SECOND DAY: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH
MORNING SESSION
(Congress reassembled at 9.30 a.m.)
The President: Good morning, delegates. I call you to order. Let me start by apologising for a slight delay to the opening this morning, which was mainly due to the fact that we do not have a great amount of time to discuss our business in the General Council and a rather contentious issue required a fair amount of debate this morning.
Could I begin also by thanking the Jazz Pirates, who unfortunately have now disappeared, for providing the entertainment that once again the NUT is sponsoring. Thank you very much.
May I remind delegation leaders that the ballots for the General Council and the General Purposes Committee take place this morning. There are still a lot of people standing in the aisles talking. I should be grateful if you would sit down or hold your conversations elsewhere. Ballot papers should be collected from the desk outside the TUC stand situated in the ground floor exhibition area, just inside the main front doors of the Brighton Centre. Ballot papers will only be provided in exchange for the official delegate form. Please note that the ballot closes at 12 noon today.
Delegates, I now ask Gerry Veart, Chair of the General Purposes Committee, to give a report.
General Purposes Committee Report
Gerry Veart (General Purposes Committee): Good morning, Congress. This morning’s GPC report includes two new items. An emergency motion was submitted yesterday to the GPC by NATFHE on compulsory testing and citizenship. The GPC agreed that it was in order as an emergency and copies will be distributed in due course. The President will indicate in due course when the emergency motion will be taken on the agenda.
The GPC also agree to a request from the Transport & General Workers’ Union to organise a collection for the Friction Dynamics workers. They will be rattling their collection buckets as you leave the hall for lunch today. That concludes my report. Thank you.
The President: Can I take it that that report is agreed? (Agreed) Thank you very much. Congress, we start this morning’s business by introducing the sororal delegate from the Labour Party. This year it is Diana Holland, well known to many in the Movement for her dedicated work in promoting equal rights. As on a number of previous occasions, this is less of an address by a visiting speaker but more an address by one of our own in a different guise. Diana, as most of you will know, is the T&G’s National Organiser for Women, Race & Equalities. She is a member of the TUC Women’s Committee and a member of the T&G delegation to Congress. Diana is also one of the trade union members of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, and this year she is the Chair. Diana, you are warmly welcomed and I am delighted to be able to ask you to address Congress as a representative of the Labour Party.
Diana Holland: Thank you very much, President. Congress, it is a privilege to address this Congress as the sororal delegate from the Labour Party. It was a special honour to be elected this year’s Chair by the Labour Party NEC during last year’s Congress, the first woman from my union to hold this office and the first T&G representative since Alex Kitson in the 1970s, a special honour for me and for women in my union. On behalf of the Labour Party membership I would like to pay tribute to John Monks for all his years of service and to congratulate Brendan Barber on becoming the new General Secretary of the TUC. At this moment in time, it is more important than ever that the Labour Party and the trade union Movement find ways to work together. I would also like to welcome Frances O’Grady and Kay Carberry to their posts. Brendan, I have to warn you that at this year’s TUC Women’s Conference they were presented with two hammers in order to smash a few more glass ceilings but I know that all your commitment to working men and women, and to the trade union Movement, is what we need to build hope for future generations.
Congress, we meet at a time which is demanding and difficult for all of us, with desperate problems to tackle and great opportunities for tackling those problems, but also great dangers facing the whole world, issues in the wider world, like injustice and poverty in Africa, the continuing critical situation in Iraq, and the serious threat to the wider peace process in the Middle East. These are not remote issues in far-flung parts of the globe; they have a vital impact on all of us in Britain. Here at home we have the slowdown in the world economy affecting jobs, not least in manufacturing, the impact of the firefighters’ dispute, the pensions crisis, and the injustice and hardship of the two-tier workforce with women part-time workers so often facing the worst conditions, something which after long negotiations with the trade unions the Government has committed itself to deal with, an important, positive, first step. Let no one ever forget that it was to overcome problems like these that over one hundred years ago trade union and socialist pioneers came together to form the Labour Party and to take forward the cause of social justice.
This year we have achieved the longest ever serving Labour Government in the whole of our history, 1997 to 2003, just six years. Let us not forget what the Tories did in their first six years, from 1979 to 1985, with over 3 million unemployed, wave after wave of anti-union legislation, cutting back on unfair dismissal and maternity rights, banning unions at GCHQ, and ending the earnings link to pensions, something many unions here would like to see restored and what better 90th birthday present to Jack Jones could there be. On measures to tackle inequality, asylum seekers, the repeal of section 28, the Tories have proved as extremist right-wing as ever. Teresa May, supposed to be their acceptable face, remember her at their last conference, the first woman chairman of the Conservative Party. The rumour at the time was, 'nice shoes, nasty party'. It was a Tory MP, Francis Maude, who dug the knife in deep when he asked: 'How many Conservatives does it take to change a light bulb? None. The Conservatives never change a damn thing.' The trouble is that when they do change things it is for the worse.
Whatever we want the Labour Party to do, however satisfied or dissatisfied we are with the Government’s performance, the party can only be truly effective if it gets elected. Key elections are coming up next year, locally in Europe and in London. Let me take this opportunity on behalf of the Labour Party to thank everyone in the trade union Movement for all that you are doing in Scotland, Wales, London, English regions, Europe, and in local parties at local level where it really counts. We must ensure that the elections are fought between a positive agenda with Labour of investment and better public services versus needless constitutional wrangling under the Nationalists, unprincipled opportunism from the Liberal Democrats and massive cuts in public services under the Tories. From my experience of racist parties like the BNP, you do not defeat them by retreating in front of them. We need a one hundred per cent united challenge against their message of hate and fear.
Congress, Iain Duncan Smith has publicly committed the Tories to 20 per cent cuts across the board, deep cuts in vital public services threatening 1 in 5 jobs. They must be challenged hard on this. In reality so-called compassionate conservatism is no different to the failed Tory policies of the past, with cuts, charges and privatisation. Howard Flight, the Shadow Chief Secretary, said last year: 'The whole mentality in the public sector is to do as little as you can.' How dare he. Our public services are there for us and our families from the cradle to the grave and I can pay no greater tribute to our public servants than the American writer, Michael Moore, speaking about those who work in education. He said: 'Thank you so much for devoting your life to my child. Is there anything I can do to help you? Is there anything you need? I am here for you. Why, because you are helping my child, my baby, to learn and grow. I am entrusting the most valuable person in my life to you. Thank you.'
