Trades Union Congress -

The President (Jeannie Drake): Delegates, I call Congress to order. The programme of music this week has been put together by Music for Youth, and many thanks to Norton's Hot Eight who have been playing for us this morning. Well done. That was fantastic. Thank you very much, indeed. (Applause)

Congress, I have great pleasure in opening this, the TUC's 137^th Congress. I warmly welcome all delegates and visitors here to Brighton.

Appointment of tellers and scrutineers

The President: The first formal item of business is to ask Congress to approve the tellers and scrutineers as set out on page 10 of the General Purposes Committee Report booklet. Is that agreed, colleagues? (Agreed)

May I remind all delegates to switch off their mobile phones. Normally, I would be encouraging you like mad to use them so my members can stay in employment, but on this occasion can you make sure they are definitely switched off. You should also find on your seats details of the emergency procedures so, please, could you familiarise yourselves with them so should there be an emergency I will give you further instructions. If any delegates require first aid, the first aid station is situated by the food servery in the east bar, the doors of which are to my left, your right.

Welcome to Sororal and Fraternal Delegates

The President: Congress, I now come to the introduction of the sororal and fraternal delegates and visitors who are seated behind me on my right. As you would expect from the British section of an international trade union Movement, we have a number of trade unionists from outside the country here this week, some of whom will be addressing Congress, others will be taking part in fringe events and some are here to network, to visit old friends in the British trade union Movement and, hopefully, to make new ones. Our international speakers this year include Carlos Rodriguez, the President of the Colombian Workers' Confederation; Guy Ryder, the General Secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, who will join us later in the week, and Elizabeth Bunn, the Secretary/Treasurer of the UAW in the United States and this year's sororal delegate from the AFL-CIO. I will say more about each of them when it is their turn to address you.

We have other international guests on the platform. We have Rasem Abdullah and Abdullah Muhsin of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, and Teopista Mayanja, the General Secretary of the Ugandan Teachers' Union. Some of our international guests are old friends and colleagues making a return visit. Penny Shanks and Jerry Zellhoeffer from the AFL-CIO's European office. John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trades Union Confederation, and Bill Brett from the International Labour Organisation. There will be a number of other representatives of global union federations and individual union representatives and other foreign visitors here today. You are all most welcome. I hope that the delegates will take the opportunity to meet with them and discuss the issues which bring us together as a global union family.

This year's fraternal delegate from the Trade Union Council's Conference is Tony Carter. Welcome Tony. Congress, we are expecting many other guests during this week and I will introduce them to you when they arrive.

Obituary

The President: In leading in on Chapter 11 of the General Council's Report, she said: Congress, it is traditional for us at the beginning of our Annual Congress to remember all those colleagues who have died since we last met. In our Report, we list Sir Edward Britton, former general secretary of the National Union Teachers; Lord Chapple, former general secretary of the Electricians' Union and who was president of the 1983 Congress; Peter Dawson, former general secretary of NATFHE; Bob Garland, former general secretary of the AEU foundry section; John Henry, former STUC deputy general secretary; Ina Love, former member of UNISON NEC and the General Council; Bernard Meadows, the sculptor, who designed The spirit of trade unionism, which stands outside Congress House; Ron Todd, former general secretary of the Transport & General Workers' Union and former General Council member; Joe Wade, former general secretary of the NGA, and Bob Wright, a former assistant general secretary of the AEU and a former member of the TUC's General Purposes Committee. Since the Report went to press, we have also lost a number of good friends of the trade union Movement, in particular Mo Mowlem and Robin Cook, and many of us were deeply saddened by the news of the murder of Thomas, the 15 year old son of our former General Council colleague, Penny Holloway. Tomorrow, we will particularly remember those who died in the London bombings, but at this time I am sure our thoughts are also with those who suffered loss in the major natural disasters of the past year, the tsunami and the hurricane in the southern United Stated. I ask you to remember all of those who died in man made disasters, through poverty, war and conflict in different parts of the world throughout the past year.

Let us re-commit ourselves to the cause of world peace and let us stand for a minute's silence. (Congress stood in silent tribute)

The General Secretary: Congress, I now call upon the President to address Congress.

President's Address

The President: Colleagues, welcome to the 137^th annual Trades Union Congress. It's a great opportunity for us to showcase the work we do on behalf of our six and a half million members, to celebrate the values that bind us together and to work out our priorities for the coming year.

This is the time to both look ahead and to reflect. It is now two months since the London bombings since we witnessed the worst in human nature, and, in the most trying of circumstances, the best in human nature. We saw the emergency workers, transport workers, social workers and support workers giving so much, so selflessly, on 7^th July and after. What happened in London brought out the best in our Movement. We were proud to work with the office of the Mayor of London to organise the vigil in Trafalgar Square one week after the attacks, and we were proud that trade union values - collectivism, solidarity, justice, equality and respect for all - were right at the heart of London's response, values we have been proud to promote in our fight against the bigotry and poison of the far Right.

The core message was simple. London United - one city, one world.

This year, and perhaps more than any other, we have become aware that we do indeed live in one world, a world, with all of its problems and all of its resources, we must share.

That is why my theme for this Congress, as TUC President, is Make Poverty History. As Nelson Mandela said back in February, defeating poverty is the greatest cause of our time. It is not a gesture of charity but an act of justice. Also, as Gordon Brown said at the Make Poverty History rally, 'Don't let anybody tell you there are no great causes left, don't let anybody tell you that politics doesn't make a difference'.

Here and now in 2005, the world's poor effectively have to face a silent tsunami each and every month. For far too long they have drowned in a sea of apathy and neglect. Together we must turn back that tide.

As a Movement, all our values, all that we care passionately about, mean that we must be at the forefront of a campaign to Make Poverty History. The world has never been richer or better placed in terms of medical science, technological innovation, and intellectual capacity to beat poverty. But we need to create the political will and eliminate corruption to deliver debt cancellation, more and better aid and trade justice.

In the past two weeks in New Orleans, we have learned just how fragile the wealth of the developed world is, with Hurricane Katrina revealing the vulnerability of the poor even in the midst of American plenty.

Access to work, underpinned by strong rights, empowers people to lift themselves out of poverty, and that is the message that applies as much in this country as it does overseas. But equally we should never forget that there are always people for whom work is simply not an option. One of the highlights of my spell as President was chairing the TUC conference on poverty, which brought together unemployed workers' centres and other anti-poverty groups, who provide vital support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The launch of our Peanuts 4 Benefits campaign was a powerful reminder that living on benefits is not quite the bed of roses the Daily Mail says it is, and not that everybody has shared in the UK's economic growth.

The TUC conference on poverty in October will concentrate on Making Poverty History in the UK.

Work and poverty are intimately linked, with workless families much more likely to be poor. Plainly, any Government that wants to address poverty must make a serious effort to eliminate worklessness, and whilst there has been some significant success, especially for the most disadvantaged, poverty remains a reality for far too many people and children in one of the richest economies in the world. The point is that unemployment often brings with it its own spiral of decline. It is a major cause of debt, which in turn is a major barrier to work, so the two reinforce each other, forcing families into a trap that affects health, relationships and social life.

Whilst we support the Government's drive to get more people into work, that should not be to the detriment of those who are unable to do so. Nor should a job - any job - be the limit of our horizons. We must aspire to get people from a job into a good job. We must move from high employment to high quality employment.

This year we welcomed Labour's re-election for a historic third term, but we know that mighty challenges remain. Warwick is a starting point, not a conclusion. We need a new agenda for the workplace. That means action across the board - from strong working time protections to better rights for temporary and agency workers to tough measures to combat the gender pay gap.

We welcome Labour's many achievements - the minimum wage, new family friendly entitlements and union recognition rights, but now is not the time to be held back by a poverty of ambition.

As the Prime Minister himself said recently: 'Life is still a real struggle for many people and many families in this country: families trying to cope with balancing work and family life...many families on low incomes who desperately need help and support to increase their living standards.'

The UK remains one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. Just 2 per cent of the population now owns one-third of all of the wealth. Now is the time for the Government to engage our movement - to use us, to challenge us - as a partner in delivering social justice.

In an increasingly global economy, there is the real challenge of how to give the narrative to the social model in today's world, so that economic success can go hand in hand with decent employment standards, quality of life and income redistribution to the benefit of all.

We have seen what can be done on learning and skills. More than 100,000 people benefiting from union learning last year alone, a network of 12,000 learning reps - growing all the time - and our new Union Academy just round the corner.

Now is the time for a genuine political partnership on pensions. The TUC has a strong mandate from Congress to fight to protect and improve pensions, to address the disadvantages faced by many women both in terms of state and occupational pensions. We have a responsibility to ensure that any new pension settlement will leave a sustainable inheritance for future generations, for our children and for our young workers.

Politicians simply cannot muddle through the challenges that we face in our pension system. We need a planned approach based on solutions that offer fairness and certainty. We must re-assert the principle that pension provision is a three-way responsibility between the state, employers and workers. But as a Movement, if we are to retain and enhance the reputation as campaigners for social justice then we must keep fighting for equality. Because we represent so many millions of workers, we have a unique cultural reference point from which we can contribute so much to the equality agenda.

The economy will thrive if businesses and organisations make full use of the potential of the workforce. This means drawing on the talent of everyone: black people, white people, women, men, straight, lesbian, gay, transgender, disabled and able-bodied, old and young.

The UK has a flourishing multiracial and multicultural society with people from black and minority ethnic communities making up almost 8 per cent of the population, with London boasting a minority ethnic population of 29 per cent.

But the diversity in the population as a whole is not reflected in our employment statistics. Despite hard-won employment legislation secured in the last 30 years, unemployment is higher now for black workers than it was ten years ago. Disabled people are still twice as likely as non-disabled people to be unemployed.

The answer is not simply more legislation on disability. You cannot legislate for attitudes: a massive cultural shift is also needed. Many employers still see the impairment rather than the ability.

For women, low pay is still endemic. There is a lethal cocktail of gender-based job segregation and sex discrimination in our workplaces. Unequal pay is still a dominant feature despite more than 30 years of equal pay law.

The Government have set up the Women and Work Commission to look at this issue and we will hear from the Chair, Margaret Prosser, later today. The encouragement of union equality representatives will make a big contribution to achieving diversity and forthcoming recommendations from the Commission will be welcomed. This Government more than any other have recognised that diversity comes in many forms, and that we are not fulfilling our productivity potential if we discriminate against sections of society.

