to support Composite Motion 14. We thoroughly support the first half of the composite on top?up fees by AUT. However, I am not going to concentrate on that. We have actually spoken on that before. Congress and Council know our views. We will speak on the second half of the composite, which is the original motion by ACM.

Congress, 6 to 7 million adults lack skills either to get a job or to get promoted within this country. That is a shame. Yet the LSC, by focusing on courses which are for 14 to 19 year?olds, has told colleges to generate more income from fees. We heard today that there are actually people queuing up who are 19 years old in colleges like Nottingham and the colleges are turning them away in favour of getting 16 to 18 year?olds.

This has three effects on the colleges: (1) the fees increase and that hits those on low pay or pensions the hardest, so they do not participate; (2) the courses are then cut and (3) jobs are then lost. The first to go are the leisure learning courses, the Ti Chi, flower arranging and yoga. However we might decry these and say it is only leisure, sometimes they are the first ones which disappear, but they are a way back into education for some people who are unemployed. More important are the adults' access courses and the basic skills courses. Colleges have used the fees excuse to get a fuller rationalisation of courses and the result is even more job losses. In my own area in Bradford, the college lost over 100 jobs and in Keighley over 50 jobs were lost. Transfer that nationally and you reach the figure of 10,000.

The very people who can deliver the skills are being asked to leave. Is that what Gordon wanted this morning? We are now in the stupid position created by the LSC and the Government between them. If you want skills for the regeneration of depressed areas, Gordon, you need adults to learn new skills; if you want skills for a higher productivity, Gordon, then you need a workforce to be up?skilled and if you want people to work in better conditions, Gordon, then they need to have higher skills.

These are now being denied to them. Now we have the crazy position of the unemployed not going on training courses because they lose money and they prefer to be unemployed rather than to retrain. We ask the General Council to campaign for a properly funded education sector that can deliver high quality adult education which is of benefit, not just to the individual, but to the country as well. Support the composite motion.

David Jones (AMICUS) supported Composite Motion 14.

He said: I am from the Higher Education section. Colleagues, AMICUS represents the technical support staff in the universities. We are the invisible workforce that works behind the scenes to provide the service that your children who attend the universities hopefully enjoy and benefit from. I agree totally with the two previous speakers. Both being lecturers, they put it far better than me because that is their job. We have always worked together, both academic and technical support staff, because, essentially, we both need each other. (Applause)

Certainly within the universities, there is a moral debate about top?up fees and the technical dilemma or the technicians' dilemma is: "If I do not pay the fees for my kids, does that mean I will not get my pay rise?" This is a situation which the Government and the employers like. However, this issue is about government funding. This morning the Government promised higher education for all. To accomplish that effectively, they have to pay university staff properly. Technicians are paid less than their colleagues in the private sector. This parity must be addressed.

At the Government's request, we undertook with the employers a process to streamline our pay scales and go through a job evaluation scheme to justify our places on those pay scales. That was a rigorous and very painful exercise in every way. Now it is pay?back time.

Conference, whether through top?up fees or not, the Government have a moral obligation to pay us a proven fair wage. The Government also has the moral obligation to carry out an equal pay audit between the public and private sectors, which it promised to do two years ago. Mr. Brown, if you want education, education, education, show me the money. Thank you.

The President: Is the AUT happy to waive their right of reply? Thank you very much. I now put Composite Motion 14 to the vote.

* Composite Motion 14 was CARRIED

Education, science and research in Europe

Gargi Bhattacharyya (Association of University Teachers) moved Motion 49 with babe in arms.

She said: As all of my colleagues said in respect of the last composite, education workers have really had enough of hearing about the values of the knowledge economy. I have brought my kid's toy to show how it sounds to us now. (Demonstrates) We have heard that one before! We have been hearing it for eight years. It does not seem to have made much difference to what our working lives are like.

This is a motion about trying to value what higher education brings to all of our lives, not just economically, but in a wider sense than that. We, as a Union, and my members, do not really believe that higher education is just about a European heritage. We do not think that it belongs to us alone. We think it is international, that it is about human values and that everyone should benefit from that kind of higher learning. Yes, we think that knowledge and research are about jobs, but we think it is about so much more than jobs. Of course, research makes a good economy; it makes innovation and we need to build science if we are going to save manufacturing.

However, even more than that, a healthy society needs us to value what human beings can learn, know, remember and keep. That cannot be done on the cheap and it cannot be done according to the market. Come on! Stick with me kid, two more minutes! (Laughter)

Universities, although our employers and the Government do not always acknowledge it, really are part of the public sector. My members think of themselves as part of that kind of public service. We have been facing the same kinds of creeping privatisation which many of our colleagues in public service have been experiencing. Top?up are only one aspect of that debate. So now we have to earn our own money to compete against each other. Do not think you are delivering a service. It is about cash.

Part of that has meant that we are losing jobs in the sector, trying to expand the sector but sacking our members at the same time. Some of you will have heard in the press that there have been all kinds of terrible things happening with the shutting of whole academic departments. That is terrible for this country, but it is terrible for people outside this country as well. If we lose subjects like science here, a whole segment of international learning is gone. If you shut down a chemistry department here, there is going to be a big international project that is lost. East Asian studies were shut down in Durham. As a result, you lose that capacity to learn languages and to learn another culture. One of the London institutions is shutting down all its specialist libraries in Asian languages. I missed Gordon's talk this morning about the Asian challenge because I had my own challenge in the bathroom!

However, we are not going to prepare ourselves if we do not keep those skills and expertise in the education system here. Marketisation is just killing our sector, even though we are supposed to be building more access for different kinds of students.

I want to say a couple of things about why I think learning is a wonderful thing, which is the terrible, cheesy thing that all people who work in education secretly believe. We are hearing again and again in this new Imperialism that workers need to be on side, that our way of life is under attack and that we have to be part of this terrible capitalistic world.

I think that one of the things about education and higher education is that it is a set of values that are beyond any nation. We are a highly international sector. We co?operate across national boundaries, and we think the world is better for that kind of learning. For trade unionists, that is really important. It is not about British values. It is about human values. It is not about multi?culturalism here. It is about internationalism everywhere. That is the kind of thing that educators want to keep and maintain.