On behalf of a wide range of elected members of the NEC, representing all sections of the Party, I would call for none of us to forget that we have made our greatest achievements when all sections and parts of the party are working together, industrial and political. That does not mean we should all agree on every issue from the start. It does mean we should try and reach agreement. For unions it means we must play our full part in the Labour Party at every level, including local constituencies. For governments it means listening properly to trade unions who are the voice of the working men and women of this country.
We have lived through the General Strike and its aftermath, the Great Depression, two World Wars, various renegades and breakaways, including the SDP in the 1980s and the years of Tory misrule. It has been said that Labour was the party that civilised the 20th century. We must continue to be that party in the 21st century. Our heart must be where it has always been, for equality, justice, peace and internationalism. I am sure we can make good progress and I wish you all a good Congress. Thank you. (Applause)
The President: Thank you, Diana. I have great pleasure in presenting you with a Gold Badge of Congress. (The presentation was made) (Applause)
Thank you, colleagues, we now continue with Chapter 3 of the General Council’s Report on Economic and Industrial Affairs, page 43, on Arts and Media.
Moral Rights for Performers, and amendment
John Smith (Musicians’ Union) moved Motion 62.
(Insert Motion 62 - Moral Rights for Performers)
He said: This motion is not trying to address the morals of MU members, or indeed Equity members; in some cases that is something we should leave alone. We are addressing an obtuse part of copyright which confers actually non economic rights on creators. In a common law tradition such as ours, intellectual property is regarded as a commodity. It can be sold, rented, in the same way as a house, or a car, or any other kind of property. Contrast French copyright that law sees an intellectual creation as being an aspect of the creator’s natural rights, part of his or her soul, if you like, their being. That is the big difference between the two. The introduction of moral rights for authors was an attempt to bring these two traditions together.
As the motion explains, there are two moral rights, the right to be identified with a creation, or in our case a performance, and the right of integrity which means that your creation should not be subject to any sort of detrimental treatment in a way that was not originally intended, that is, not without the permission of the creator. The extension of these rights to performers will be a qualitative step in the recognition that performance is actually a creative act. We are particularly keen to get the provision that identifies performers with their performances added to our copyright law. You will notice when you look at the end credits of TV programmes and films that the names of musicians are seldom added. In fact, the long credits that followed the first Lord of the Rings film, the Fellowship of the Ring, mentioned almost everybody but did not say that Howard Shaw’s incredible score was recorded by the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Also, there is a problem with recognition of who are the session players on lots of rock and pop tracks. We believe the public want to know who these actually very talented individuals are. Record companies and audio visual producers will no doubt see the introduction of these rights as another impediment to their business and they are actively lobbying against the rights or having them introduced at the minimal level, at this very moment.
The UK Government signed up to this international treaty in 1996 that will introduce these rights for the performers, and we are still waiting. We have really heard nothing. We are very pleased to accept the Writers’ Guild amendment to this motion. Even though authors already have moral rights they have to be asserted by the author or the composer and they are often subject to contractual waiver clauses, but economic factors are overbearing on the part of the author and moral rights are left by the wayside.
We support the motion. Lend the weight of the TUC to our campaign to have these rights introduced for performers and improved for authors. Thank you, Chair.
Brian McAvera (TheWriters’ Guild of Great Britain) in seconding the motion, said: Copyright is crucial in all its forms to the livelihood of not just writers but every form of cultural commentator. Before 1988, moral rights did not even exist in British law. The British Government then in its wisdom introduced them but, as you have heard, with a very clever waiver which basically means that every time I publish a book, or every time I have a television play or whatever, I have to insert a clause which actually states that I want my moral rights. The obvious question is to why one should have to do this.
You have heard a little bit about the difference between our law and elsewhere. The basic difference is simple. In European law intellectual property is sacrosanct under the law but in British and American law it is simply property to be bought and sold like a can of beans. A huge range of problems actually emerged from this convenient little lacked linkage. I will give you an example. Two weeks ago two letters came into to my particular household, one was for myself and one was for my wife, who is a visual artist. It was from an extremely well-known organisation in London. We have both worked for them. I had done a book for this organisation and my wife had done a website, a visual artists website. What this organisation said was simple. It said: 'We are going to have an enormous website. It is going to be shown all over the world. We are going to put 50 of our key projects on it. We want both of you in it.' Then we read the contract. The contract basically said, 'We want your moral rights in perpetuity.' In other words, we would get nothing, not a halfpenny, but this institution, and it is an educational institution officially, would be able to use our work and get the revenue from it and all because the British Government forces people like ourselves to assert the rights.
You may say: 'Why would anyone in their right mind sign such a contract?' The answer again is very simple. If you want publicity, if you want recognition, if you want other people to know you are out there, you are put in the invidious position that unless you already have the clout, if you are a small person, a small artist just starting out, then you can be ridden roughshod over. Ask yourselves a very simple question. Why does the British Government put cultural people in a situation like this? This does not apply just to educational institutions, it is now common practice for the BBC and every other major institution to try and force writers, directors, and the like, to give up their moral rights.
Let me give you an analogy. Just imagine that you had written a ten-page letter to your boyfriend, your girlfriend, your wife, your husband, full of intimate detail, and it falls into someone else’s hands and somebody decides they are going to publish it. They come to you and say: 'Here we are. We are doing this. You did not sign your moral rights. Tough.' How would you feel? Let me be blunt. This is a government who under droit de seigneur, if you remember that, artists’ resale rights, ensured that whereas the rest of Europe allowed writers and artists to make money, in exactly the same way the British Government lackballed that so they have done the same here. I ask you to be like Jaws and put a little nip in against the Government, and pass this motion.
The President: There has been no other debate and I assume there is no wish to exercise the right of reply?
(The right of reply was waived)
* Motion 62 was CARRIED.
The President: We now move on to Motion 67, Theatre Funding. The General Council support the motion.
Theatre Funding
Corinna Marlowe (Equity) moved Motion 67.