But we still have a long way to go. Every union has a responsibility to support action in the workplace to end discrimination, and our capacity to tackle inequality, to fight poverty, to defend pensions and to win for working people ultimately depends on one thing, and that's the collective strength of our Movement. One of the greatest challenges we face is to start growing again. Last year we saw a net increase in membership of 20,000. Yes, a welcome step forward, but it is the missing millions we have to recruit into the trade union family. That means getting to grips with the scale of the task we face, especially in the private sector. That means articulating a vision of work that today's workforce can relate to. In Britain today there are more women trade unionists than men trade unionists and black workers are more likely to join a trade union than white workers. We need to reflect that diversity in our leadership and in our bargaining agendas.

We must shout about our successes a little louder and a little more often, because I am optimistic that we can rise to these challenges. In the past year, what has struck me most about our Movement has been the dedication, the decency and the diversity of the people who make up our Movement. I saw that when I visited the Scottish TUC, when I addressed the four TUC equality conferences and, most recently, during the celebrations at Tolpuddle. That was a reminder of the richness of our history and the justice of our cause, and also a reminder that the struggle for trade union rights still goes on. Like our comrades in Colombia - the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist - defending their movement from right-wing thuggery. Like our comrades in Iraq - the most dangerous place in the world full stop - trying to establish free trade unions in the face of appalling violence.

Last year 129 of our international brothers and sisters paid the ultimate price for their principles. Across the world, it is often the trade unions who are leading the fight for the rights and freedoms for men and women. As trade unionists - I want to say this collectively for us - there can be no definition of social justice which denies rights and equality to people because of their age, gender, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation.

I was delighted that the Women's Conference decided to submit a motion on 'Women Internationally' to Congress this year. The TUC is working with Amnesty International UK in their campaign to end violence against women, which is still so commonplace in so many countries.

In Iraq women face a uncertain future, and they need our support. Their interests must not be neglected in any constitutional settlement. We are watching developments in the debate over the Iraqi constitution closely, and want to assist the trade unions in Iraq and in Kurdistan to fight for women's equality. That is one of the priorities of the TUC's Iraq Solidarity Committee.

So, Congress, this year, for so many reasons, international solidarity matters more than ever. It matters because we live in a world of increasing uncertainty and we live in a world disfigured by poverty and grotesque inequality. But we know a better world, another world, is possible. It's a world with trade unions at its heart and it's a world that we must keep fighting for.

Thank you and have a good Conference. (Applause)

Vote of Thanks

The General Secretary: I now call on Billy Hayes, the General Secretary of the CWU, to move the vote of thanks for the President's Address.

Billy Hayes (Communication Workers Union): Chair and Congress, I am speaking on behalf of the General Council to deliver the vote of thanks to Jeannie Drake, this year's TUC President. Jeannie is also the Deputy General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union. As General Secretary of the CWU and as a fellow General Council member, I am happy to be able to deliver this vote of thanks on behalf of the General Council.

Presiding over the General Council is a big job. All the various competing agendas, in terms of time and in terms of policy and, it has to be said, sometimes in terms of ego, is no easy task. Jeannie has performed that role as President with diplomacy, intelligence and good humour and has ensured today in her speech that our collective voice is heard.

Jeannie has been described as a formidable operator in the male dominated world of trade unions, not just today, when women make up the majority of Britain's trade unionists, but at a time when you did not have to be male and forty to be a trade unionist - incidentally, I am 52 - but it certainly felt like that when I was a young trade unionist. Jeannie's trade union activities span more than 30 years. She was brought up in a Labour voting household. Jeannie first joined NUPE after leaving university. She then saw active service in the CPSA. If you were going to survive the slings and arrows of trade union fortunes, then the CPSA at that time was certainly the place to take up arms against the sea of troubles.

During this time she was also a mother who raised three kids. Jeannie, in her typically under-stated style, described this as 'multi-tasking', bringing up kids, being a trade unionists and dealing with employers. In my language, I think that is simply just hard work. Following the transfer of the CPSA P&T Group in 1985, Jeannie became the Deputy General Secretary of the clerical section of the NCU. In 1995, with the creation of the CWU, Jeannie became Deputy General Secretary and, subsequently, was re-elected twice to that position during a ten year period. Those of us who have worked closely with Jeannie will testify to her ability; her exceptional negotiating skills, her sharp intellect, her ability to put male dominated officials firmly in their places when needed - I have been at the receiving end of that from time to time - and her determination to manage her work-life balance, both in work and in deed.

Jeannie has also been a strategic thinker on telecoms issues and on the wider Movement. She has been instrumental in developing strategies which have increased the union's recognition in the telecoms sector from just one, many years ago, to more than 35 today in what is described by Ben Vervane, the chief executive of BT, as 'the most fiercely competitive telecommunications market in the world'. At the same she has ensured that our structures are responsive to lay members and Jeannie has also been a life-long advocate on equality issues both within the CWU and the wider trade union Movement.

Jeannie was one of the first trade unionists to recognise what was happening in the pensions industry and her technical knowledge of pensions few can match. We hope, Jeannie, that the final report from the Pensions Commission, on which she sits, will take account of her expert input and help secure a new settlement on pensions. Aside from her work on the Pensions Commission and the Pensions Protection Fund, Jeannie has other commitments, including being a commissioner for the Equal Opportunities Commission, a council member of the Open University and an employment appeals tribunal member.

Congress, Jeannie's obvious abilities, her proven track record and sheer hard work and determination demonstrate what an asset she has been to the trade union Movement, particularly during this year and what an effective advocate she has been on behalf of working people generally. Jeannie, on a personal note, I would like to thank you for the help and support you have given me as general secretary. I think today, Congress, her speech - I would say this, wouldn't I, because we are from the same union -- was one of the best speeches that I have ever heard in terms of where we should be focusing our future as to the trade union Movement. Your speech, Jeannie, was absolutely on the mark. It told us where we need to be going and what the issues are.

On behalf of the General Council, I am sure that Congress would like to join me in congratulating Jeannie on your Presidency and what I believe will be a successful week chairing this Congress. Thank you. (Applause)

The General Secretary: I now call on Denise McGuire, the President of Connect, to second the vote of thanks.

Denise McGuire (Connect): President and Congress, I am delighted and deeply honoured to second the vote of thanks to our TUC President, Jeannie Drake. Billy has mentioned Jeannie's amazing ability to multi-task and her immense capacity to do lots of things very well. Her intellect is razor sharp and it is always a joy to listen to Jeannie on the subject of the boardrooms of the UK, the companies, the white men who inhabit them and just how mediocre they really are.

Jeannie has campaigned on low pay and equal pay from her first days in the union Movement. A subject very close to Jeannie's heart was the double-whammy which hit women's pensions - low pay and no pay - whilst bringing up children. When Jeannie was pregnant she used to think by lying on the floor, and when she was heavily pregnant, eight months and three weeks along, in fact, Jeannie was leading in some pay negotiations. During one of the adjournments Jeannie lay down to think, not on the floor this time but on the table in the boardroom. The employers' side returned and they saw Jeannie, thought she was giving birth and, with the great presence of mind that you would expect from senior managers, they ran out of the room. (Laughter) They were terrified. They were completely intimidated. So desperate were they to conclude the negotiations and see Jeannie off the premises that they had no choice but to cave in and cough up.

As a negotiator, Jeannie is formidable and she builds excellent relationships with union colleagues. One example of this was in the CPSA Post & Telecoms group merger talks with the Post Office Engineering Union, which Billy mentioned. The merger had hit what you might call a bit of a snag because the POEU conference voted no. The challenge for Jeannie was that the CPSA conference was to take place the next day. Jeannie really did not want her conference to vote no, and she was also facing an executive which, as usual, was split for and against the merger. Jeannie worked tirelessly through the night, talking and listening, proposing and rebutting, waking up her executive members and sending them back to sleep. By 6 o'clock the following morning everything was in place. Jeannie had convinced them all and they all agreed to her plan. They opened the Conference and suspended standing orders. Jeannie then explained that their executive was going to 'chat' to the delegates. At the end of this chatting, Jeannie persuaded the conference to close without making a decision. However, because they were altogether they decided to have some fun, and I am told they had the most lavish dinner and disco in the union's history and everyone went home happy. If that is not impressive enough, Congress, you would like to know, I am sure, that the cost of that conference - the hotel, the lavish buffet, dinner and disco - were all paid for by the other union. (Laughter) Being cheeky, now that other unions know about that, Jeannie, maybe they will be making you an offer before the end of the week.

If Jeannie has one fault, and I am not sure that she does because that is what the CWU told me I had to say, it is that Jeannie is not exactly the most punctual person in the world, but Jeannie's reposte to that is, 'I may be late but I am always reliable'.

On a personal note, I would like to thank Jeannie for her friendship to me and to my union, Connect. We are sister unions in the same industry, and I am proud to call Jeannie a friend and sister. Jeannie has done us proud during her term of office as the TUC President, she is a credit to the union Movement and an inspiration to us all. Enjoy your Conference, Jeannie. I second the vote of thanks. (Applause)

The President: Thank you very much. I remember lying on the boardroom table when I was eight months pregnant. I had forgotten it temporarily. Thank you very much indeed for those votes of thanks. They were much appreciated.

Report of the General Purposes Committee

The President: Congress, I call upon Annette Mansell-Green, the Chair of the General Purposes Committee, to report to us on the progress of business and other Congress arrangements.

Congress, Annette is the first ever woman Chair of the GPC. (Applause) You have shown by your applause that it is an achievement that demands a special mention. Annette's position is a testament to both her own talents and to the continuing advance of women at all levels of the Movement. Many congratulations to Annette, and we look forward to her and the rest of the committee keeping us in order for the rest of the week. Thank you.

Annette Mansell-Green: Good morning, Congress. I am very honoured to hold this position as the first woman chair of the GPC. I believe it is important to say that this is not about myself but it is on behalf of all women trade unionists. (Applause)

Congress, I would like to begin by reporting on progress on the Final Agenda. Composite Motions 1 - 20 have been agreed. They are set out in the printed booklet entitled GPC report and composite motions, which also include the General Council's statement on the consequences of the terrorist attacks in London. On behalf of the GPC, I would like to thank all those unions which co-operated and worked together to reach agreement on the composite motions.

I can also report that the GPC has agreed Emergency Motion 1 on Gate Gourmet. This will be moved by the TGWU and seconded by the GMB, and it will be taken this morning in the Employment Rights debate. Copies have been distributed on delegates' seats.