The market forces that are coming into our sector are trying to make knowledge into one of the things that will make a fast buck, instead of one of the things that will make us wholly human and free eventually. So save my members' jobs, but also think about what kind of society you want to live in because learning and research are about part of what being free will feel like. Thank you.

The President: Thank you, Gargi, and thank you for bringing the youngest ever person to the TUC rostrum! He or she is more than welcome to our family!

Sue Ferns (PROSPECT) seconded Motion 49.

She said: In seconding Motion 49, I want to focus in particular on the case for sustained investment in research and development, not only in the education system but across the whole of the science base, including the Government's own laboratories and research establishments. These organisations also undertake vital research for the public good and have a key role in training the UK's future scientists.

The motion highlights the financial pressures already being faced by universities, resulting in the closure of departments and courses as well as job cuts. These will be exacerbated as a result of policy decisions currently taking place in another part of Government to amalgamate research council institutes into university departments. This has already happened at the Universities of Greenwich and Warwick where there is a continuing saga of review, reorganisation and job cuts. In Scotland, discussions are underway to bring the Hannah Research Institute into the university fold. This institute specialises in research relating to breast cancer, diabetes and obesity ? work which must not be put in jeopardy.

Government policy is to move to full economic costing for research council funded programmes in universities. PROSPECT supports this move in principle and we think that it should enhance the sustainability of important areas of research. However, we are concerned that rather than strengthening the science base as a whole, this may in fact turn out to be an exercise of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Although at an early stage of implementation, we have already seen significant job cuts at another research institute, the John Inness Centre, justified by the requirement in 2006 to increase its contribution to university research costs.

We are concerned that such short?term financial imperatives are driving out strategic decision?making and putting the UK's core scientific capability at risk. To give you another example, the Institute for Animal Health ? a key player in the fight against the foot and mouth and BSE crises ? is facing a loss of over 70 scientific posts. So, with a horrible sense of déjà vu, we are seeing a weakening of scientific capability just as another potential crisis, Avian flu, looms on the horizon.

It seems that the Government are applying the same "just in time" philosophy to its own science as is applied to stacking supermarket shelves. However, there is no extra supply of scientists waiting in the wings for when the next big problem comes along, because the truth is that R&D cannot be simply turned on and off at will. This leaves us in real doubt as to whether the UK will be able to cope with the next major outbreak of disease.

It is no wonder, then, when PROSPECT and the AUT jointly surveyed our members earlier this year, that more than three?quarters of them were concerned about short?termism, adequate resources to do their job, loss of respect for their work and failure to renew the skills base. None of these are new problems, but they are becoming increasingly urgent. Please support the motion.

The President: Thank you. I have had no indication of other speakers for the debate, which is probably good, because I suspect Gargi's baby has waived her right of reply anyway in that compelling way they tend to do! No doubt, the AUT is quite happy with that, though. I will put Motion 49 to the vote. The General Council support the motion.

* Motion 49 was CARRIED

Public services

Jane Coralan (UNISON) moved Motion 32, Public services.

She said: Congress, I am proud to be moving this motion today because I am proud to talk about efficient public services. I think this motion reflects our values and it is our sense of who we are.

We have heard this week about the need to change the record or to change the DJ. I am not sure that anybody outside this hall will understand that. However, if we talk about our values, our values of collective provision and fairness, people will understand. We need to counterpose that against the buzz words of "consumerism" and "choice".

Congress, I am tired of being told that because I can phone my bank on a 24?hour basis that public services need to change. Change to what? To a lean, mean profit?making machine based in an off?shore call centre? I do not think the NHS can run like that.

However, if you are listening, there is constant talk about public services. My members and my friends talk about public services all the time. They might not talk about them in political terms, but they talk about the schools our children attend and they talk about the last visit to the hospital or their GP. What they are talking about is not choice. They want a local hospital appointment when they need it and they want a local school that is theirs, not owned by a multi?national finance company. Instead, the Government provide a rhetoric of league tables and failure. Whose children are condemned by that? I do not really think there have been many failing schools in Hampstead or Hill Head. Failing schools are condemned, not through education, but because they deal with poverty and deprivation.

However, the next education big initiative, of course, has been city academies. For a down payment of £2 million from a private sponsor, the state will spends £25 million on state of the art facilities. For £2 million, the sponsor takes complete control and ownership; total control over what our children are educated in, even if that is the ideology of creationism.

Next time somebody talks to you about efficiency savings in the public sector, there is a question you might want to ask them: "Where is the efficiency in handing £25 million over to the private sector?" The jewel in the crown of our public services is supposedly the NHS. Labour came to power pledged to end the internal market and restore the NHS as a public service working collectively for patients. Those were their words.

Since 2002, the reforms amount to the creation of a competitive commercial market. Hospitals operate on a commercial basis. They compete against one another. Services that run at a loss are closed. The diversity agenda sees services provided for profits, not for patients. To attract new providers, the Government have provided a total range of subsidies. Collective planning is replaced by commercially?driven services. Services will be more unequal, less publicly accountable and of poorer quality. Who suffers? Us,the patients! Congress, those who reject our values are those for whom profits for multi?nationals rank above our people. That is why the Services Directive referred to in the motion is so important.

Congress, we have just seen an absolutely horrendous example of the neglect of public services. It was lack of investment in the public drainage system that caused New Orleans to flood. Louisiana lost out on that lack of investment, and who suffered? Those who public education had failed ? 60% had no qualifications; those whom the public health system had failed ? 75% had no cover ? and those whom public transport failed ? 60,000 had no means of personal transport, but relied on the buses sitting sodden now in New Orleans.

Our sympathy, as a Movement, goes out to all of those who were involved in the floods. However, the reality is the black working class in New Orleans had been left behind long before the hurricane hit. The floods simply revealed that to the world.

Gordon Brown today called for greater equality. As a Movement, I think we need to stand up for what we believe in. That is collective provision and fairness. It is the only way to tackle inequality. That is the way we will see a fairer society. Public services are not, and have never been, an end in themselves, but they are a means to an end. That is the argument we can never forget. Please support this motion.