(Insert Motion 67, Theatre Funding)
She said: President and Congress, the performing arts are of major importance in all our lives. More people go to the theatre than to football matches. We might not feel like seeing Hamlet after a hard day’s work but we might want to see a film, a show, or catch an episode of Coronation Street on the television. Those performers we enjoy watching, film stars, actors, singers, dancers, comedians, have all learned their craft in front of live audiences in the theatre. If we want our children to have the same quality of entertainment on stage and screen that we have, we must not let subsidised theatre die but government grants to the arts are the first to be cut in a harsh economic climate. We are not just selfishly talking about money for Equity members. A healthy theatre brings benefits for education, the economy, and tourism. The British Tourist Board confirms that culture, our theatre, is a major draw for foreign tourists and tourism is the largest income-producing industry in the country.
A few Christmases ago at the Swan Theatre, Worcester, in spite of my appearance in the Wizard of Oz, I played the good witch, we had packed houses. It was a great show. Last year a new city council cut the theatre’s grant so that it had to close. Many jobs were lost and Worcester no longer has a professional producing theatre. The surprising result of this decision to let the Swan, as we say, go dark was a major downturn in the local economy, an estimated loss of £2 million a year. Theatres do not only employ stage workers, administrators, and cleaners, they also use local suppliers and businesses, and the teenagers lost their theatre training and have to travel miles to see professional theatre; a local tragedy. Last year, the Leicestershire County Council withdrew their funding from the Leicester Haymarket Theatre, a regional theatre doing groundbreaking work with the local Asian community. It is now closed.
Additional money has given a great start for many exciting new schemes. We want to make sure that all these infant projects survive to adulthood. They need money to grow and develop. For example, there is a unique pioneering theatre company that employs people with physical and sensory impairments called Grey Eye. It has an international reputation and recently received a welcome uplift from the Arts Council. Then a cut in funds from the Association of London Government made it harder for it to find money for things it needs, like scripts in Braille, in sign language, not to mention easier access to buildings.
It may sound as though capital grants for new buildings and refurbishments are what we are after but a glossy new building is no good without money to pay people to work in it. Theatres, which get one-off grants for buildings, need money to run them. The window-cleaning bill for the new hi-tech Birmingham Repertory Theatre is astronomical. The wonderfully refurbished Theatre Royal at Stratford East with its remarkable links with the local multiracial community still has problems because current grants do not keep up with running costs. What we want is a substantial increase in core funding, not just one-off grants for special projects.
Our final main point is that under-funded Scottish theatres are in deep trouble. They are struggling to pay even minimum wages. Their serious long-term problems make them poor relations in Britain. Salary levels, staffing, training, and programming suffer. Producing seasons are being shortened and frustrated talents leave the country. We must keep Scottish theatre alive, if only to train actors for the next lot of nasty characters that Robbie Coltrane and Robert Carlisle play in the James Bond films.
In conclusion, it is all very well for Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone to wheel in high profile stars to back them in campaigns and show off how keen they are on culture. These stars obtained their skills in subsidised theatre. Without theatre subsidy where are the stars of the future? To sum up, theatre touches a huge sector of the community and affects all our lives. Subsidised theatre is the motor that keeps it going. The people who hold the purse strings in Britain, and especially Scotland, should give that motor the fuel it needs to survive and flourish. Congress, please support Motion 67. Thank you.
Brian McAvera (The Writers’ Guild of Great Britain) seconded the motion, and said: Is theatre important? More people go to theatre than go to football matches. Is theatre important? Theatre is part of a cultural industry that is actually the second biggest grosser in the UK. Is theatre important? I will tell you an anecdote. In 1972, in Belfast, the Falls Road, coming out of a small theatre there one of the actors had a cape across his shoulder, flamboyant. We crossed the road to get a bus. The next moment there was two paras in front of us blacked up: 'Who are you?' My friend with the cape, perhaps taking the piss somewhat, said: 'I am a thespian, sir.' I do not actually think he saw the punch because the next moment he was lying on the pavement. Times, one would hope, have changed though sometimes I am not so sure.
I think we need to remind ourselves that this particular island only 30 years ago had a flourishing rep system with plays once a week, and that before the time of John Osborne, a working-class lad, we were accustomed to predominantly middle-class players; then suddenly the working class had a voice. Actors, remember Roger Moore and people like him, had to adopt the state-of-the-art BBC plum English accent but not any more. Theatre changes the way you see things, it changes your life, it changes your attitude, but a bit like the railways, if you do not invest in it the whole thing grinds to a halt.
Theatre is about being relevant. You might say exactly how in this particular institution does theatre touch lives? I will give you one example. I worked with the TGWU in Belfast on a play about busmen and when I was initially asked I said: 'But how in God’s name do I make a play about busmen interesting?' Then I realised just how stupid I was being because everyone has a story to tell and the busmen in Northern Ireland -- just think of 1969 and afterwards -- have a major story to tell.
Writers allow you to see yourselves from a different perspective. We have writers working in theatre, in prisons, schools, and on the streets; they are throughout our society and we need to value them. The point about this particular story was that I bankrolled it because I had a grand total of £5,000 for nine months’ work. We need to pay people properly. We need to invest. Thank you.
The President: Again no further debate; I assume I can go straight to the vote.
(The right of reply was waived)
· Motion 67 was CARRIED.
Debate: Building a Successful Economy
The President: We now have a special feature debate on Building a Successful Economy. Our three participants are Brendan Barber, the Rt. Hon. Patricia Hewitt, MP, Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, and Digby Jones, CBI Director General. The well-known broadcaster, Sheena MacDonald, will facilitate the debate. The format of the debate will be a stand-up fight - sorry. (Laughter) Let me start again. I took my eyes off the script for a bit too long. I suppose that is an interesting illustration of the association of ideas. When you say 'stand-up' you automatically think of 'fight', do you not? Let me start again. The format of the debate will be a stand-up panel (Laughter) question and answer session. Sheena will be roving between our three speakers probing their arguments (Laughter) ----
The Vice-President: Are you sure you want to continue with this? (Laughter/ Applause)
The President: I am sorry. (Laughter) It is just not getting off to the right start, is it? (Laughter) Let us try and be serious. (Laughter) I will have to get a new scriptwriter for tomorrow. (Laughter) Anyway, ensuring they do not dodge -- (Laughter) I had better finish this. I have never had that happen to me before. Anyway, ensuring they do not dodge the tricky questions. (Laughter) We know that Patricia Hewitt will ably put across -- (Laughter) -- the Government’s viewpoint. Digby Jones can be relied upon --(Laughter) in his normal robust manner to convey the views of the CBI, and of course we can depend upon Brendan to put across our message that partnership is essential to productivity. Over to you, Sheena. (Laughter/Applause)
Sheena MacDonald: President, thank you very much. (Laughter)
The President: It is a pleasure. (Laughter)
Sheena MacDonald: We are not quite sure how we are going to follow that, whether to do a proper stand-up routine with plenty more laughs?