The GPC has also agreed a collection for the Gate Gourmet workers which will take place at the end of this morning's sessions at the doors of the hall and at the main exit. Delegates should also note that the TSSA has agreed to the General Council's request to withdraw its Motion 52 in favour of the General Council's statement on the consequences of the terrorist attacks in London, printed at the end of the GPC report.

Delegates should also note that two nominations have now been withdrawn. These are the nominations of Steve Kemp for the GPC and Ian Lavery for section C of the General Council. Both of these withdrawals are noted in the printed final agenda.

May I remind Congress that, in order to complete our business expeditiously, delegates should be ready when called to speak. Would delegates who know they are scheduled to speak please move to the front and be ready to come to the rostrum quickly. Please also respect the limits on speaking times. These are five minutes for movers, three minutes for seconders and supporters of motions. However, in order to ensure that we complete our business, please come to the rostrum quickly.

Finally, I urge that you do not impede the progress of Congress and draw unwelcome attention to yourself by failing to switch off your mobile phones. Thank you.

The President: Congress, I now call on you formally to receive the GPC's report. Ca we agree? (Agreed) Thank you.

The President: Congress, I now invite you formally to receive the GPC's Report. Can we agree? Thank you. (Agreed)

Fairness at Work

Barry Camfield (Transport and General Workers' Union) moved Composite 1.

He said: Thank you, President. I am proud to be moving Composite 1. I think it would be wrong not to start this speech by welcoming all of our members from Gate Gourmet who are in the audience. (A standing ovation)

Congress, much more will be said about Gate Gourmet workers by my General Secretary, Tony Woodley, in the Emergency Motion. I want to deal with the broad issue of employment rights and to start by saying that we are in a new situation today which opens up the possibility of real change for British trade unions, our members and all workers.

Firstly, Tony Blair's term of office as the leader of the Labour Party is coming to an end. He is going. We need a new start under a new leader and the end of New Labour; a new leader who is proud to be a real trade unionist, not just a card holder; a new leader who will make a difference to those Gate Gourmet workers, who will defend them, stand up and speak in favour of them and all workers in struggle; a new leader who is proud of Labour's tradition, its history and its real cause and a new leader who is proud to be a Socialist on the side of workers, the unions, the poor, the majority.

Let us start the debate now about what kind of leadership we want for the Labour Party after Tony Blair departs and ask every candidate where he or she stands on trade union freedom.

Secondly, this could be an absolutely historic Congress for the British trade union Movement because today we are about to adopt a truly progressive policy by committing our Movement to work and fight for a campaign for our own emancipation, our own freedom and rights as trade unions. We are sending out a message to all those hard?working, under?paid and over?stressed workers of Britain that their trade unions are now ready to battle for trade union freedoms. These freedoms are for a purpose. That purpose is to provide workers and their families with freedom from poverty, long hours, the sack, low pay, pensions robbery, victimization, inequality, injury, ill?health and, yes, death at work, too, through corporate killing.

Composite 1 restates and calls again for the repeal of the anti?trade union laws, but, importantly, it calls for a new Trade Union Freedom Bill next year, which is the centenary of the Trades Disputes Act 1906, which first gave unions their freedom to act, to take strike action and to be protected in doing so, including solidarity action. We want a Trade Union Freedom Bill that will finally right the wrongs and the injustices of that Tory Government all those years ago; informing, educating and mobilising our members in common cause with sympathetic lawyers, academics, progressive politicians ?? a real campaign. We call for a huge mobilisation in 2006 to support our Freedom Bill. Critically, we call for the legalisation of solidarity action. Does the disgraceful treatment of the Gate Gourmet workers not show the justice of that case? (Applause)

We call for the abolition of restrictive and bureaucratic balloting and industrial action procedures; the right to have workplace ballots; the right to automatic reinstatement; the right to a strike; the freedom to write our own rule books free from state control; the right to decide on expulsions and admissions to our unions and, yes, fundamentally, the right to expel racists and Fascists from our union. (Applause)

I want to pay tribute to ASLEF for all its fighting work in this area and to the sisters and brothers in my own Union, the T&G, where we have sought and successfully expelled racists and Fascists, and to all those unions who are fighting to keep them out of our ranks and our Movement as we say with one voice: "There is no place for you in our Movement, no place all at all." (Applause)

In conclusion, in a world today dominated by capital, global corporations, free trade and the profit ethic, trade unions are the only real defence for working people. Our British trade union Movement is waking up. Let us organise to win. There must be no more fear about our rightful freedoms and no more threats about "Support Labour at any cost or you will get the Tories". I remember my mum saying that to me when I was a little kid! We are not children being lectured at by patronizing New Labour apparatchiks elected by no one. (Applause)

Comrades, it is time for us to stand up, to forge our future together and to end Britain's repressive anti?union laws. Let today be a new start for working people in Britain, for Gate Gourmet workers and many others. Let us give them back a free trade union Movement.

Bob Crowe (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' Union) seconded Composite 1.

He said: I have absolute pleasure in seconding the resolution and composite excellently moved by Barry Camfield and the Transport and General Workers' Union. Well, there you have it. We are eight and?a?half years into this Government now. Where are all these laws which the Labour MPs said they were going to repeal when they came to serve in office? Nine lots of anti?trade union legislation were piled on the workers of this country in those dark, miserable days of Thatcher. To the eternal credit of the Labour MPs in Parliament when they were in opposition, they voted against every one of them. There were majorities of 160, 140 and over 60. Why can't they do the same thing, which they should have done when they were in opposition, and repeal every single anti?trade union law put on the books? (Applause)

Do you remember what Thatcher said? She was going to give the union back to the members. Well, where are the 6 million members who have left this trade union Movement since she said it? In 1978, in the last years of the Callaghan Government, 78 per cent of workers were covered by a collective agreement. Today that figure is 35 per cent. Two?thirds of workers now are not covered by a collective agreement. The Gate Gourmet workers, who we proudly saluted a minute ago, and quite rightly so, were told that they were acting illegally by taking unofficial action. What is the difference between unofficial action and official action? The argument should be: was the action they took effective or not? It was effective and we should be proud of what the Gate Gourmet workers did. (Applause)

It is harder to go on strike under Labour than it was under the Tories. They say it is about democracy and having a ballot. If you go to a low skilled workforce and you say to the employer: "Dear Guv, in eight days' time we are taking strike action", shall I tell what he will do? He will phone up an agency and bring in the scabs to do the work. I do not have a lot of time for Winston Churchill, but, thank God, he never deployed those tactics in World War II. Can you imagine him ringing up Hitler and saying, "Dear Adolph, my old mate, in eight days' time we are sending some Lancaster bombers over to bomb you in Dusseldorf; please put your Messerschmitts to one side"? Of course, it is about bringing scabs in to undermine effective trade unionism.

On the railways, we have a strike with one National Express company. What do they do? They bring scabs in as managers from other companies to run those services. If it is good enough for them to bring scabs in to undermine our trade union's effective action, it should be right for us not just to take secondary action, which I do not accept, but solidarity action, which is something that this Movement and every other trade union Movement was built on throughout the length and breadth of Britain. (Applause and cheers)

We need to start waking up to the concept of putting pressure on this Government. It is about time we called a national demonstration. We want that national demonstration to say to those new, up and coming leaders of the Labour Party: "You cannot just expect to have our cheque book every four years and we get nothing in return." All of the lobbying groups that go into No. 10 are lobbying for their piece of the action. We should be saying, on behalf of the trade union Movement, 100 years after the Taff Vale judgment fined my Union £26,000 and the same companies are trying to sue my Union for half a million pounds: "In 100 years' time, governments will have come and gone, but this trade union will still be here." They can put us in straitjackets, but workers like those at Gate Gourmet and other groups of workers throughout the world will stand up and fight. Repeal the anti?trade union laws and let us have a march on Parliament to define the freedom of every single worker who operates in Britain! (Applause)

The President: That woke us up, did it not?

Employment Status

Alan Ritchie (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) moved Composite Motion 2.

He said: This composite goes to the core values of the trade union Movement ? the rights of workers. Construction is an industry of extremes. Millions of people work in the industry, but most of the main contractors do not employ a single person who will build the construction projects in the construction industry. On most sites, if you do not sign a waiver on the Working Time Regulations, you do not start work.

With this background, you would not be surprised at the statistics. Every week one or more construction workers are killed on a construction site. Last year, 72 workers were killed for no other reason than they worked in the unregulated construction industry. By the end of this conference, another construction worker will have been killed.

This is what happens when you let market forces rule. We have had flexible labour working for more than 40 years. It means that the industry drives for more profits at the expense of workers' rights. The construction industry is now facing a skills crisis. How can we train craftsmen for the industry when employers do not employ anyone directly? It is no wonder that the industry has an image problem. We are selling a low cost model. That model consists of no respect for workers' rights; the worst health and safety record in the UK industry and inadequate training provisions resulting in an average age for the industry of over 50.

UCATT has known of these problems for a number of years. Contractors make their profits from using so?called flexible labour and the bogus self?employed. Up to 50% of the cost of construction output is labour costs, so keeping workers weak and divided is crucial to the employers. It means that workers really have a collective voice representing them.

These employers do not want to be tied down with redundancy selection or unfair dismissal claims. They do not want to be bothered with employment rights and contracts of employment. When we challenge sham contracts on site, we get the usual excuse from contractors that there is nothing they can do about the bogus self?employed. We believe something can be done.

In 2002, the Government launched a consultation paper on employment status. UCATT submitted an overwhelming argument to extend employment rights to all workers. It has now been nearly three years since that consultation closed. We are still waiting for a written response from the Government. We believe it is a disgrace to wait three years and still have no response from the Government. Now we have a third term Labour Government, which includes the commitments made at Warwick.

This composite tells the Government that the time is up. We demand employment rights for all workers. By extending employment rights to all workers employers will not be able to dodge their responsibilities; they will not be able to have tax dodges; they will not be able to avoid National Insurance payments and they will not be able to operate the biggest tax fiddle in the UK.

There is a mobile army of tax advisors who suggest contract clauses. However, these clauses bear no relationship to reality. Their sole purpose is to convince a tribunal chairman. All this is done by the employer to avoid giving workers their rights. In so doing, it denies workers the right of dignity and takes away the respect that they deserve.