Sue Rogers (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) seconded Motion 32.

She said: We all know what public services are. Do we really know, though, what a public service ethos is? Can it be identified? Does it exist? Can you touch it? Can you feel it? Can you smell it? I believe so. I have been a teacher for 30 years and I still am. I have certain basic beliefs that brought me to this job. I believe in education for all. I do indeed love learning, Gargi, for its own sake. I have a joy of working with young people and I believe in public service for the public good. It is that sense of service that keeps thousands of teachers in the job day in and day out.

We saw this kind of sense of service when the emergency services faced the crisis in the London bombings where, in spite of their exhaustion and shock, they kept going. It is an attitude which Gordon used the words for, solidarity, not selfishness. That is what it means.

In the public sector, we have always had a relationship with the private sector. We bought books and equipment. There were no problems with that. However, what we are facing now is private takeover, private control and private profit in our public service. We started in the 1980s when we saw, in fact, the privatisation of the schools' meals service. In Birmingham, for example, when the schools meals service was privatised, 3,000 people lost their jobs. The whole situation evolved that there was a depressing of working conditions. Children were served burgers and chips. We are now reaping the rewards of that with obesity and ill?health.

The competition for contracts simply becomes who can screw down pay and conditions? Who can worsen conditions to maximise profits? The idea has grown up, has it not, that somehow public is bad and private is good. It is just not true. So far, approximately 18% of £60 billion which is spent on public services has been privatised. There is a total emphasis on saving money, not standards of service.

Labour research has shown that 66% believe that privatisation has not delivered the promised benefits. Twenty per cent has failed in two years; 50% has failed over five years. There is much focus on the attitude of the individual services. However, what about those private companies who have taken over whole education authorities? It almost makes the horror of city academies look mild. Leeds, Bradford, Walsall and some of the London boroughs have been taken over wholesale. This is absolute destruction of our public services. It is a destruction as well of democratic accountability that is at the base of our public services.

Remember, colleagues, we are paying for these services. It is our expense. However, there are no elected capitalists on local authorities. In Leeds, we have seen school closures despite the views of parents and of staff. The focus totally is finance. The public service ethos demands good governors and management accountability inside a democratic process. We should not have to go into the board room but into the Town Hall. That is where our public services are answerable. Indeed, I will quote Gordon again, public service is a calling, not just a career. If that is what you believe, Gordon, then make sure we do not see the privatisation of our public services and the total loss of democratic accountability.

Tony Donoghey (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) supported Motion 32.

He said: I wish to highlight what is happening to Caledonian MacBrayne, a publicly?owned company providing vital services to the western islands in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is insisting that these services go out to tender under the EU Directive. The Scottish Parliament has opposed such privatisation. The STUC is also opposed to the tendering. The people of the Western Isles, of course, are opposed. The RMT and other seafaring unions have been campaigning against this dictat of the European Union.

It is not only us, of course. A recent report from the Economics Department of Glasgow University states categorically that this sell?off would be far more costly than the existing method of ownership. The services would be broken up. Even if TUPE were to apply, pensions would not be guaranteed and safety regulations would be split. For these reasons, comrades, we would ask for your support in our campaign. Thank you very much.

Gary Doolan (GMB ? Britain's general union) supported Motion 32.

He said: "Transformation", "contestability" and "choice". These are the new public service buzz words. You know a government is losing the plot when they keep changing the language. What is desperately needed is a change of policy.

What were the areas of greatest negative publicity for the Government during the election campaign, apart from, of course, Iraq? Dirty hospitals and junk school dinners. What do those service areas all have in common? They have been sucked dry by generation after generation of low?price, low?quality and low?life private contractors. They employ mainly part?time women who bear the brunt of this downward spiral; women who every time the contractor changes find their livelihoods on the line once again. Having screwed our members' wages and conditions to the floor, the margins have got so tight that contractors like Scolarest are complaining that there is just not enough money to be made. Sad, isn't it?

No wonder PFI is so popular! There are plenty of opportunities for making money ? pots of money, especially if you charge premium prices for building something and then once it is up you go off and refinance the deal. Consider the shareholders who invested in Octagon, the special purpose vehicle, or should it be special profits vehicle, which won the Norfolk and Norwich PFI hospital. They went into the deal expecting a rate of return on their investment of 19%, which beats sticking your spare money in a Post Office savings account, I suppose. However, after five years, refinancing has seen them right. Now the rate of return is up to a whopping 60%.

Congress, it would be one thing if these companies were delivering world?class services, but they are not. Instead, we are getting poor design, sick buildings, reduced capacity and increased charging. The public is being ripped off and so is the workforce. Congress, we need to raise public awareness. We need to name and shame. We need to redouble the efforts and expose the fundamental failures of this Government's privatisation policies before it is too late and there is nothing left.

Finally, Gordon Brown stated this morning: "Let's not settle for second best". The time has come to end the privatisation gravy train for private contractors and bring all the contracts back to public ownership. Please support the motion.

Gerald Imison (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) supported Motion 32.

He said: I am the Deputy General Secretary of ATL, the education union. That is why my comment is about education, although I suspect it could be equally about health or any of the other public services.

ATL fully supports this resolution. I do not want to reiterate the many points that have been validly made and genuinely accepted by you already. I am fully aware that there has been privatisation by stealth and the creeping privatisation of many of our public services, over many years. What concerns us, however, is the future because the key may not be at local level. It may not be the Leeds, the Bradfords, the school cleaners or the school dinner services. The Government is moving us on to an international level. That is why the TUC must work with its European partners through the ETUC, as asked for in this motion, because we now face privatisation on a much greater scale and at a higher level than we have before.

Education is a defined service and a service that will be put out for competition. It is now part of the globalisation process and provision of education will go where the private money is. Sadly, in education, in many cases, that means America. We will be talking about the privatisation of education services which are attractive to a number of companies. Many American educational companies are already casting avaricious eyes on the English education service. Such a scenario as this has to be opposed and the TUC has to be the body that leads and co?ordinates that opposition.