Manufacturing matters to millions of British citizens, employees and employers, and hardly a day, in fact not a day, passes when we do not read something good or bad about the state of British manufacturing so we are going to hear three vital voices who are going to tell us from their individual perspectives how manufacturing would survive and thrive in Britain. Each will speak for a few minutes, only a few minutes because we do not have very much time, and then they will respond to each other’s thoughts. That is all I have to say at this point. Let us start with Brendan.
Brendan Barber: Sheena, thanks very much. I join Nigel in his eloquent welcome to Patricia, and particularly to Digby. I think, Digby, this is what is known as playing an away fixture. I certainly welcome their contributions to our debate because we want the Government and employers to engage with us in addressing the huge economic challenges that we face. I think we know the issues with manufacturing taking a battering with something like 10,000 jobs a month disappearing. An important survey from Amicus published only in the last couple of days shows the disastrous consequences for some of their members. We now have very poor productivity performance and lag way behind the United States and, indeed, many of the major European economies, and we know that we have insufficient investment in our skills.
There is a lot of common ground between us, I would say. In the first slide you can see some of the areas where I think our analysis would match and be supported by the Government and the CBI. One particular area that is referred to there is the issue of public procurement and only last week Patricia convened a meeting of leading union representatives with employers to talk with Government about how we can ensure that British industry benefits more from the flow of public spending that is now coming through.
It has to be said, of course, that there are other issues that are perhaps less comfortable to address. There is real anger in our ranks about double standards, huge rewards for those at the top of major companies, which does nothing to build the spirit we need in Britain’s workplaces. There is real disappointment, too, that too many employers seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to put in place decent consultation arrangements or to put in place a union recognition arrangement. There is real frustration, too, that what we would regard as sensible minimum standards get labelled as red tape or burdens on business.
A lot of this debate revolves around the word 'flexibility'. Let me just say what I think we want to see and what we mean when we think about flexibility. Let me, in a sense, try and tempt Patricia and Digby to sign up to our vision. Yes, modern firms must be flexible. They must be able to respond rapidly to the market and what their customers want. The way to do this is by having a highly skilled workforce, confident that their jobs are secure, and that new skills will be used to build the business, not to provide an excuse to slim the workforce simply to boost the share price.
We want to see the kind of flexibility that comes from using the full talents of the workforce, which means giving them a say on how best to tackle new tasks, not just through good individual relationships but through a proper collective voice. We want to see the kind of flexibility that comes from world-class managers, highly adaptable, multi-skilled, and with the training they need. Of course, British managers are among the least qualified in the modern advanced industrial economies. We want to see the kind of flexibility that comes from early adoption of new technology, new manufacturing processes, and new investment.
These are the kinds of flexibilities that would really begin to take our economy forward rather than looking to keep Britain as the easiest place to sack members of the workforce. Thank you, Sheena.
Sheena MacDonald: Thank you very much. Now let us hear from the Director General of the CBI, Digby Jones. Brendan suggested he is playing an away fixture. I would like you to be gentle with him because this is his first public engagement since being in hospital only a week ago. He has actually come back to work a little bit too early but he said wild horses would not have kept him away from this. Digby.
Digby Jones: Thank you very much. I feel very privileged to be invited and I thank you all for giving me this chance to share a session with you. Could I just make one point clear before we start. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact, if Austin at Longbridge had closed when I was a kid, I just do not know what we would have done. I never condone businesses that do not treat their employees fairly, that flout the rules, which pay money that is not deserved to their directors, that reward failure, or that actually set an appalling example when it comes to sorting out pension schemes.
I have personally believed all my life in what I call social inclusive wealth creation. I think companies have every right in the world to ask a government to create an environment in which they can get on and create jobs and create profit; without profit we do not pay tax, and if we do not pay tax we do not get better schools and hospitals, but at the same time we have to take the whole of society with us. We have to be good employers. We have to train well. We have to be sensitive to the environments that we affect and we have to work with our communities. That is something I have believed all my life and so I thank you for giving me a chance for just a couple of minutes to put a case. I also look forward to hearing other cases as well.
Business leaders do not always get it right, although probably more get it right than they are given credit for, and we know business must be mindful of the need to set a good example when it comes to, for example, salaries and pensions. The UK would not have one of the most successful economies in the world if it were not for the talent and the sheer hard work of both your members and my members. The reputation of the UK as the investment location of choice is due to several factors. The macro economic stability of low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, and some sustainable growth (which is the best in Europe) is one of those factors and one for which the Government should take full credit.
Our success as a nation is also partly due to modern, moderate, trade unionism. My members just do not want that to change, and they are not alone. The nation just cannot afford for it to change. Our disagreements, yours and mine, are always well documented by these people but we do have some common cause in many areas.
But we do have some common cause in many areas. Do you know that 3.5 million people are going to be at work today picking up a wage who cannot read and write, and there are another 3.5 million adults at home today who are functionally illiterate? That is shameful. We together ought, really, to renew with vigour an agenda to make sure that never happens again in the workplace. Just think what it does to our productivity, but think also what it does to social inclusion and to the fact that another generation of kids are growing up who actually do not have a mum and dad who can read and write or know what books mean. It is something that we can do together.
In the area of Government procurement, we are totally, I hope, on the same side. Using the United Kingdom taxpayers’ money to create jobs in France and America just cannot be right.
Competition is an excellent self-improver, and the UK taxpayer deserves that competition, but sustained investment in training, kit, research and development will only follow when we have the same secure stable order books that our competitor nations enjoy, often unfairly.