What type of society are we living in today, in the year 2005, that denies workers the right to sick pay, the right to a pension scheme and the right to holiday pay? I am not talking about a few hundred workers, but hundreds of thousands of workers in construction in the UK. These conditions have been used to drive up the profits for the major contractors.

Finally, I realise that Congress has many important issues to discuss this week, but nothing is more important than workers' employment rights in this country, not only for the workers of today, but for the workers of tomorrow.

Martin Spence (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) seconded Composite Motion 2.

He said: We have just heard a very eloquent speech about many of the problems faced by workers in the construction and building industry. I want to talk about the problems faced by workers in film and television production. On the face of it, you would think that there could not be two more different industrial sectors. However, the fact that we have similar problems in these two sectors speaks volumes about how widespread these problems of insecure employment, casual employment, freelance employment and bogus self?employment are.

Film and television is seen by many young people as being a very glamorous and sexy industry. It is an industry in which people want to work. That is taken full advantage of by employers. In film and TV production we are now talking about an almost entirely casualised industry. The television programmes you watch at home, the films you watch in the cinema, on DVD, or wherever, are made overwhelming by freelance workers. There are freelance technicians in the Congress hall today recording our activities. I know that because I have had a chat with some of them.

This is a freelance industry. However glamorous it may look from the outside, it does not feel very glamorous from the inside for many of those freelance workers. These are people with no permanent employer, no permanent workplace, no permanent relationship with their employer and who are moving from contract to contract. A contract may be a day or two, it may be a few weeks or it may, if you are very lucky, be a few months at a time. It is chronic insecurity and chronic unpredictability within your working life. This poses two sorts of problems.

Structurally, those sorts of workers are always in a very weak bargaining position with their employers. The result is a long?hours culture which is absolutely endemic. We have members of our Union working in film and television production regularly working 12, 13 or 14 hours a day. Yes, I know that those are illegally long hours, but that is the reality. The pressure on those workers not to speak up, not to complain, not to insist on their rest breaks is enormous, because if you speak up in this industry, you do not just get a bad name with your employer, you do not get another job! You do not get another job because that is what casualisation is about. The 48 hours waiver is absolutely standard. It is written into your contract. Agreeing to the 48 hours waiver is a condition of employment for many thousands of freelance workers in this industry.

There are structural and legal problems because many of these workers are not actually clear what their legal rights are. Sometimes they are employees, sometimes they are workers, but "worker" is defined in different ways, and sometimes they are self?employed contractors. We are asking in this motion for three things. We are asking for a clear definition of "worker"; for clear opposition to the 48 hours opt?out, which has been in place for far too long and for continuing opposition to the European Services directive, which simply promises to make these problems even worse.

Andy Reed (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) supported Composite Motion 1.

He said: I am pleased to support Composite Motion 1. The buzz word for our society is "free". We are the "free" world with our "free" market economies and our "freedom of expression". We have freedom coming out of our ears ? individually, that is. Once we start being collective, the shutters start coming down and trade union freedoms are way down the list.

We do not have a legal freedom, as we see fit, to take industrial action, to use our money for political purposes, to take solidarity action or to decide on our membership base and our union rule books. That is why ASLEF offers its full support to initiatives within the composite. We especially welcome the positive aspects of the composite. It is not enough to condemn the restrictions upon us. We need to map out how we will end them.

The introduction of the Trade Union Freedom Bill could be a massive step in the right direction. It would involve government, people and the unions in an open and honest exchange about the rights, privileges and powers of trade unions. It would demonstrate some of the ludicrous restrictions placed upon us, like the incredible fact that we do not even have the right to decide who we can have as members.

Let me give you an example. A member of my trade union, ASLEF, also happened to be a member of BNP, so we "invited" him to leave. He refused to do so. We removed him from membership of our trade union. He then took legal advice. Legally, we had to re-admit him to membership. Whilst we were in the process of that, the individual ran court cases against various members of my trade union. Why on earth should we have in our membership someone whose desires, objectives and world vision are diametrically opposed to our very own objectives?

The BNP on its official website talks about "the failed multi?cultural experiment". Trade unions embrace the richness of a multi?cultural society. The BNP talks about "the threat posed by Islam to our traditions, freedoms and Western democratic values". Trade unions welcome the contribution that a multi-cultural society brings to our Western democratic values. The BNP calls for the repatriation of immigrants. Trade unions welcome the opportunity to enrich our society's experience. The BNP wants to insist that anyone who has completed National Service must maintain an assault rifle in their home. Trade unions want to see a society whose base is tolerance and understanding, not coercion and force. Yet the law says that we, trade unions, must admit people who pedal this kind of filth in our membership, count them amongst our number and embrace as comrades those committed to destruction of our Movement.

That is why we back TUC action; to demand a Trade Union Freedom Bill; to give us back the dignity that comes from self?regulation; to end the constraints that are not imposed on employers and to reassert our self?respect and independence. Thank you, Congress.

Judith Griffiths (Communication Workers Union) supported Composite Motion 1.

She said: Congress, the restoration of full trade union rights and the repeal of the anti?union laws is essential if we are to defend our members from the actions of anti?union employers and to build this Movement. Gate Gourmet may take centre stage for its vicious treatment of hundreds of workers who refuse to accept pay cuts. However, Gate Gourmet is not alone in its objectives, although most companies use a more subtle approach to undercut decent pay, namely, the hiring of migrant labour agency working, temporary contracts and the segregation of women, black and young workers.

This composite demands the strengthening of protection against discrimination and exploitation of these sections of the workforce for that very reason. As well as demanding legal protection for migrant workers, we must begin a mass campaign to organise migrant labour to protect them from Mafia gang masters and to ensure they are not used to undermine trade union rates of pay.

The composite seeks to ensure that workers receive proper compensation if an employer is declared bankrupt and seeks to add pensions and training to the collective bargaining agenda where unions gain statutory recognition. At a time when many companies are intent on closing final salary schemes and reducing pension contribution rates, workers need all the help they can to protect their pensions.

However, as vital as legislation is to provide a legal framework of workers' rights, ultimately, it is left to trade unions to ensure the enforcement of those very rights. The current anti?union laws protect bad employers. We need to step up the campaign and support the call for the lobby and march to demand a Trade Union Freedom Bill.

However, our members on a daily basis take solidarity action in support of their colleagues. In traditional industries, such as the Post Office, workers are often moved from office to office in order to undermine effective action. Of course, outsourcing has further exacerbated the situation in relation to solidarity action.

In this new climate, it will no longer be possible to continue just to demand that the Government unshackle the unions. As Gate Gourmet has vividly shown, the law is on the bosses' side. Trade unions and trade union rights were won through the struggle of workers against vicious employers, against casualisation and those very same issues have re? emerged today with a vengeance.

We celebrate annually, as a Movement, those who lost their lives fighting for what is right. As in the past, if struggle is required to defend workers' rights and regain free trade unions, we should be on board and rise to these challenges. If Labour under whatever leader it has refuses to put the trade unions on an equal footing with employers, those laws will have to be challenged and unions must begin, as some already have, to consider their relationship with that government and with Labour. Thank you, Congress.

Paddy Lillis (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) supported Composite Motion 1.

He said: Colleagues, we have come some way from 1997 towards a degree of justice and fairness at work and towards a better regulated labour market at or near full employment levels, better for workers and their families and better for the taxpayer. However, we still struggle at one of the last great frontiers, the regulation and management of working time, that is, putting workers at the centre of working time arrangements which promote their needs and not just that of business, be it as part?time workers looking for hours and patterns which suit their commitments or long?hours workers looking for a better quality of life without their living standards suffering. In each case they are trying to combine their private, family and working lives more successfully, not just as parents and carers, but as workers and citizens in their own right, pursuing a changing variety of needs and interests and developing and varying them over the years as their own needs and priorities change.

Through our bargaining activity and a variety of high profile campaigns, we have at least begun to make some headway. We have a degree of regulation around the 48?hour week, though often ransacked by the use and abuse of the opt?out. We have bargained for some time and with some success around term?time working, annualised hours and job sharing, for example. Those are real gains, in many respects, but too often too modest.

The fact is we are battling against a culture of "presenteeism", the view that a worker's status and value, though not necessarily his or her pay packet, are reflected in the hours he or she puts in, working longer but not smarter ?? long hours which are very often the product of poor quality management ?? and also a misguided belief amongst our own people sometimes that the more hours we put in, the less leave or holidays we have, the better workers we must be. It is a vicious circle and we need to break it.

As we move forward into the 21st Century, the working time challenge is going to grow. Our success in regulating and bargaining around working time will go a long way to determining our value and success as a Movement. The General Council's "It's About Time" campaign gives us a vehicle to go on campaigning for better regulation from Government ?? there is a long way to go on that front ?? and help guide and resource our collective bargaining efforts. Please support.

Jeremy Dear (National Union of Journalists) said: This week there will be much media speculation about whether our Movement backs Gordon or backs Tony. Every speech will be analysed, every motion, every handshake and every round of applause will be scrutinised to see whether at heart we are Blair?ites or Brown?ites. To many millions of our members, it does not matter. It is like asking us to choose between "Pop Idol" and "Stars In Their Eyes". It is the same programme, different presenters, different singer, but the same old tune. Comrades, in this composite, we are not just asking for a change of DJ, we want them to change the bloody record! (Applause)

Let us make it clear. We do not accept that it is a burden on business for workers to have employment rights from day one. We do not accept that casualisation, insecure employment contracts and bogus self?employed status represents the pinnacle of free choice. We do not accept it can be called fairness at work when it is all right for employers to act together to break a strike, but unlawful for our members to act together to show their solidarity in a strike.

The anti?union laws do not deliver fairness. They underpin a low wage and long?hours culture in which union rights are undermined and human rights abused. As Bob Crowe said, it is time for those who opposed such injustices in opposition to repeal the laws in government because otherwise millions of our members will rightly ask: "Where is the fairness?" In respect of my members at the Racing Post, in the face of an NUJ recognition application, on behalf of 70% of the staff, Trinity Mirror was able under the law to recognise a company union with not one single member. Where is the fairness in that? Add to that the situation at News International, where Rupert Murdoch coughs up quarter of a million pounds to set up his own union, voluntarily recognises it, provides it with offices, legal advice, human resources and, under the legislation, it acts as a block to legitimate, independent trade union recognition applications.