We cannot have a public education service run primarily to provide dividends for shareholders. We have to keep public services publicly run and publicly accountable. If you think that American companies do not want our services, you are wrong. If you think that they will provide a better education service than we can provide through our own Government, I ask you to contemplate this: it was the American education service that gave the world George Bush!

Helen McFarlane (AMICUS) supported Motion 32.

She said: I am a health service worker from AMICUS, often known as the private sector union.

Tony, Tony, Tony, what are you doing spending a fortune making a mess in Iraq? Come home and concentrate on getting your priorities right here. (Applause) Tony, or whoever replaces you, we are the trade union and labour Movement. We are your specialist advisers. We are your think?tank. We are your support, financial and physical. I will keep it simple for them. There are two things we need you to do. Priority number 1, get a manufacturing strategy in place. We need to make things to make money. Priority number 2, spend the money on good, effective world?class public services. Stop courting big business. Stop privatisation. AMICUS urges support. Thank you.

* Motion 32 was CARRIED

Civil Service job cuts

The President: I now call Motion 33. The General Council is supporting this motion.

Mark Serwotka (Public and Commercial Services Union) moved Motion 33.

He said: President, Congress, I ask for your unanimous support for Motion 33. This time last year, I stood here and asked for your support in response to the Government's devastating attacks on Civil Service jobs. 104,500 job losses were announced by Gordon Brown live on television. That is the reality of the Chancellor's so?called efficiency reforms in the public sector that he recommitted himself to this morning.

In this address, I want to tell you what the real effects of those so?called efficiency reforms are on the public services of this country. However, today I want to start by thanking you, Congress, the unions in this hall and the members you represent for the magnificent solidarity and support that we received when 200,000 PCS members took strike action last year in the first National Civil Service strike for a generation. The November 5th strike taken by PCS members was a vibrant campaigning day showing that trade union members are prepared to stand up and fight when faced with job loss and redundancy.

As a result of that strike, the Government made some serious concessions; backtracking on their plans to stop sick pay for civil servants for the first three days of sick absence and conceding national level measures designed to avoid compulsory redundancies. Today, Congress, we have been successful in avoiding compulsory redundancies, but that is only one part of the story because now we are moving into a new situation. The reality of the job losses that have taken place through natural wastage and voluntary severance exercises are beginning to bite for the people of this country.

Gordon Brown said this morning that reforms mean world?class public services. Congress, the reality behind the rhetoric could not be more different. Let me give you an example of some of the cuts that are taking place as we sit in this hall. We are seeing pension centres and benefit offices closing throughout the country. Pension centres in York and Liverpool have already closed. Norwich is now earmarked for closure. Forty?one Job Centre Plus offices in the Greater Glasgow area alone are now earmarked for closure. Thirty thousand jobs are being cut in the Department of Work and Pensions. The cuts that have already taken place mean that over 50% of telephone calls from the public designed to make claims for benefits in this country are going unanswered because of chronic staff shortages. These are telephone calls from people, not ordering catalogue goods or booking a holiday, but people who want to register claims for benefits which can mean for some people the difference between life and death.

This is the reality of Gordon Brown's efficiency programme. It now takes a week longer to make a benefit claim in this country than it did before the efficiency programme started. Staff are suffering massively from increasing workloads and stress. The violence which results in Job Centres is now reaching staggering proportions. There was a 62% rise in violent attacks on PCS members in the last two years as jobs are being cut and offices are being closed. These are not violent incidents where people are being sworn or spat at, but we have members attacked with axes, hammers and having had petrol poured over them. These people have been violently abused and attacked because the public are frustrated that they cannot access the benefit system.

However, it is not just about benefits. In Blackburn and other locations, ACAS are closing offices. Our members are being balloted on industrial action because, of all people, ACAS management are consulting staff about changes being imposed upon them by this Government. In the Ministry of Defence, we see 10,000 jobs disappearing as a result of a massive privatisation programme being carried out by this Government. In one establishment alone in Crombie, in Scotland, 131 out of 157 jobs are to be axed. In the Office for National Statistics, as a result of Gordon Brown's efficiency drive, we are seeing the privatising and off?shoring to the subcontinent work associated with the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

In the Export Credits Guarantee Department, PCS members in Cardiff recently took unofficial strike action because the Government, who supposedly want to relocate 20,000 jobs from London to impoverished parts of the UK, are closing an office in Cardiff and, wait for this, relocating it to the Docklands in London! One third of jobs are being cut in the Department for Education and Skills. That is why in the Guardian today you read about real problems with the Government's Sure Start programme. Later in the week we will see a devastating announcement from the Learning and Skills Council regarding redundancies from a Government that is supposedly committed to the education and skills agenda.

However, at the same time as we see these cut backs in front line services, the Government, which we were told this morning want value for money, sit back whilst the taxpayer funds £1 billion a year in consultancy fees in the public sector alone. We have consultants being brought in to tell Job Centre managers that they should put potted plants in offices in order to boost staff morale. We have consultants in the MoD who have been brought in to write reports on what other consultants have done. At the same time, in one department, staff are compelled to go to a training course under threat of disciplinary action. When they attend, the course involves throwing toy fish around, flapping paper fish on the floor and dancing and singing to one another!

Conference, I think it is fair to say that it is no exaggeration to describe this as absolute madness. It is not efficient to pay consultants £700 a day when we should be paying public sector workers to deliver front line services. If all of that is not bad enough, let me tell you this in conclusion. Earlier this week we saw a letter leaked from a senior civil servant to Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Work. Ian, if you are still here, it is not about unions attacking ministers; it is unions standing up for public servants and for the members of the public of this country. (Applause) That letter to Margaret Hodge advocates a feasibility study to seek to outsource massive functions from the Department of Work and Pensions in Job Centre Plus.

Let me remind you, Congress, in 2005 there was a General Election. One Party had a manifesto commitment to privatising Job Centre Plus. It was the Conservative Party. Now we see leaked letters telling us that New Labour is considering dismantling the Welfare State with potentially the biggest privatisation of public services that we have yet seen.