Companies are not whingeing when they make clear the temptations to move overseas. I meet decision-makers in companies every day, and the threat to UK competitiveness, and therefore jobs, is very real, and I am worried. The UK has to retain its pre-eminence as the place to do business in Europe and around the world, but we simply cannot rely on the methods, either of us, of yesterday. Today’s challenges are difficult for employees, trade unions and business with its new working methods, re-training, up-skilling, different shift patterns, flexible working and accommodating the needs of people -- after all, business is people, people and businesses are the same - as they make those new lifestyle family choices in this vastly different world of work that the 21st Century has brought to us. All of those changes are necessary, and they can be achieved successfully in a spirit of co-operation and with a positive can-do attitude.
Businesses have to do a damned sight more to be better communicators, to inform, to consult, but just saying 'no' and 'won’t' in response lets down the very people who are affected most and worried most by change. The spirit of adaptability, which has characterised the trade union contribution to, for example, our vibrant and globally successful UK car industry, shows just what can be done and what could be done in the delivery of our public services, especially now that the much needed and long overdue additional cash has been provided. Patients, parents, pupils and passengers have to come first, ladies and gentlemen. We have to take the dedication of the people who work in them and the money which has been made available, but on their own that will not work. We have also got to change, and the Government’s agenda for reform is here to say and to make the most of that very dedication and that extra cash which has been put there.
You, your members, working with Government, yes, but also, I hope, in the same room as business and the often ignored but so important voluntary sector, have a once in a lifetime opportunity - we all do - to secure and sustain the improvements that we all want to see. Let us make our legacy one of which our children would be rightly proud and pleased. Do not let us throw it all away. Thank you for listening.
Sheena MacDonald: Thank you very much, Digby. I am sure that Brendan has a couple of questions that he would like to ask you, but, first of all, let us hear from the
Rt. Hon. Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade & Industry. Brendan referred to an initiative which unites these people on the panel, and Patricia Hewitt is going to tell us how the Government’s industrial strategy is developing.
Patricia Hewitt: Sheena, thank you very much, indeed. Friends, it is really good to be here. It is particularly nice to be in the real Congress, not the virtual Congress that we read about and see about in the media, which is rather a different matter.
Before I turn to productivity and manufacturing, I want to say that I think we are at a very significant moment in the relationship between a Labour Government and the trade union Movement. I am not thinking, actually, about the headlines and the rhetoric that have dominated the last few days. I am thinking about the fact that we are half-way through our second term. We are looking ahead to try and win a third term, and there has never been a Labour Government in that position before. I know very well that a lot of you here think that we have got far too close to big business and we have somehow cold-shouldered or elbowed out the unions. I do not happen to think that is the reality but I am very worried that that is such a widespread perception, and we have to change that. We have to make our relationship and our partnership work better.
Setting up the Public Services Forum is part of that. The work we are doing together on productivity and skills is part of that. Let us be very clear about what we mean by raising productivity because I do not want to see millions of people feeling that they have to work harder and harder and longer and longer just in order to stay still while other people make more money out of their efforts. That is not higher productivity. What I mean by 'higher productivity', is business and organisations that are producing better products, better services, better goods and they are doing it because there is more investment, higher skills and higher wages. That is what we need to deliver prosperity for everybody.
I agreed with just about everything that Brendan said and more than I sometimes do with what Digby had to say. So I just want to pick out three key points, the first of which is manufacturing. There are still people in our country who say, 'We don’t need manufacturing. We can just live off services'. I think that is rubbish. Whether or not you work in manufacturing or you represent manufacturing workers, we all need successful high value-added manufacturing. Our manufacturing at its best is amongst the best in the world, but we have not got enough of it and it is very tough for manufacturing firms and workers out there. That is why the first thing I did as the new Secretary of State for Trade & Industry was to bring together our industrial unions and some of our top companies, and we put in place the first manufacturing strategy that we have had in our country for more than 30 years.
I completely agree with you on procurement. Brendan, you referred to the meeting we had last week. The next thing is going to be bringing together more of our manufacturing companies and their unions and getting them together with the people in government who are making those purchasing decisions. Geoff Hoon and I agreed last year the new Defence Industrial Policy. We have not had one of those for 20 years or more, and we delivered on that when we placed that Hawk order which safeguarded thousands of jobs. Roger Lyons campaigned for that at Brough at British Aerospace. Of course, we need more of that. We need much more on skills, and we have agreed the new Skills Strategy. We have got the TUC, the DTI, the Department of Education and the CBI all working together in the new Skills Alliance so that we get the modern apprenticeships, we get the sector skills councils working and we build on the outstanding work that is now being done by learning union representatives to deal, yes, with the basic skills problems, but also to open up those opportunities so that people can go from the shopfloor just as high as they want to, some of them, as Derek Simpson was telling the Prime Minister last week, right up to a Ph.D.
The second point is trade union involvement, involvement in Government policy making as well as involvement in the workplace. We all know that if John Major had won in 1997 we would not have gone any of the things that we have achieved and the ways in which we have changed the workplace and the labour market over the past six years. Of course, there is more to do and we can argue exactly what the priorities are, but let us not ever undersell to our members, my constituents, the huge changes that we have made since 1997 in working people’s conditions and the impact that they are having and will go on having.
I want, particularly, to thank both John Monks and you, Brendan, for the work that you did with us on the Information and Consultation Directive. We are not going to have people sacked by text message or hear about it on breakfast radio. I know, Digby, that the CBI would rather not have the IC Directive at all, but the fact is that decent companies do it already, and every successful business depends on the management and workforce working together in partnership. So the fact that we have got an agreed way forward for implementation of the Information and Consultation Directive is terrific.