Such action reveals the truth behind the anti?trade union laws. They have nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with handing unions back to their members and everything to do with seeking to destroy the ability of the unions to act effectively on behalf of our members. It is time they were replaced with a Trade Union Freedom Bill with automatic reinstatement, the right to strike and the right to solidarity. (Applause)

If the Government's mantra is choice, in the immortal words of Train Spotting, choose solidarity, choose fairness, choose justice, choose union rights and choose not just to pass this composite, but to begin building for the major campaign, mobilisation and march necessary to deliver that justice for our members. (Applause)

Brian Caton (Prison Officers Association UK) supported Composite Motions 1 and 2.

He said: I am pleased to be speaking in support of Composite Motions 1 and 2 and with specific reference to the much needed repeal of the Tory?inspired but Labour?maintained anti?trade union laws. One particular and specific piece of anti?trade union law introduced by the Tories and, despite the promises to remove it when coming to power, maintained by the current New Labour Government is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and especially Section 127. This anti?trade union law was applied to criminalise prison officers throughout the United Kingdom.

For prison officers in England and Wales, this unfair and disproportionate act has been removed, but for our members in Northern Ireland, it has been retained because they have refused to sign a no disruptive action agreement because of their own circumstances and the constant attacks on themselves and their families.

The POA has such an agreement in place in England, Wales and Scotland, but if we are ever to take any form of disruptive action, it has been made clear that this Government would re?introduce Section 127 to criminalise the acts of prison officers. The POA seeks to avoid disruption in prisons and to the justice system. However, we are not convinced that prison managers or, indeed, the current Government are equally committed to good industrial relations at this time. We see an ever increasing prisoner population without an equivalent increase in trained prison officers.

Attacks on our pensions and the ludicrous suggestion to force prison officers to work until the age of 65 are all on the agenda of this Government. There is the continued threat of immoral and dangerous use of privatisation to drive down costs and with it the loss of care and security of prisoners, staff and the general public.

We know that the actions of this Government and the Prison Service will need to be challenged. The POA will challenge those actions. It is unacceptable to have a continuation of these anti?trade union laws, but it is also unacceptable for any worker to be threatened by Government to re?introduce Dickensian restrictive legislation. We add the POA's voice to the call to use our history under a 100 year?old Act to establish trade union freedom and liberty today and for this trade union Movement in the future. Please support.

Brian Garvey (National Association of Schoolmasters, Union of Women Teachers) supporting Composite Motion 1 said: Colleagues, in 1997 the Labour Party came into power ending 18 years of Tory misgovernment. Since then, unfortunately, they have failed to repeal any of the laws that the Tories brought in that limited and paralysed trade unions in certain aspects of their governance. These laws allow unwarranted interference in the self-governance of trade unions. Golf clubs, the Masons, even the Conservative Party have more power over their own governance than do trade unions. Fairness, where is it? This lack of self-governance potentially creates various problems for trade unions. There are those who wish to damage unions, disrupt the organisation, and undermine their very democracy. We are the most democratic organisations in this country. There is no getting away from that fact. These people try to use the current legislation to oppose the democratically agreed policies of trade unions. Attempts to discipline these members can actually result in applications to the certification officer with regard to so-called unjustifiable discipline. We have heard an example of that already.

Colleagues, the NASUWT is currently facing attempts by a small minority, two or three disaffected members who wish to challenge the internal union processes and who are costing the NASUWT thousands of pounds in legal fees. If we were a small union, this could actually damage and hinder our work with regard to the members, but we can actually cope with this.

This motion calls for a review by affiliates sharing their experiences, which has not been previously been done to any great extent in this area, to produce a report that would inform and support the TUC's campaign to repeal these laws. Colleagues, I urge you to support this composite motion. Thank you.

Allan Garley (GMB) supporting Composite Motion 1 said: The GMB believe that fairness at work demands an effective legal basis for collective bargaining. Trade unions bargain in the shadow of the law. The right to organise and bargain collectively needs to be positively protected by the law. This right was protected to some extent by the legislation passed by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. For example, in respect of union recognition most of that legislation was far from perfect but it was repealed by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s and replaced by a legal framework which strengthened management discretion and weakened collective organisation. Since 1997 we have seen a return to legislation designed to promote good industrial relations but a lot more needs to be done to promote collective bargaining.

In recognition applications, for example, the Central Arbitration Committee is only under a duty to have regard to encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace. Whatever that means it falls far short of a legal duty to promote collective bargaining. Another example, why is there no duty on ACAS to promote collective bargaining? There needs to be.

The introduction of laws positively to protect the right to organise and bargain collectively will protect essential social rights. We all know, colleagues, trade union busting organisations are taking advantage of Britain's employment law in their attempts to remove trade unions from the workplace. We know the tactics they use: they attempt to destabilise, demoralise, and then derecognise. Congress, the balance of forces needs to be changed.

Those people clinging on to the social partnership rhetoric and claptrap need to rethink their way forward. All affiliated unions and the TUC have a vital role in debating, formulating, campaigning, and then delivering a positive legal right to organise and bargain collectively. Thank you.

Bob Oram (UNISON) supporting Composite Motion 1 said: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like all the speakers today, UNISON believes we have the worst employment rights in Europe. It is a disgrace that this continues under the watch of a New Labour government. I want to add our union's voice to all those supporting workers who have suffered because of privatisation or outsourcing and who are taking solidarity action.

Comrades, out in the lobby there is a stand promoting tourism in Southport, Merseyside. I have nothing against Southport, it is a nice place, but I do have a problem with its council. On Saturday, 14^th May, six UNISON activists joined a small demonstration against a housing stock transfer being proposed for Sefton. The protestors were outside a shop that the council had rented in the shopping precinct in Sefton protesting against the launch of the campaign to encourage the tenants to vote for the transfer. On the Monday the protestors were suspended from work and today, 16 weeks after the event, two of them, Nigel Flannigan and Paul Summers, are still suspended and face dismissal.

Our union's position has not changed throughout that period. Within days we made it clear that the suspensions were a disproportionate response to what happened, or is alleged to have happened; the council had over-reacted. The suspensions are a political act and an attack on UNISON as a result of our support for the Defend Council Housing campaign, a campaign that spent £17,000 compared to the council's £5.5m and was successful in rejecting the privatisation of those council houses. Since May we have made every effort to resolve this dispute but Sefton refuse to move and intend to go ahead with gross misconduct hearings.

The branch has taken three days solidarity action and all 2,000 members have been out on strike; it has been solid and disciplined. The council know that the branch, the Northwest region, and UNISON nationally, believe this to be victimisation and will continue to support its members. This is not a complex dispute, it is very simple to understand: the employer has targeted two trade union activists for their trade union beliefs and intends to sack them. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I?

I will quickly quote a couple of statements from the police officer who was actually at the demonstration: I did not see any of the protestors going up to the shop window, staring in, pointing at the staff, making them feel uncomfortable. I did not hear them swear at any members of the official party. No one from the transfer shop made any complaints about anybody shouting at them, at the time, to myself or my colleague who was there. There was no incident that they were aware of and was recorded in their notebooks. That is from the police.

This is a direct attack on trade unions carrying out legitimate trade union activity. I think it is a disgrace that the council intends to go ahead with their action. I know that everybody in this room is going to do something about this important composite. We must act on it in 2006. I also urge everybody to show support for the two comrades who will be down here this afternoon from Sefton; they are going to lose their jobs for undertaking genuine solidarity action with council tenants. I would urge you to do the same. Thanks very much, comrades.

The President: The General Council supports Composite Motions 1 and 2.

* Composite Motion 1 was CARRIED

* Composite Motion 2 was CARRIED

The President: I did intend to mention when Bob Crow came up to second Composite 2, and he may not know this, that he was nominated Player of the Match when the TUC cricket team finally, after 10 years, under the captaincy of Mike Leahy, defeated the might of the British journalist core. Mick and Brendan keep insisting that it was their runs that made the difference, but as I was there and as I am genuinely a dispassionate and independent president, I really do think Bob Crow was the Player of the Match. Thanks very much.

Congress, I now move to Emergency Motion 1. As indicated earlier, I will be calling the General Secretary during the debate to give the General Council's position. Could I invite the T&G to move the Emergency Motion 1 and could I ask the GMB to be ready to second. Thank you.

Gate Gourmet

Tony Woodley (Transport and General Workers' Union) moved Emergency

Motion 1. He said: Colleagues, I will start at the outset by saying that there is no doubt at all that this is the most important debate we are going to have during this week. It is not just about policy, or indeed just about rhetoric, it is about a fight for justice going on right now for ordinary run-of-the-mill working men and women. These people need our 100% wholehearted support.

I will ask Congress again to pay tribute to the working men and women who are battling their socks off for their jobs, our people in Gate Gourmet, comrades. (Applause) That is what being in a trade union is really about, fighting for people, real people with a real problem, not worrying about mixing with the good or, indeed, the great. Let me say to my members and our comrades in the balcony, not just on behalf of the T&G but on behalf of the whole of the TUC, your fight is our fight and, as you can see, we are all genuinely with you and we are doing our best to help you here.

With this in mind I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Brendan Barber. The amount of time he has put in to try and help us find a resolution has been staggering. Brendan, thank you. I am grateful.

Many of us are used to stories of bad behaviour by big business and, indeed, bad bosses but at Gate Gourmet we have a renegade venture capitalist company, headed up by American union busting bosses, plotting for more than a year to sack low-paid workers, working behind the scenes to provoke a dispute to justify that sacking, secretly recruiting agency labour on still lower rates of pay, and locking out our members in the canteen on the day that they sacked them. They sacked them by megaphone on the orders of a cowboy capitalist from Texas, and I do not mean George Bush.

Comrades, this is truly the unacceptable face of globalisation, a man who insults our intelligence by saying that our members, ordinary working men and women just like us, are all acting like lunatic troublemakers, 200 militants in a small plant. If it was not so serious, I would say, 'Don't make me laugh.' It is unbelievable what they will say to justify their unjustifiable actions. Our members are just hard-working, decent men and women, set up, victimised, and sacked, for no good reason other than to cut costs at their expense. It is an absolute disgrace that this can happen in our country today. No decent boss, no worker, no politician, could ever support such bad behaviour in our country.

It is not good enough just to condemn the bad bosses, we have to ask ourselves, how can they get away with such bad behaviour in 21^st century Britain? How can they conduct industrial relations on the basis of deceit and, indeed, intimidation? It certainly would not be allowed to happen in any other state in Europe. The anti-trade union laws that all previous speakers have spoken about on the statute book are clearly a green light for greed, a charter for this cowboy capitalist, and a licence for bullying. They should go; not tomorrow, they should go now.