Congress, we ask you to carry this motion. We ask you to support us in the campaigns ahead. We ask you to support our 11,000 members in London DWP balloting for strike action now because chronic staff shortages mean they cannot do their jobs. We ask you to support our members in the Driving Standards Agency who have already voted for strike action because of cuts in their jobs. We ask you to support our members in the Ministry of Defence balloting for action against privatisation and to support us when we consult our reps next month on further action if the Government does not roll back the clock.

This is the reality of efficiency 2005 New Labour style. We thank you for your support. We ask you to stand with us. The people of this country and our low?paid members deserve a government truly committed to public services, not one to private profits. I move. (Cheers amidst applause)

Alan Grey (Prospect) seconding Motion 33 said: Congress, when the Chancellor announced the 100,000 job cuts in the Civil Service 11,000 of these were to come from the MoD. Defence ministers assured us that these were not new cuts but were simply some of the estimated cuts expected from ongoing efficiency initiatives in which the trade unions were involved, and would be a combination of actual cuts and outsourcing depending on the outcome of those initiatives. It will be shocking to see the overall impact on jobs so starkly displayed. We were further assured that these cuts were part of a £2.8bn efficiency savings target and that if the trade unions could find alternative savings measures we could offset some of these job losses.

These assurances, Congress, proved to be as empty for civil servants as was Gordon Brown's speech this morning. I have to say, Congress, that as a civil servant I was incensed that he publicly thanked a long list of public servants yet made no mention whatsoever of civil servants, the government's own employees. Could I stress that the public servants he listed deserve that public gratitude and I want to echo and endorse wholeheartedly his comments but without the blatant hypocrisy that underpinned his contribution. Civil servants also deserve public recognition for providing an excellent service and work that can often be in difficult circumstances, and the Chancellor not to provide that recognition was a slap in the face for every serving civil servant.

Congress, those 11,000 job cuts, which were only estimates of what may be achieved across a ten-year efficiency programme, became a straightforward headcount reduction target to be made not in ten years but by 2008: people not posts, no matter what level of efficiency savings was achieved. It is an absolutely nonsensical approach that has meant the initiatives on which these estimates were actually based are now secondary to the achievement of arbitrarily imposed staff cuts. It is an approach that means some key areas of the department, up to 25% of filled posts, will be cut. Staff will either lose their jobs or be relocated to another part of the department, or even to another government department, providing there are vacancies.

That is the crux for the members we represent, finding suitably funded vacancies for those who want to stay in the department and having a properly funded early release scheme for those who want to leave. The department says it can meet those targets through limiting recruitment and promotion, through natural wastage and voluntary redundancy, and through cooperating with other government departments on a surplus management scheme.

Prospect is concerned that natural wastage will be reduced to a trickle because people will not resign when there is a chance they can leave with a cheque in their back pocket. Those who were planning on taking retirement will take advantage, probably through necessity, next year when the age discrimination laws are introduced, and limiting recruitment will have minimal impact when there is limited natural wastage. Close departmental cooperation when most departments are cutting back is also a pipedream.

A bigger concern for Prospect, Congress, is that the reduction in jobs is so great that the remaining staff will be over-stretched; they will not be able to deliver the required service, will be classed as inefficient, and subjected to further privatisation. Even more worrying is that outsourcing of staff scores against the headcount reduction. Lay managers are looking to outsource where they believe the work is needed to be done, but they have to get rid of those people. Gordon Brown spoke about efficiency and value for money. It would be inefficient and expensive to transfer this work to the private sector along with the staff that needs it.

Congress, in seconding Motion 33 I have tried to show the impact of these cuts in just one government department. Prospect truly recognises the damage being done across the whole of government and pledges to continue to work closely with PCS and the FDA in opposing these cuts, and outsourcing, offshoring, and other initiatives being used to achieve them. We ask for your support in the campaign.

* Motion 33, with amendment, was CARRIED

Public Services

The President: I now call paragraph 4.6 and Motion 36, the Post Office. The General Council supports the motion.

Billy Hayes (General Secretary, Communication Workers Union) moved Motion 36. He said: I like everybody else listened to what Gordon Brown said today and listened to what Ian McCartney said today in terms of the Warwick Agreement. I was at Warwick, together with Dave Ward, our Deputy General Secretary, and people from our union. I remember the words that we agreed at Warwick. On the Post Office, we said our ambition is to see a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health, providing customers with an excellent service, and its employees with rewarding employment, and that we have no plans to privatise the Post Office. That is pretty clear, all the commas are there, and all the full stops are there in terms of what it means. That was a positive commitment to distinguish the Labour Party from every other party that had contested the election.

Barely had the vote been counted when the Chairman of Royal Mail, Allan Leighton, in the Sunday Times, started to indicate that there was a possibility of a share sale and Royal Mail being privatised. It would only be a 20% share sale. It would only be to the workers. As I said, I was at Warwick but I will tell you who was not at Warwick, Alice in Wonderland. You will remember the words from Alice in Wonderland, 'Words mean exactly what I say they mean.' No, they do not. When it is stated there are no plans to privatise Royal Mail, that is what it means. It does not mean that there is some area where maybe we can just talk about 20%.

Prior to the election and talk of privatisation of Royal Mail, the Liberals - remember them - dillied and dallied about the whole question of privatisation. Now we find the election is out of the way and the Liberals are saying they want to look at privatisation, a John Lewis style privatisation with some shares opened up to the workforce and other shares opened up to the wider public. That, in my book, is privatisation, absolutely no equivocation about that from the CWU.

We heard a lot of talk about internationalism today, and about standards. I will tell you a little bit of what is taking place in the UK with our letter monopoly, which has existed for 350 years from when Charles II first introduced the post. On 1st January 2006 we are going to lose our letter monopoly in the UK in advance of every other single country. We will face the farcical situation in Europe whereby Royal Mail's ability to deliver will also be alongside Deutche Post delivering your mail, and La Poste could also deliver your mail; but it does not work the other way. Royal Mail, as a result of the EU directive, will be prevented from delivering mail in France, in Germany, and any other part of the European Union. We, the British, will be allowing our mail to be opened up to competition in advance of the European Union directive which is currently scheduled for 2009, with review periods.