The third point is that all three of us want to see more successful businesses. That is a real challenge to management. It is also a challenge to investors, because one of our most deep-seated problems is that we are still not investing enough in R&D and in modern technology. So our workers are having to work with out-of-date equiipment. Even now, with the lowest interest rates that we have had since the 1950s and the R&D tax credit, we are still not getting the investment we need. It does not help when the actions of a small number of business leaders gives business a bad name. I have said over and over again that I have no problem with big rewards for big success - I would like to see the big rewards shared with the workforce as well as the management - but there is no excuse for huge pay offs for failure, and we have seen too much of that in the last few years. That is why I changed the law to require companies to publish all the details of directors’ pay and to give the shareholders an annual vote on it, starting with this year’s company AGMs. The pension funds and the pension fund trustees are part of making sure that the people who own the majority of British companies through the pension funds actually have a say and make the decisions on that policy on directors’ pay. It is just a scandal that we have some directors feathering their pension nests at the same time as they are slashing the pension security of their own workforce. We are going to give working people the right to be consulted over changes in their pension schemes. We have put pensions into the new rules on the two-tier workforce concerning TUPE. We are stopping firms, solvent firms, from walking away from their pensions responsibilities and we are putting in place a compensation scheme so that we can protect people’s pension rights if the firm goes bust.
Of course, there are lots of big headlines and dramatic rhetoric by the media, who always magnify that. What I think we need and what I think we have got, because we have done it on so many issues already, is a real determination to work in a more effective partnership together, week in and week out so that we can deliver the best conditions for people at work and the best environment for business success. That is the partnership that I have tried to create at the Department of Trade & Industry and I look forward to more of it in the months and years ahead. Thank you.
Sheena MacDonald: Thank you. I will give you the right to respond to each other’s ideas in a moment, but we are touching on some slightly - it has been very emollient so far - less comfortable realities. For instance, Brendan has said and the Secretary of State has suggested that management really has to up its game, Digby. A recent ESRC study showed that a quarter of employees are under-used in Britain. It is pointless in having a highly skilled workforce if the management is not up to using them properly. What are you doing about that?
Digby Jones: Firstly, I think that has definitely to raise its game.
Sheena MacDonald: How?
Digby Jones: I think the top part of management actually holds its own globally, but I think that middle management in a lot of companies needs to get better, and that goes to the point about whether it is, actually, in either the public or private sector. I am certainly not in the game of saying that we want people to work harder. What I want them to do is to work more cleverly and earn more money through working more cleverly. That calls for two things: a better skilled workforce and better managers who are themselves going to submit to training and get on the game of improving their lot, not getting the money unless they do, but then they get better at getting more out of working more cleverly with people.
I am a great critic of the way that the French go about their business, but one thing they are first class at is inivotive management. They are very very good at getting a lot out of a better skilled workforce, far better than we are. However, we are good at other things. I think that there should be more training for middle managers, a willingness of management not to think they know it all and, at the same time, constantly in the psychi of everybody who goes to work, an understanding that for every day, for the rest of their lives, they must learn more and put their skills into that wealth creation process. If they do not, it will not be France and Germany who actually leave us for dead but it will be the India’s and the China’s, and the jobs will never come back from there.
Sheena MacDonald: Is this happening or is it an aspiration?
Digby Jones: At the moment, it is more aspiration than happening, to be honest. I think it is happening more than people give credit for, but the one thing you need to make it happen is competition.
I can remember in the 70s in Brum that we had all Japanese imports of cars and everybody was saying to the Government at the time, 'Put up the barriers and stop these coming in'. The one thing, by letting free trade bring those cars in, was that every car manufacturer in Britain had to raise its game, and what actually happened, at the end of the day - we went through a lot of pain - is that we today have a car industry that is one of the best in the world. The Nissan car plant in Sunderland is the most productive car plant in the whole of Europe, and it is fully unionised. It is submitting to competition, acknowledging the problem and then getting this psychi of self-improvement constantly going.
All of this is a two-way street. I do not think that management are good enough at it, but I have to say that there are a lot of people who have seen that sort of change and think, 'Oh, no. I want to stay where I am. I understand this. I am comfortable'. Well, comfort is not on the agenda for anybody these days.
Sheena MacDonald: Brendan, is that the right kind of noise or is that all it is?
Brendan Barber: It is certainly the right kind of noise. I was interested that Digby acknowledged that in terms of functional flexibility in France - he was talking about France - that their performance is rather better than ours. This seems to me to be a key issue, because a lot of the debate about regulation and flexibility is about to what extent are we matching up to decent European standards, and to what extent are the kind of standards that are set elsewhere in Europe a drag or a burden on business? To what extent to they constrain flexibility? I say that the evidence shows that if you look at the performance of other major European economies, and in terms of those, which are the most critical kinds of flexibility, the scope to really adapt, innovate and make change quickly to respond to changing market pressures and circumstances, the more regulated economies in Europe actually perform rather better, because they build a different workplace culture. We are looking to see an acceptance of that rather than the arguments that Digby publicly finds himself making on behalf of his members, that anything to put in place decent minimum standards ought to be resisted as some kind of unreasonable constraint.
Digby Jones: But, Brendan, just a minute. France has also got the highest unemployment in Europe, so you cannot have it both ways. You are telling me that I am right when I say that France is innovative in the way it manages people and gets the most out of its workforce, but we are looking at the most regulated labour market and the highest unemployment. That is not a coincidence, is it?
Brendan Barber: I do not think there is the causal link that you suggest. If you look at other European economies that are regarded as highly regulated, their employment record is rather better than ours. You can look at the Scandinavian countries and Holland, for example. Decent minimum standards are not incompatible with efficient well-run organisations.
Digby Jones: I agree with that.
Brendan Barber: I think the arguments which are always raised were raised about the minimum wage, after all. We were told that the minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands, even millions, of jobs, but in the end employment levels rose.
(Applause)
Sheena MacDonald: There are some young employees who would like an improved minimum wage for them.
Brendan Barber: Indeed; and we have debated that.
Sheena MacDonald: Then they might vote.
Patricia Hewitt: We have put in place on this National Minimum Wage, against this huge campaign which said it would destroy jobs, a partnership model. We organised the Low Pay Commission to work together with unions and employers to recommend to us what the level of the minimum wage should be. I think the whole issue of the youth wage is one of the most difficult ones, because what I and none of us want to see is what has happened, particularly in France, where they have a high level of minimum wage for young workers and a very high level of unemployment there. We have a real problem in Britain, with 21 year olds much less likely to be in work than those who are a bit older or even a bit younger. That is why we have been cautious. Maybe we have been over-cautious, but for good reason on the minimum wage.