When I mentioned solidarity action all the commentators and, indeed, the politicians who have nothing to say about exploitation, who will not lift a finger to help low-paid Asian workers from mistreatment, were outraged when T&G members at Heathrow Airport walked out in support of our sacked workers; even Lord Reece-Morgan at the time said I should be sacked or sent to prison. If solidarity is a crime, then send us all to jail, your Lordship, because that is what we may have to do to fight back for our rights in this country.

The Movement was built on solidarity and we know that is why Thatcher made solidarity unlawful, to make us ineffective. We have to be determined now, comrades, in this Movement to move on from the 1990s when our Movement was too weak to help colleagues in distress and difficulty. How can it be right that T&G members in Gate Gourmet cannot support their sacked brothers and sisters in struggle whilst at exactly the same time bosses can fly in scabs from any part of Europe with the full backing of the law? How can this be right in Britain today? We do need to redraft those laws, we do need to make solidarity action a basic human right, and we do need to campaign now.

Comrades, we are endeavouring to find a solution to the Gate Gourmet dispute but, be clear, you do not plan action like this to take people back to work just because of an argument. I would like to thank many of you for the support you have already given us but we do need further financial support for our sacked workers, and we do need to make sure that every MP and every part of our country understands what is going on here. It must be understood that in a civilised society this action cannot be allowed to go on. Colleagues, we have to show this government that the time for waffling over employment law is over. We have to stop these outrages happening again and turn round and make those changes. If we make the changes, then that is the response, the only response, that is worthy to obtain justice for our brothers and sisters who I am privileged to represent and who are here with us today from Gate Gourmet. Thank you, comrades.

Paul Kenny (GMB) seconding Emergency Motion 1 said: I was not sure, Tony, because of your Liverpool accent whether you said Brendan was seeking support for the 'revolution' or 'resolution' of the dispute! I hope it is the latter. I am honoured and somewhat ashamed, actually, to second Emergency Motion 1: honoured to stand alongside our brothers and sisters in the T&G from Gate Gourmet and ashamed as a Movement that, after nearly a decade of a Labour government, working people in this country can still be treated with such disrespect, be bullied, victimised, and sacked. I apologise that the TUC policy has not been implemented by government. We now see the victims of the failure in the last seven years to repeal anti-trade union rights and laws brought in by Thatcher, the result of inaction by a Labour government.

I know it has become popular to knock the TUC but the General Secretary, Brendan Barber, and the General Council, should be congratulated on their total and firm support in lining up to fight this injustice. There is a battle ahead, make no mistake about that. As long as the TUC is in the forefront of supporting struggle, its unity and its future are secure.

Texas Pacific own Gate Gourmet and for some time our international colleagues in Unite Here and SEIU have been warning us about the North American union busting agenda. David Siegel, the Chairman, accused those hardworking people, those men and women who were employees at Heathrow, of being militants because they wanted a job, militants because they wanted proper pay, militants because they wanted security at work, and that they are disruptive because they wanted and expected respect, dignity, and equality, from their employers. All I can say is that it is a pity there are not a few more million militants in this country right now. Respect, dignity, and equality, which we stand for as a Movement, are the values by which you judge a society. That is another reason to thank the Gate Gourmet workers for reminding us of the values we should stand up for.

At election time I am used to seeing Labour politicians holding up pledge cards telling us what they are going to do. I want to show them a pledge card, our pledge card in this Movement, our trade union membership card. It pledges that we will support and unite when our members, or the members of this Movement, or workers in this country, are under attack. I call on everybody inside the TUC to join together in the struggle to support justice for the Gate Gourmet workers. If the government does not understand, then they should talk to those workers who are being victimised and attacked day in, day out, for seeking to defend their jobs.

Tony (and I mean Blair, not Woodley), never mind about favours for the few, what about fairness for the many? Any dispute, colleagues, and those of you who have been in one know, is hard and lonely. Working people should not have to experience the trauma of dismissal by text, email, or megaphone. The choice is simple for government, it is about decency. We must have the freedom to show solidarity legally and restrict the abuses of employers like Gate Gourmet, Morrisons, Asda, Wal-Mart, and Sefton. The GMB is proud to support the courage of Gate Gourmet workers and ashamed that we have to do so in 2005. We pledge our solidarity in your struggle and the fight for justice. Thank you.

The President: Thank you, Paul. I am conscious that I was very generous with the timing there but I think the spirit of Congress was that Paul should have the opportunity to articulate the view of his members. I call on the General Secretary.

Brendan Barber (General Secretary) supporting Emergency Motion 1 said: President, Congress, I rise to offer the support of the whole General Council, and I am confident the whole of the Trade Union Movement, to the T&G in their battle for justice for the Gate Gourmet workers so cynically and cruelly sacked by their employers. Since the dispute erupted on August 10^th the TUC has been in close and continuous contact with the T&G, backing in any way we could their efforts to get this company to accept that they simply cannot walk away from the sacked workers, and to bring them back into negotiations. Those efforts are continuing.

Over the days and the weeks since the megaphone sackings of August 10^th, the dismissed workers have stood together with dignity and determination in the face of outrageous slurs and vilification and it is great to see them with us here today. Along with Tony, I have had the opportunity to meet the workers and their reps. Believe me, their courage is inspiring. Our top priority is, and must remain, winning justice for those workers. Of course, there are wider issues which we expect the government now to address. What this dispute has shown us is the grim fact that our labour law has left these workers absolutely defenceless. That is clearly unacceptable.

I say to the government, if you share our anger at this outrageous employer behaviour, then sit down and work with us to prevent this ever happening again. The T&G deserve all our support but, even more importantly, the Gate Gourmet workers need all our support. I urge you to carry this emergency motion.

* Emergency Motion 1 was CARRIED.

The President: Could I just reiterate, Tony did say in his moving speech that they were appealing for trade union solidarity, including financial solidarity. This is an important fight so there will be a collection for the Gate Gourmet workers as you leave this morning's session of Congress. Could I encourage you to give generously to ensure that their fight is a great success. Thanks very much.

Organising and Rights at Work

Jack Dromey (Transport & General Workers' Union) moved Motion 1.

He said: We exist for truly the most noble of causes, the freedom of working people in a free society built on solidarity and social justice. Power for working people springs from strong organisation in the workplace, but that power is in decline. Unless we reverse the decline, we will see a world run by rich men and the employers. For all of us there is no choice but to change, refocusing everything we do on organising to win in the workplace. We must not be defensive or complacent. We are all proud of our history, winning real progress for working people, and we survived the Thatcher winter.

In the T&G we are proud of our tradition of being an awkward independent progressive and fighting organisation standing up for our members. We should all be frank, workplace organisation is not what it once was. For the T&G two things are key: First, building with our friends the GMB and Amicus a new union 2.5 million strong. No one here should fear the new union. A strong new union will strengthen all working people; only bad managers or ministers who do not listen to the voice of working people need fear it. Mergers in themselves, however, do not create new members. Second, therefore, organising is key, organising built on the simple truth, that unless you build strong, self-confident, self-sustaining workplace organisation, you do not win in the workplace, you do not grow. Our hard-pressed officers are run ragged servicing a fragmented and declining membership.

We have started by seeking to reorganise the workplaces where we have 800,000 members through our 100% Campaign, strengthening workplace organisations and making sure that every worker is in the union. There should be no No-Go areas in future, no more workplaces where we have recognition but only a minority in membership, no more workplaces where the directly employed are organised but temporary, casual, and agency workers are not. All of us face the same task and all of us should learn from one another working together.

Next, we need to organise unorganised workplaces, always applying those organising principles of helping workers to help themselves. In the T&G we have established the national organising department, which I head, to develop and deliver in partnership with our regions major organising campaigns, from low-cost airlines to logistics we are going for it and growing in expanding areas of the economy. All workers need unions and no workplace is 'unorganisable'. Our message to Michael O'Leary and Ryanair today is, your time will come. In building services, too, we are organising an army of cleaners, most are migrant workers. We welcome them to our shores unlike the brain-dead boot boys of the BNP. These workers suffer, however, from super exploitation; from Canary Wharf to the House of Commons they have had enough. They want a living wage and respect, and they will win it.

Congress, we need a new generation of organisers who believe in old truths. In the T&G we have recruited the first 50 of our organisers, who include experienced shop stewards and convenors. We are also changing the face of the union. One third are women, two of them young Polish organisers. Our building services organising team is black and Latino and we are now joined by our Muslim brother who believes that all good Muslims should be good trade unionists.

Congress, in conclusion, this motion focuses on the future, on the need for solidarity and practical action. Welcoming the work of the organisation and the representation task group led by our General Secretary, Tony Woodley, we spell out the need for action on the following key five fronts.

First, unions must work together and never allow themselves to be used by employers. To be blunt, we have had sorry experiences of sister unions signing sweetheart deals where we have organised workers into the T&G. We as a movement must act to tighten our own rules, banishing from our ranks disreputable behaviour.

Second, good facilities agreements are essential for good workplace organisation. As unions we need to work together to negotiate better facilities agreements, and the government should get a move on with its promised review of the law strengthening the rights of shop stewards to enjoy better facilities in the workplace.

Third, capital is global but labour is local. We pride ourselves on international solidarity, and it can make a real difference. The time has come, however, to go one crucial step further. The new union will organise Europe-wide and at the T&G right now we are planning the first international organising campaign working with sister unions committed to the organising agenda. We will target multinationals in the continents and countries where they have the bulk of their work, acting together and moving at the same time.

Fourth, Labour's third term manifesto explicitly stated that a goal of public policy is to help unions grow. We now want to see practical action ranging from simplifying recognition procedures, including better rights of access, to removing the shackles on solidarity.

Fifth, our experience is that high quality research is key to effective organising. The T&G and the TUC together took a pioneering initiative in logistics developing our capacity to undertake qualitative research of workers not in the union and to find out why. We have a choice, we can either make history or we can become history. I, you, we, have not devoted our lives to the cause of working people to become a movement that future generations read about but do not belong to. The TUC must be relevant, working with us to refocus on organising and rebuilding our Movement. Decline is not inevitable. We can and will rebuild only if we organise.