Does that sound like common sense? Does that sound like protecting the universal service? Not only that, Royal Mail will be the only company that is subject to strictures in terms of quality and in terms of price. Every other company can put up their price, and every other company does not have to worry about equality criteria and the like. All those restrictions are put on a publicly owned company and we are told that that is how competition works.

When I went to school we had fields and some fields were like THAT and you could not play a decent game of football on them. We feel as if we are playing on this so-called playing field at a sharp angle and that is why we are having problems in terms of our industry. We are absolutely clear as to the commitment we had at Warwick. We are absolutely clear what is happening to our postal industry. The Labour Government talked about delivering and that we as trade unions delivered that victory, but for the CWU members that is quite literally true. It was postwomen and postmen who delivered those election leaflets that said, 'We have no plans to privatise Royal Mail.' We intend to ensure that that promise is carried through. When we talk about public services we all know that it is us who have the greatest interest, those people whose lives and reputation is based on that service.

What are some of the solutions that we are suggesting as the CWU? First of all, we need to start investing in the postal industry in this country in the same way that the Dutch post office invests in its postal services, the same way that the German post office invests in its postal service, and the same way the French post office invests in its postal service. If there is one issue that is the theme of this Congress, it is the need to start investing in our country, investing in our public services, and that is just as true for your postal service.

I would ask you to do one thing and then I will sum up on this, Jeannie. Every single one of you in this hall has a postwoman or a postman that delivers to your front door and delivers to your offices. I would like you, when you go back from this Congress, to say to your postwoman or your postman, 'We are 100% behind you, we are not going to stand for this nonsense about a parcel share sale. We went out on the knock for the Labour Government at the election, we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with you and, by the way, you're going to get a Christmas tip.' Thank you.


A delegate (Amicus) seconding Motion 36 said: You have to follow Billy on these questions. Let me start by saying, first of all, what is our interest in this apart from the general one. Amicus, billed very often as the private sector union, does have 12,000 Post Office managers. We used to have 15,000 Post Office managers but the last reorganisation saw 3,000 of them disappear. Privatisation, in our view, would see not just our managers but, as Billy says, many jobs at risk. Often you hear Amicus talking about the manufacturing industry, the offshoring in our finance and insurance sectors, and jobs going abroad, but the reverse of that is low-paid workers being brought in to do jobs that cannot be moved. You cannot deliver a letter to a UK address in China, you have to do it here. Private industry of course thrives on competition, ever seeking cheaper workers, and Gate Gourmet is an example but we do not want that happening to the Post Office. Therefore, it is very important that we stop this before it starts and ask the government to make sure it honours its commitment. What we want is a trumpet for a first-class postal service, not another last post for UK jobs.

* Motion 36 was CARRIED

The National Health Service

The President: I now call paragraph 4.7 and Composite Motion 12, the National Health Service. The General Council supports the motion.

Hazel Harriet-Jones (Society of Radiographers) moved Composite Motion 12. She said: Radiographers recognise the fact that the NHS needs to be more efficient. We also recognise that patients should not have long waiting times for scans for the diagnosis of life-threatening conditions but to bring this important aspect of healthcare into effect, we need more highly skilled and committed staff. As the workloads increase without a corresponding increase in the number of radiographers, stress levels and sickness rates impact upon patient care.

The answer, we are told, is to invest in private health, not in the NHS. What we are seeing now is investment at the expense of the NHS, not in support of it. Congress, we were told by this government that the private sector would only be used to increase capacity for our NHS. We were told the introduction of independent privately funded treatment would be used to free up the front-line staff of the NHS to diagnose and treat patients, and meet the targets that this government has imposed. We are not opposed to private healthcare. We recognise that choice for patients is important. However, we are opposed to private companies operating from hospital car parks at the same time that NHS equipment is lying under-used or redundant. The policy of integrating healthcare with private providers was done without consultation of people that know the service. There was no consultation with our members, the very healthcare professionals who undertake these scans. So, what we now have is the worst of both worlds, NHS expertise utilised by private healthcare to make profits. NHS trusts even pick up the electricity bill for this service.

We, at the Society of Radiographers, have recently surveyed our members and they are telling us private sector scanners will only take fit routine patients; others are kept waiting longer. Our waiting times for routine scans have fallen. However, there is little impact on urgent or supervised scans. This policy breaks the healthcare pathway by importing private health employees who rely on the NHS to complete the service they started and to pick up the ongoing care of these patients. There is no direct access to the reporter for the referrer. This can result in repeat scans or reports being undertaken. To maintain a good and effective health service we need more NHS facilities, not more private practice. Mechanisms are also needed to address the increasing levels of sickness and absenteeism because of the uncertainty, poor conditions, and unreasonable targets for service delivery.

This government speaks of choice. It is our choice that the NHS is the means by which we deliver healthcare. This motion is not just about funding, it is not just about conditions of service, it is about the future of our NHS.

Ann Duffy (Director, Community and District Nursing Association) seconding Composite Motion 12 said: NHS funding is an issue affecting all areas in delivering healthcare, not only in the acute sector but also in primary healthcare. As the demands on the NHS services continually increase, it becomes much more apparent that often the NHS service loses out to private delivered service in private settings, using private hospital equipment, leaving very expensive NHS equipment standing idle. It is the government's responsibility to ensure hi-tech, high-expense equipment, purchased with NHS funding, is used to its full capacity at all times on our NHS patients.

Also of great concern is the recruitment and retention problems now facing the NHS as the stresses grow affecting more and more staff daily. The shortage of qualified professionals is having such a huge effect on staff morale resulting in increased absenteeism and more and more professionals leaving the NHS earlier than they had originally hoped for, cutting short professional careers, many people leaving on ill health grounds, which is a very sad reflection on the environment that we now work and live in. The loss of this valuable resource must be addressed today by government as high demands are placed on the remaining staff that are essential to keep the health service going.