I want to make a more general point here. I think this debate about regulation has gone into a kind of caricature. We have the CBI saying 'Regulation bad' and Brendan, not quite but with a bit of an element, saying, 'Any regulation good'. What we must recognise is that of course we have to use the law and regulation to set standards in the workplace, above all, to protect people, particularly people who are not in unions, against utterly unscrupulous and exploitative employers. We are going to do that. Then we can also use regulation and legislation to move standards up, to help to get more of those high performance workplaces that we all want. The Information and Consultational Directive is part of that, as are the anti-discrimination laws, the family/friendly working and so on.
When you look at how they do it on the Continent, we need to recognise - I think Brendan was making this point - that it is not one model. It is not all the same in the rest of Europe. It is very different between, say, France, where they do have superb skills, really at every level of the workforce right up to management, from, say, Germany, where they all know that they have a huge challenge of structural reform and they are in the process of starting to make a lot of changes to a model which has served them well for many decades but is not serving them well at the moment.
On any employment issue, we ought to recognise that one of the great achievements of our Government, and we have achieved it together, is that we have a million-and-a-half more people in work than we had six years ago. Actually, there are very few European countries who, like us, have already met our Lisbon targets for employment, including the employment of older workers. We have done well on that. What we now need to do, as we keep bringing more people into work, is to get more people into better work, which is about skills, wages and productivity.
Sheena MacDonald: Digby, I know you want to respond.
Digby Jones: I want to make one point on the minimum wage. My predecessors did oppose it. I have not opposed it. What I have said is - I want your help on this because I do not know the answer. I do not think anybody does, if they are honest - is that you have a supermarket chain and they are going to take 20 school leavers or 20 people from a disadvantaged ethnic community, which they do a lot, actually, and if they are going to say that because the minimum wage has gone to a higher level, they will not take 20 but they will take 19, you will never read about that in a newspaper and you will never really see it in all the statistics, but it has an impact on that community. It is one person somewhere and one person somewhere else. Secondly, if you set it at too high a level, it is not whether those businesses can afford that level but it is the impact on the differential of your members at £6 an hour, £7 an hour and £8 an hour, which is what the Treasury and the Bank of England get worried about. I do not know the answer to this, which is that if you are going to get a decent minimum standard so that everybody coming into the workplace has hope and undersstands what 'aspiration' means, how do you do it so you do not disturb macro-economic stability, which I will always support, to make sure that you do not get pay rises going through and causing that whole thing of inflation again, and at the same time how do you make sure that the employers keep taking the young of the country into work? We have to pitch it at a level where it does not damage those two things but gives a decent standard of living. What that level is, actually, I think if we were all honest, none of us really know. There is a bit of trial and error on this. At the moment it is succeeding, but I think the success of it is because of the level it has been pitched at is more than whether it should exist, because I agree that it should.
Sheena MacDonald: Do you want to respond to that, Brendan?
Brendan Barber: As Digby has acknowledged and Patricia has mentioned, the Low Pay Commission does have a difficult job to do. Inevitably, we would like to see the minimum wage pitched at a much higher level. If you look at the reality of trying to care for a family on minimum wage rates, the living standards of people in those circumstances are desperately, desperately poor. We strongly support the Low Pay Commission. We should have a mechanism of that sort to try to establish consensus on what the minimum wage should be set at and, so far, it has done its work. I think it has commanded respect and, obviously, we expect to see it continue. Let me say that we do expect to see it particularly addressing this issue of young workers as well, including 16 to 17 year olds.
Patricia Hewitt: During the next year or 18 months we are going to be following the Low Pay Commission recommendation. We are going to be pushing up the National Minimum Wage much faster than average earnings so that it goes from covering just over a million people, which is actually less than we all originally intended in the first place, to covering about two million workers. So that is going to be a really important extension of the minimum wage.
Your point about trying to bring up a family is absolutely crucial. In a constituency like mine, in Leicester, which is low paid, it is central to people’s lives. On top of the minimum wage, of course, we now have much more generous child benefits and children’s tax credits. Further, the Working Tax Credit is now extended to single people. So there is a lot there to deliver a decent standard of living for families and then keep it rising.
Sheena MacDonald: The Secretary of State earlier used two 'R' words - regulation and rhetoric. I will quote you, Digby. You used the word 'relentless' - 'relentless employment legislation'. Are you not dissuaded by the Secretary of State’s argument, which in effect suggests that employment legislation saves jobs and, ultimately, can save lives?
Digby Jones: In two areas I stand by what I have said. The first is that I believe there is a causal link between too much regulation in the workplace and unemployment.
Sheena MacDonald: What, too much legislation?
Digby Jones: What France and Germany have. People always compare us with Europe. There are 11 million people in Euro-land who are out of work. There are many reasons, but one of them is a rigid labour market. Secondly, information and consultation is a good example of this. I actually believe that good employers should inform and consult, and where they do not there should be something in place to ensure that we get the bad ones to do it. Let me say that 80% - 90% of my members are damned good employers who do it anyway. If what we are going to get, and I do not think we are going to get it because what we are trying to achieve I think is working, is a one size fits all, where someone comes along and says, 'I am sorry. Rule 16, sub-section 2, paragraph (b) says you will do it this way', then what you get is employers who sign out and you get different unions in different workplaces trying to score turf wars and it is not good for creating jobs in Britain. It is not going to happen with information/consultation because I think we have got it right.
What worries me with regulation is this one size fits all blanket approach, which allows for turf wars with employers and employees, and that is why it is the impact of it rather than the philosophy of it that I worry about.
Patricia Hewitt: I want to press Digby on this one.
Sheena MacDonald: All right, but briefly.
Patricia Hewitt: Let m press you on information and consultation, because we are not going to have one size fits all. We have a really good deal on how we implement it, but we know, legally, it does not come into effect for several years. Compass recently did a deal, I think with the T&G and the GMB, putting in place their arrangements in anticipation of the law. Would it not be quite sensible to encourage more companies who have not already got there to do that?
Digby Jones: I absolutely agree with you.
Patricia Hewitt: Good. It is one of the first things we are doing.
Digby Jones: One thing we are doing at the CBI is that I, personally, am getting around all 13 areas in the United Kingdom and saying, 'Come on, do it'. In fact, I am using it a bit of the 'Do it before they do it to you' scenario. Secondly, I am saying that it is best practice. If we do not want the one size fits all that I have talked about, then you are right, but it is the way in which we try to achieve it.