Leslie Manasseh (Connect) seconding Motion 1 said: In seconding this motion I would like to focus on a key feature of the organising challenge that faces us, that is, the difference, as the President mentioned this morning, between the public and the private sectors. Therein lay some uncomfortable statistics. Of some 6 million public sector workers over 60% are in trade unions, but there are getting on for 20 million private sector workers and less than 20% of them in trade unions. Recognition is the norm in the public sector but the exception in the private sector. In short, Congress, while trade unions are part of the public sector landscape, we are barely visible in vast tracks of the private sector. In 64% of workplaces with more than 10 employees there is not a single trade union member. The situation is set to get worse if we do not correct it. The forecast areas of growth in employment in the private sector are precisely those areas where we are weakest.

I do not want to underestimate the importance of organising and campaigning in the public sector, nor the real problems our public sector members face but, Congress, that is not where the real organising challenge lies. There is a risk of trade unionism becoming, and perhaps more importantly being seen as, a public sector phenomenon that would make it even harder to organise in the private sector. It must make us think long and hard about our priorities and make sure we speak to the concerns of and on behalf of workers in the private sector. This means, quite simply, we must organise.

As the motion makes clear, there are no easy options here. Organising is hard work. It is about campaigning on the issues that matter. It is about speaking a language of the world of work which chimes with their experience. It is about putting organising near the top of our agenda when it comes to resources rather than near the bottom. It is about remembering that millions of workers have never had any real contact with a trade union and it is our duty to reach out to them. Although organising is hard work, the good news is that it works. It is a real challenge, no doubt, but it is not beyond us and, more importantly, nobody is going to do it for us.

Congress, unless we put growth and renewal in the private sector at the heart of our priorities, we cannot prosper. The sheer arithmetic of non membership is compelling enough but if we need a better reason we only have to look back at the previous debate. Who would speak up for, who would fight for, who would support, who would defend the 670 workers sacked so disgracefully by Gate Gourmet if they were not themselves trade unionists able to organise and act collectively in defence of their rights? Congress, we need more of them. Please support.

Paddy Lillis (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers): I want to express my union's support for the General Council's Report and the motion before Conference today. There can be few of us left nowadays who honestly believe that people will always join because it is in their blood or because their fathers or grandfathers were trades unionists or because of some commitment to the past. Some will but all too many will not, as Jack Dromey just said. We have long since learned the golden organising rule: people will only join us if they see the point here and now. It will not happen by magic. Recruitment has to be planned, managed and monitored. Organising takes resources, skill and training. Committed lay members are always best placed to recruit non-members, not the hard pressed full-time officers running on and off sites, dealing with disciplinaries, grievances and tribunals, and all the other areas of their work. But the local rep, or networks of them, meeting, winning over and signing up new members day in and day out, and then getting them involved, aware and organised and keeping them in the union, that is the prize and it has been the goal of the TUC's Organising Academy in recent years.

I want to pay tribute on behalf of our union for the groundbreaking work of the Academy staff and for the forward way they have opened up for all of us in this hall today. Following their lead, my union - USDAW -- opened our own Academy in 2003. Dozens of lay representatives have now spent six months each on secondment to the union -- in fact 54 in the three years -- undergoing extensive training, coupled with hands-on practical experience in a wide variety of workplaces, so that we now have now a large and growing group of skilled, knowledgeable active and competent lay representatives and organisers and it is really paying dividends.

In the last three years over 20,000 new members have been recruited directly by these 54 people, and well over 500 new shop stewards have been identified and brought on to ensure the sustainability of their workplaces. On top of that, we have a range of agreements with employers to second lay representatives, agreements to stand them down from their usual duties, to resource key organising initiatives, all in addition to the work and resources we dedicate through our full-time people.

It is not easy, and its front end cause is certainly there. but so too are the dividends and the vital lessons for the future -- dividends and lessons which are grounded in the work of the TUC Organising Academy. We owe them a huge debt of thanks. Please support the motion and the General Council's Report.

Kevin Kelly (Public and Commercial Services Union) supporting Motion 1, said: Congress, at last year's Congress I spoke about PCS's national organising strategy. Since then, we have been building a stronger healthier PCS. Since then, we have increased the number of our Branch Organisers from 150 up to 470. We now have over 1,000 learning representatives. We have increased the support for organising. We have trained all our lay Organisers, developed with the TUC a strategic training for lead lay Organisers, issued regular Organising Newsletters, we have more full-time organisers, to find, train and support lay activists -- all full-time organisers trained by the TUC Organising Academy. We built organising into our trade union education. We have held organising conferences in every part of our regions and on a national basis as well. We have produced more campaigning literature; we have increased the number of activists in our union to around 8,000. We have a growing network of young members with over 50 regional convenors.

Our membership now stands at its highest level ever, 325,000. We believe we are the fastest growing union in the TUC. Congress, an organising union that negotiates hard, backed up by campaigning, mobilising members and the use of industrial action as a last resort has been part of the cornerstone of our success, a cornerstone that has enabled us to win on members' issues. In an ironic way, New Labour has helped us. They have tried to slash our jobs, they have tried to relocate our work, they have tried to attack our pensions and they have tried to refuse to ignore our claim for fair pay. That has angered both members and non-members alike. It has strengthened their resolve to join PCS to get active and to fight back.

Last year, on November 5, when 200,000 of our members stood up for their jobs by taking industrial action, that showed the importance of being well organised. We recruited thousands of new members 1,000 on one day alone. We got members involved not only in industrial action but in the leafleting, the picket line, the petitioning that took place on that day, and that included especially young members. The threatened pensions dispute early this year also repeated that process and Tony Blair found that he did have a reverse gear after all.

There is still a lot to do. Organising is a long-term strategy. In PCS we have to tackle under representation, election participation, our communications structures and adopting an organising approach in every branch. If the trade union Movement is to make a difference for workers then every union has to become an organising one. The TUC can and must make this happen. This motion sets out clearly the work to be done. Support Motion 1. Support the amendment. Together let us build a stronger, growing, healthier trade union Movement, one that is campaigning, vibrant and involves members in its campaign, and a union Movement that wins on the members' issues of pay, jobs and pensions.

Bernice Waugh (NATFHE - The University & College Lecturers' Union) supporting the Organising motion and speaking specifically to bullet point (iv), and speaking from personal experience.

He said: I have two daughters; I am very proud of my daughters. One is a shop worker and is a young member of USDAW; one is at University. Like other single parents, and like every person in this room, I have a budget to work to. Like you, I have been involved in the labour Movement in my Branch for more years than I care to remember. Point iv) calls for improved paid time-off and facilities for workplace reps. This week my employer intends to dock four days' pay from my wages for attending this Congress, an 80 per cent deduction. When we hear Government Ministers talking about democracy, when we hear the CBI, the Tories, talking about fairness, when we listened last year, quietly, whilst Tony Blair talked of 21st century progress, well isn't there some irony here? Progress, what progress?

Last year, my first year at the TUC, I was very proud, I was paid; this year, a pay cut. Individual trades union members up and down this country are being penalised and victimised, paying out of their pockets and with their time to carry out their duties and their activities, the duties that every modern 21st century employer considers necessary for harmonious and effective industrial relations. Organising, fairness at work, freedom for trade unions, what price Warwick now? Alas poor Warwick!

Support the members; please support this motion.

The President : I wanted to take the opportunity of the first contribution of a speaker from NATFHE to send on behalf of Congress good wishes to Paul Mackney, who is the General Secretary, who had a heart attack and is now recovering, which is excellent. But he is still poorly although he keeps using his Blackberry and Email to make his views known to the TUC! Some people are simply irrepressible, are they not, whatever the odds, but I am sure collectively, on behalf of Congress, you would want me to send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery because he is a character and a half.

Thank you, Bernice, for allowing me to use you as the opportunity to do that.

Paul Tilbrook (AMICUS): I shall be brief in relation to supporting Motion 1. If we were to believe some of the media comments in the run-up to this Congress, about the decline of the trade union Movement and the membership, you would see this as a question of whether or not we have a future. We have all suffered; we all understand the effect of the last 25 years of neglect in the manufacturing sector, something that has done more to decimate trade union membership than any other single factor.

It is often the case that behind the headlines there are many, many good stories and I just wanted to say that, in relation to our own position, AMICUS last year recruited in excess of 70,000 new members. The net effect, of course, at the end of the day was considerably less than that, for reasons which I am sure we all understand -- reasons which are largely not under our control. But the positive message is that many of these new recruits were first-time trade union members. They came from sectors that, by and large, were considered to be non-traditional for the trade union Movement to be involved in. The number of women involved in the union has increased in the course of the last fifteen months, as has the proportion of people from professional and managerial backgrounds as well. Where the results remain disappointing is in relation to our ability to recruit young workers, and in that respect I suspect we are not alone. We also need to address the issue of people from ethnic backgrounds, of whom the proportion inside the union is extremely low.

However, we are tackling some of these issues, or at least we are attempting to tackle some of these issues. Our recent involvement in the Glastonbury Festival, our participation -- along with other unions here in the TUC -- in the Make Poverty History campaign in Edinburgh are all demonstrations of us trying to get the message across that the trade union Movement stands for principles, it stands for social justice, it stands for fair employment and it stands for good retirement security.

Where we do strongly agree with the movers of the motion is that a renewed effort must be put in to recruit people who are not currently members of the trade union Movement. That is a dedication that requires effort, requires money, requires people, requires time and innovation, not least of which -- in an age of 24/7 news coverage and mobile technologies -- requires good communications systems between the union and the members themselves. It can be done; we can demonstrate it can be done. Indeed, let me just take this opportunity to praise one of the individual members, Jessica Fagan, who is one of the joint winners of the TUC 2005 Organising Award, to show that with the correct attitudes and the correct effort and the support of the organisation on the ground, significant inroads can be made to recruit new members. It is campaigning, it is aspirations, it is using the legislation such as information and consultation, it is building sustainable work forces, and it is helping to train people to help themselves. In brief, where there is work there is a need for a trade union.

The President: The General Council is supporting the motion.

* Motion 1 was CARRIED

Union subscriptions and tax allowances

The President: I now call Motion 7, Union subscription and tax allowances. The General Council support the motion.

Martin Fletcher (FDA) moved Motion 7.

He said: I am well qualified to propose this motion as I am one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes. I can say that with confidence because, when I say that at a party, I find people move to another room or sometimes they move off to another party. But today I am speaking to a captive audience. At least, when I wrote that I thought I was!