NHS staff need to be treasured and careful planning must go into seeing to their work-life balance. Top priority should be given first and foremost to the staff safety while in the workplace. More and more staff now come to work where during the course of the day they can be physically abused or even attacked while carrying out essential patient care. How many other large organisations outside the NHS would treat employees' safety with such little regard? Staff visiting in the community often work alone in all areas of this country, from large high-rise flats in the inner city to remote country areas. No one knows what awaits staff when they enter patients' homes. This group of staff is very vulnerable, especially when delivering an evening or a night-time service. A high proportion of this staff group are not even provided with mobile phones as a measure of being able to stay in contact with their base if there is a need to raise an alarm. We have community staff walking our streets, including night-time, community staff driving through remote country areas, and yet there are no national guidelines for their protection.

We should look after our staff, protect our staff, before we lose any more, Congress. Thank you.

Lesley Mercer (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) supporting Composite Motion 12 said: Imagine, Congress, a situation where you have a shortage of skilled workers in a particular sector, any one of your sectors, and in response extra training places are created. Three years later the new graduates, the extra graduates, emerge and significant numbers of them cannot find a job. If that sounds kind of nonsense to you, it is exactly what is happening in the NHS right now. It has been happening to our members, physiotherapists, since last year. Now junior doctors are in the same position and there are emerging signs that nurses and other groups of health professions are starting to have it happening to them too.

The vacancies for experienced staff are still there in the NHS, still desperately needed, but there are not enough jobs at the junior level for new graduates to get the experience then to go on and fill the vacancies higher up. It is down to a failure of workforce planning in the NHS compounded by very real financial pressures now being felt by many NHS trusts.

Congress, it is such a waste. It is a waste for our members who want to work for the NHS but will walk away if they cannot find work. It is a waste for patients too. The NHS needs its skilled workers if it wants to seriously cut waiting times, speedy rehabilitation for workers who are injured, and prevent hospital admissions in the first place.

Congress, I am not pretending there is no recognition in government that this is a problem and certainly CSP as an organisation is working with the Department of Health on possible resolutions, practical solutions to this problem, but as anybody will know there are so many competing priorities in the NHS right now. Our fear is that this priority, this particular priority, will just slip down the list if we do not use every opportunity to keep it in the limelight. What better opportunity is there than a gathering of nearly 70 different unions, big and small, every one in this hall united in wanting to see the very best NHS we can get. Congress, please support the motion.

Sheila McKane (GMB) supporting Composite Motion 12 said: GMB members are proud that Labour is investing more money in the NHS than ever before. By the year 2008 total healthcare spending will be 9.4% of the national income, which is well above the current EU average of 8%. Massive sums are needed to rectify the years of Tory neglect and to raise the NH standards to European standards, but if British people are to get the same high-quality of care as their EU counterparts then the NHS needs high-level investment sustainable over long-term. Short-term funding, even at record levels, simply does not deliver the services people expect. Congress, let me tell you why more investment is required.

Last year witnessed the landmark NHS Agenda for Change agreement. This delivered a new pay system to support the NHS modernisation. It is designed to meet equal pay for work of equal value criteria and to provide both career and pay progression. It is early days but the GMB will strive endlessly to ensure the agreement meets our members' aspirations. While the agenda for change marks significant development, it does not apply to all workers; it only applies to directly employed NHS staff, not to the private contractors working alongside them, the poorest paid of them all. Those workers suffered under privatisation when staffing levels were slashed and workloads increased, and are now being denied a chance to share in the benefits of Agenda for Change

Congress, it is perverse. How can we expect top quality services when we deny so much to so many? Where is the quality and fairness in that? The GMB has been in discussions to get the Agenda for Change terms extended to all workers; that is what our members want and so do the contractors. Who will pay for it? At last the Department of Health has accepted the principle of funding Agenda for Change. We are still in discussions but it is a major breakthrough and it demonstrates the need for sustainable long-term funding. Please support the composite.

Christine Wilde (UNISON) speaking in support of Composite 12 said: this composite highlights two opposing faces of the NHS; on the one hand the havoc being wreaked by the government's privatisation policies and on the other hand the unstinting dedication and service of NHS staff, such as community midwives, community services, and district nurses. There are few better examples of what privatisation is doing to our NHS than the government's independent sector treatment centre programme. When the programme was first introduced we were told that they were about bringing in overseas staff in order to overcome staffing shortages in the NHS and to bring down waiting lists. The reality has proved very different.

First, it transpired that rather than adding to the total number of operations in the NHS, many independent sector centres would simply take over work that would otherwise have been done by existing NHS hospitals. Then we discovered that as well as this a significant proportion of independent sector centre staff would be transferred across from the NHS. Now with the recently announced second wave of independent treatment centres we are seeing the relaxation of the previous restrictions preventing the centres from poaching NHS staff, not to mention the transfer of several NHS provided treatment centres to the private sector.

The result of all this is services threatened and wards and equipment lying idle as activity is moved across to private independent centres, a lack of training opportunities for junior doctors as NHS hospitals are left with only the difficult and complex cases, and massive wastage and little demonstrable impact on waiting times. This is a shameful example of the private sector siphoning off relatively simple treatments that attract little input but large megabucks.

Contrast this to the situation of community midwives, community services, and district nurses. Successive patient studies have shown that the work they do is absolutely vital, helping patients avoid hospital admission, supporting rehabilitation, and providing advice and relief to relatives, yet they often find themselves the subject of abusive and even violent behaviour by drug abusers who believe that they are soft targets carrying drugs, or by the perpetrators of domestic violence, and the fact that they often work alone and inflexible hours makes them even more vulnerable.

Given this background, it is an absolute scandal that many employers refuse to provide them with mobile phones; they are too expensive. The government can find billions of pounds to throw at private healthcare companies so surely they can find the modest amounts of money needed to supply the mobile phones. What price can be set on safety and protection for NHS workers whose role takes them out into the community and into the homes of the general public? The government should move immediately in order to ensure the financial resources are made available to implement safety systems of working for this vulnerable group of staff.

Congress, I urge you to support the motion. Thank you.

* Composite Motion 12 was CARRIED.