I fully understand the legislation on income tax. The general principles are quite simple. Tax is paid on a person's earnings after allowable expenses have been deducted, so if a person earns £15,000 but has expenses of £1,000 tax will only be paid on £14,000. However, expenses will only be allowed if they pass various tests that Parliament has laid down. Lots of payments do pass that test and the expense will be allowed, and that is fine. But the rules do not allow for trade union subscriptions to be treated as an allowable expense for employees. I personally regard my trade union subscription as a necessary and legitimate expense. Indeed, I do not see how I could earn my salary and not pay my union fees, although I understand that a small number of my colleagues do not take the same view. (Pause here for cries of 'Shame on them' and if no cries heard remember to reprimand the General Secretary later!)

I accept that the law on this subject is clear. Some years ago I was a member of the AIT, the Association of the Inspectors of Taxes. In 1981 the AIT tried to claim tax relief for a proportion of the union fees based on the amount of union money spent on professional activities as opposed to industrial relations. The Inland Revenue refused the claim and the AIT took the Inland Revenue to a tribunal to fight the case. Despite the fact that there were more senior tax inspectors appearing for the union than there were for the Inland Revenue, the union lost the case. The law did not allow the relief and that was the end of the matter. We continue to feel that while the decision may be right in law it is morally wrong.

I am happy to pay tax on my earnings -- well, I am not actually happy, but you know what I mean -- but what I pay tax on should be the amount that is left after my union fees have been paid. They are a legitimate cost of being in employment. The Inland Revenue guidance on the subject says this: subscriptions to trades unions and other comparable bodies are not deductible even where membership is required by the employer. The expense is not incurred in the performance of the duties nor is it necessarily incurred. But there is then a long list of professional bodies and learned societies where fees and subscriptions can be allowed for tax, and it is a large document over 100 pages long, listing the bodies to which members can make payments with full tax relief. Within the list there are 14 TUC affiliated trades unions, but the vast majority of unions are not included. The National Union of Mineworkers is not included but the Institution of Mining Engineers is. The National Union of Journalists is not included but the Institute of Journalism is. The Musicians Union is not included but the Royal Musical Association is, and so is the International Society for Music Education and the Institute of Music Instrument Technology. The FDA is not included but the National Association for Personal Secretaries is, as is the Institute of Directors. In this debate the FDA is aligned not with the professional unions but alongside the NUM, the NUJ, the TGWU and many others.

A couple of years ago the TUC made representations for a partial relief based on the amount spent by a union on training, but nothing came of this. The FDA is not asking for partial relief and we are not trying to justify relief based on professional work, training or any other single aspect of union life. We are seeking total relief for the whole union subscription based on the fact that union fees should be a basic employee expense and should be recognised as such. It beggars belief that in the third term of a Labour Government this fundamental relief has not been given. How can payments to the Institute of Directors be more worthy of relief than payments to the Fire Brigades Union, UNISON or Prospect? The law as it stands is unworthy of a Labour Government; indeed, it is unworthy of any government but especially unworthy of a Labour Government. The time has come to change it and I ask you to support this motion and support a campaign for change. I move.

Malcolm Cantello (UNISON) seconded Motion 7. He said: supporting and seconding the FDA motion on tax allowances on behalf of UNISON.

Congress, it is almost nine years since my union first approached the Inland Revenue to point out some of the anomalies of the tax allowance system. Our case at the time was that we should have parity with the organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing around tax relief on subscriptions for nurses and other healthcare professionals. After all, what is the difference between the RCN and us when it comes to offering the same services and opportunities for career development and support? To qualify as an approved body so that members can qualify for a tax rebate we were told that we had to meet the set of criteria set out in the legislation that cover training, education, and professional services. Well, if that is what the revenue want, we said that is what we can give you.

I do not have time to describe our work with other education providers, or the work we have done around the design of courses that link into the knowledge and skills framework which underpins the new Agenda for Change grading system in the NHS, and three minutes is just not long enough to tell you about the skills for life courses we offer that have encouraged tens of thousands of our members back into the education system, or the workplace learning programmes we have running that will provide new career opportunities to our members in sectors like health and social care. We do all this, like other unions, because we want our members to fulfil their potential and because all our work also improves workplace performance. Why else would so many employers be eager to work with us? Even as the Inland Revenue prevaricated over our role in providing training opportunities, employers were quick to appreciate what we had to offer. By 2003 we were working in 345 partnerships with employers to deliver paid courses during work time, so all in all you could say we do even more to qualify for the government's criteria than many existing approved bodies.

At the end of the day this motion is about fairness. We have already called for fairness in the union Movement in respect of employment law. We are now calling for fairness in the taxation system. As a Movement and as individual affiliates we are providing positive life and career changes as chances to our members, and we are often at the centre of reforming the workplace to make them efficient, effective, sympathetic and fair environments. The government tell us they are serious about life-long learning and creating a skills-based economy. Tomorrow Gordon Brown may even speak about building an industrial relations culture based on unions playing a positive role in partnership. If that is what they want then they must use the tools at their disposal to help us to grow and develop.

Therefore, Congress, I urge you to place pressure on the government to acknowledge the work that we do and the support we give to our members. We must call on the government to give us a level playing field in the taxation system and offer workers a financial incentive to join a union. Congress, support Motion 7.

* Motion 7 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The President: We are running short of time for this morning's session so I am not going to take paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the General Council's Report or the presentation of the 2005 TUC Equality Audit now because I do not want to rush them in the next few minutes, so we will take them either this afternoon or later on in the week.

Congress, I am sure most of you will already know our next guest speaker, Baroness Prosser, who was formerly Deputy General Secretary of the T&G and a long-serving member of the General Council. I know from my own experience she was a positive powerhouse on women's rights and issues when she was on the General Council. She was President of the TUC in 1995 to 1996 and last year Margaret was appointed by the government to chair the Women and Work Commission, which was set up to address the difficult but persistent problem of unequal pay. Margaret is going to tell us about the important work of the Commission and I am delighted you could get here, Margaret. I invite you to address the Congress.

Address by Baroness Margaret Prosser (Chair of Women and Work Commission)

Baroness Margaret Prosser ( Chair, Women and Work Commission): Thank you very much, Jeannie. First of all, may I offer you my congratulations on your position of President of the TUC. I hope you have had a good year and I hope you have a very enjoyable week; I am sure you will.

May I also thank the General Council for asking me to address Congress on the work of the Women and Work Commission. I think I will just start by briefly explaining the background to the Commission. Following discussions between the trade union members of the Labour Party Policy Forum and members of the Government on, among other things, the trade unions' request for the introduction of statutory pay reviews, and acutely aware of the looming financial problems posed by equal value claims, particularly in the National Health Service and local government, the Prime Minister decided that there should be a thorough study of the continuing reasons for the gender pay gap. He therefore asked me to chair a Commission which would investigate the issues including -- and I quote here from our terms of reference -- 'Looking at the case for equal pay reviews to be mandatory and at measures necessary to strengthen equal pay legislation." and to report back to him with recommendations for action. The time frame given was twelve months.

The magnitude of the task did not escape me: 35 years of legislation and a pay gap still wide enough to accommodate the proverbial coach and horses, and we were given 12 months to solve it all! Still, nothing daunted, we set about our task last September. I can advise you that I have now written to the Prime Minister explaining that the sheer volume of work and the complexity of the issues have meant that 12 months has not been long enough. I have proposed a final report date of January 2006.

The Commission is comprised of 14 people with extensive experience of the world of work. The TUC representatives are Kay Carberry, our Assistant General Secretary; Debbie Coulter, Deputy General Secretary of the GMB; Liz Snape from UNISON; and John Hannett, General Secretary of USDAW. We have representatives from the CBI, the public sector, ethnic minority workers, education, training and, of course, the Equal Opportunities Commission. Our style of work has been much like that of the Low Pay Commission. We have received academic research, oral presentations from unions and business and from small innovative projects working, for example, to help women returners. Among others to present to us include those with experience of equal pay audits, union equality representatives, computer clubs for girls and Connections, the old careers service. We have been out and about to companies large and small and we have visited the whole of the United Kingdom in an attempt to find out about stumbling blocks as well, of course, as to identify examples of best practice.

So, what does all this tell us? Well, first and foremost it has demonstrated that the problems relating to women in the labour market, which leads to such unequal earnings, are multifaceted and quite complicated. There is no silver bullet answer to what is a multi-layered problem. Processes such as equal pay reviews may well have a part to play but the evidence shows us, for example, that educational choices, lack of available good quality part-time jobs and employment downsizing to fit in with domestic responsibilities impact very adversely on women's position in the labour market. Job segregation, the undervaluing of women's work, contracting-out under procurement rules, so stiffly written and applied that no account is taken of either good or shoddy equality practices, and managers at local level refusing for seemingly no good reason to implement helpful flexibility arrangements, all contribute to corralling women at the bottom end of the pay scales. We have received some interesting research from the LSE on the impact of moving from full to part-time employment. Even when staying with the same employer, to shift to part-time means that the woman will lose out over time both in salary and status. To move to part-time work with a different employer sees that salary and status reduction immediately.

Many women want to work part-time and the trade union Movement has campaigned long and hard for full employment rights for part-timers. But part-time workers are not taken sufficiently seriously by employers and there is a real lack of part-time opportunities at professional or management level. Job segregation within work places and workplace organisation generally are both issues over which we have some control in unionised companies. I would urge you all to give this aspect of the problem some serious attention.

I would also recommend that, if you have not done so already, you take a look at the ACAS Employment Relations Matters No. 3, issued this Spring, which sets out the many ways in which unequal pay actually comes about. I am advised by the people on the ACAS stall that they will have plenty of copies of this Employment Relations Sheet by tomorrow.

What other messages do I want to leave with you? Well, firstly let me correct something that was said in the Guardian Society article last Wednesday. I have never said that unions are responsible for the pay gap. That view would be patently ludicrous. However, 35 years of legislation and a pay gap of 18 per cent for full-time and 40 per cent for part-time workers does not reflect well on anybody, and we all have a part to play in fixing this.

The Commission has yet to complete its thinking on mandatory pay reviews. We are also still considering issues round the role of equality representatives. We have received evidence on current and serious problems within the legal framework. Any views we have on the Equal Pay Act will be referred to the Discrimination Law Review Group, which is looking at equalities legislation across the piece in preparation for a single equality act. I am impressed by the work being done, as shown in the Equality Audit. I urge those of you who have not yet read it to take a good look because it contains some very good ideas. It demonstrates a shift in emphasis, which is very welcome,