Patient-led NHS

The President: I now call Emergency Motion 3, Patient-led NHS. The General Council support the motion.

Dave Godson (UNISON) moved Emergency Motion 3. He said: A major set of reforms with profound and far-reaching implications for both patients and staff, all these were quietly and almost secretly announced on 28th July by Sir Nigel Crisp in a communication called, Commissioning Patient-Led NHS. The Department of Health's press office did their best to divert attention away by focusing on the proposal to undertake a mental health nursing review also announced on the same day.

Congress, let me try and describe these arbitrary reforms which have been directed to the service without any consultation with patients, the public, or the staff via their trade unions. I may also add that this approach to yet more change is a serious blow to the partnership the health service partners have worked so hard to try and progress. What are these reforms?

First, strategic health authorities are required to conduct a structural review of primary care trusts and strategic health authority functions in their area. The timescale for the review is that the proposed submissions are due in by 15th October and they are to be concluded by the end of November, a frighteningly unrealistic timetable for such wide-ranging and profound changes to the structure of primary care services where 75% of the NHS budget resides and where the vast majority of care takes place. Where is the consultation with the service users? Where is the consultation with the staff and their trade unions? Bluntly, there is not any, yet we are told this is all about choice: choice for whom?

The only good thing about these reforms is that primary care trusts are to be reconfigured to bring them in line with local government boundaries. Strategic health authorities will also be expected to align with government office boundaries, something that is long overdue; that is the only good thing. The consequence of that, however, is that those cuts in service will mean strategic health authorities will reduce from 28 down to nine and that PCTs are likely to see a 50% reduction from 303 down to 150.

However, it is not the structure that is the main link to the reforms, the main area and our concern is around the new role and function of primary care trusts. PCTs are to become commissioning-led organisations with their role of provider of services reduced; in fact, they can only provide services where it is not possible to have a separate provider. Arrangements are to be made to secure services from a range of providers in order to introduce deliberate competition between the community-based service providers. PCTs will also have to make 15% reduction in management administration costs and strategic health authorities will also have to make significant reductions in management administration costs as well.

The PCTs will also be charged with ensuring the full implementation of GP practice-based commissioning by the end of 2006. This means that all GP practices will take on responsibility for commissioning services and will manage the commissioning budget covering acute services, community services, and emergency care. Remember GP fund-holding? It sounds very familiar, does it not? What did that do for care provision?

What are the consequences? Congress, this is not about reform of the NHS, it is the end of the NHS as we know it. These changes will mean massive instability for the provision of primary and community care, existing services will be broken up and outsourced, and it is likely that many staff will be transferred to the private sector. This will result in a worst deal for the NHS patients and staff as services are fragmented and new providers seek to achieve staff efficiency savings. If we look at the cleaning contracts in hospitals, if they are anything to go by then we will see cut-backs in clinical staff, such as community nurses, with worse pay and terms and conditions.

The changes will also have serious implications for the way that the NHS services are commissioned. Primary care trusts currently play a vital role in service commissioning ensuring that a planned holistic approach is taken, and hold acute sector providers to account. If practice-based commissioning is introduced, their ability to do this will be fatally weakened as most of the commissioning power will be passed down to the practice level. Primary care trusts currently do a vital job in planning the provision of services in order to meet the health needs of their local communities and they do this through established committees with the community health professionals, such as doctors and nurses, and patients groups.

It is very worrying that it remains unclear what arrangements will be put in place to ensure proper patient and public involvement and what will happen to the established patient and public forums. It is alarmingly ironic, Congress, that given the title of reform, Commissioning a Patient-Led NHS, there has been no consultation with patients. Practice-based commissioning will also give rise to ethical dilemmas and conflicts between clinicians, obligations to a patient's health needs, and the pressure to remain within commissioning budgets. Removing service provision from the PCT and introducing competition between new providers will lead to major disruption and instability for services.

Congress, I have a lot more to say but I will close and say that we need to support this motion, we need to stop the marketisation of the NHS, and hopefully Gail will fill in as I have run out of time. Thank you, Congress.

Gail Cartmail (Amicus) seconding Emergency Motion 3 said: I want to highlight three concerns, to reiterate the point made by Dave on consultation, or rather the lack of it, to explain an example of privatisation in this context, and to share with you the cuts already made in primary care services as a result of the shambles around budgets.

First of all, on consultation, delegates, there was no excuse not to consult the workforce on these changes. Days before the document was published there was a social partnership forum where all the relevant stakeholders were present and not a word was mentioned. It strikes me that partnership is part-time when it comes to the Department of Health sharing with us this type of initiative that has such an impact on the services provided by the members we represent.

On privatisation the motion covers restructuring, it covers splitting commissioning from providing, yet there is no guidance in the documents from the Department of Health and therefore all decisions about the employment of our primary care health workers are left at a local level. So what does this mean in reality? The cat is out of the bag, delegates, because one primary care trust has already jumped the gun. It is proposed that Central Surrey Healthcare should be established as a limited company to provide community nursing and therapy services. I do not think that is acceptable, delegates, and I do not think you will either.

The cuts in PCTs are as a result of budgets in crisis, not because there is not record spending on health but because the management of those budgets is appalling. What our survey of members has revealed is that we have job freezes and redundancies. So, whilst somebody rearranges the deckchairs on the Titanic, someone else is going to have to explain to the bullied child because he stinks why the one person that could effectively represent his interests, an expert school nurse on enuresis, is not available. Who is going to tell the abused and neglected child that their care needs may be missed because the health visitor's caseload is frozen? How can we justify any dilution of essential speech and language services to disabled children such as those with Downs Syndrome?

We agree there may need to be change but what we insist upon is change for the better, not change for the worse. Congress, I urge you to support the composite.

* Emergency Motion 3 was CARRIED.

Scrutineers Report

Tracy Clarke, Chair of Scrutineers, presented the Scrutineers Report, as follows:

(Insert Scrutineers Report)

(Congress adjourned at 5.30 p.m.)

Enable Two-Factor Authentication

To access the admin area, you will need to setup two-factor authentication (TFA).

Setup now