My general point was that it was not just employment regulation but it is health and safety, too.
Brendan Barber: There are lots of companies that have good practice, but when Digby says that 80% or 90% of his members really consult their workforces, I appreciate that the lighting is a bit dim in here, but I got a general impression that quite a few eyebrows were being raised in the hall.. (Applause)
Digby, if you look at the hard evidence and research, the Workplace/Employment Relations Survey, which is the most authoritative and comprehensive review, shows that it has been going totally in the other direction. The number of workplaces where there is real consultation has been sliding down; the number of issues on which employers actually consult their workforce has been thinning out and thinning out and there are fewer and fewer areas where unions and members of their workforces have been able to exert an influence. That is why we desperately need something to kick start a new culture in the form of the new information and consultation arrangements that we are now going to see brought in.
I am afraid that we are not going to see a change without that degree of compulsion, without that bottom line in law that an employer has got to match up to a minimum standard and we are not just relying on, in a sense, their goodwill or recognising their own self-interest.
Sheena MacDonald: Digby stated his fear earlier that jobs are going to leave the country. How do we stop that?
Brendan Barber: We stop that by having best practice in this country so that our workplaces are certainly as well run and as efficient as they can possibly be so that they can compete in the world markets. Inevitably, there will be jobs that will go to other parts of the world. We are an international trading nation. I hope that if there are to be changes of that sort, we are looking to see decent standards in other parts of the world, and we are looking to use whatever influence we can bring to bear to lever up standards so that is not the issue that forces change and the kind of outsourcing that we have seen in some industries that unions are very much concerned with.
Digby Jones: Let me say that manufacturing is 20% in the UK; 16% in the States; 21% in France; about 22% in Germany and about 19%-20% in Japan. This is a developed world issue. This is not a British issue. Manufacturing has a great future in Britain if we go to the value-added, knowledge based brand innovation quality end. If we carry on, which we are not, trying to sell commodities solely on price around the world, we will lose, but if we actually try and get manufacturing into the value added end, I think in this country it has a very rosy future.
Let me make one point of information, Chair. Sacking somebody by a text message on one of those (indicating a mobile phone) is an absolute disgrace. When I heard it on the radio - it is always referred to as 'sacking people by text message' - this was not a company, but a receiver. The facts of the matter are that the company went under and the receiver did it. Although the legislation will make sure that the receiver will be caught by it, please do not think that that was a company. It was a receiver, a firm of accountants, who did it. I will take the criticism, but just for once, factually, it was not a company in membership. It was actually a receiver who did it.
Patricia Hewitt: Let me come back to this issue about manufacturing. There are an awful lot of manufacturing workers, as we have all said, losing their jobs, but I think it is terribly important that none of us talk down British manufacturing, because if we give the impression that it is all a disaster, then why on earth would any young person want to go out there and do an apprenticeship or get into engineering? Why would any investor want to put their money into it? Alongside the very bad news which is devastating, for instance, the workers at Alstom, the train plant, there is also the good news with the Hawk, that I have already mentioned, the £50 million of support that we are putting into chemicals through NES Chlor, which we have worked on with the unions. Toyota is putting in a third shift at Burmaston and creating a thousand new really good manufacturing jobs.
What is absolutely central to the manufacturing strategy is not just putting more money into our science base, which is one of the best in the world, but actually making sure that out of that science base, out of all that stuff we invented in Britain, we get the new businesses and jobs manufacturing the high value added products here in Britain. We need a hell of a lot more of that, and we need more of our existing businesses who are losing their competitiveness at the moment, working with that new technology so that they raise their game and keep people in work here. We can do that. We can do it together.
Digby Jones: But, Patricia, we have not really got the power of making that work if you have got a French Government that break the rules and subsidise at home to enable those companies to come over here and take our jobs.
Sheena MacDonald: This could run and run. We do not have time for that. I am going to ask you a final question, Digby.
Could you clarify this phrase 'outright obstruction' that you used 're union leaders'. Who were you thinking off? (Laughter)
Digby Jones: As to the words I used, I am not even going to say what I meant to say was, in my address I said that change worries everybody but we have to change, whether it is public sector or private sector. We have to get adaptable to the world of work. That frightens everybody. No one likes change. But if all that -- I am talking about the drive for change, be it from Government, business, a hospital, a school or a prison - you get is, 'No, no', 'Can’t', 'Shan’t' and 'Won’t' - 'Now talk to me', what you are not going to get is the need for change, the need for reform and the fusion of the best that the private and public sector can bring together. By the way, some of that might mean 'public very good' and 'private not very good' or it might be the other way round in other situations.
What I am after is an open mind and a way of going forward to meet these threats of the 21st Century. 'Outright obstruction' means that one just stands there and goes, 'No', 'Shan’t', 'Won’t' - 'Now talk to me'. If you get that, at the end of the day, the very people who are terrified of change and are sitting there are going to be done badly by it, not well by it. That does not mean that we have got all the answers, but we might have some of them. It does not mean that the public sector have got all the answers, but they have certainly got some of them. It is together that we get an answer.
Sheena MacDonald: Thank you very much for your open ears. Please thank our stand up performers. (Applause)
The President: Thank you very much, Sheena and and three participants.
I offer my apologies for not quite getting it off with the right degree of gravitas that the subject undoubtedly deserved. Many thanks to Sheena and the three participants in giving us much food for further thought.
Before I move on to the next item, let me take this opportunity of welcoming another guest who has been with us on the platform since earlier this morning. I refer to John Evans, the Secretary to the Trade Union Advisory Committee of the OECD.
(Applause)
The President: I move to Composite Motion no. 8, and indicate that the General Council supports the composite motion.
Manufacturing
Derek Simpson (AMICUS) moved the following composite motion:
(Insert Composite Motion 8 - Manufacturing)
He said: Good morning, Conference. I suppose it is an advantage coming to the rostrum following the discussion, because I guess that everyone, if you were seated like me, would have wanted to comment on one or other aspects of that discussion. The other thing -- of course, is that Conference provides a great opportunity, particularly for general secretaries who get badgered by the media to make comments, radio broadcasts and the rest -- I think is that I have had my share of that process, like my colleagues. In connection with manufacturing, I have to say this. I did something like seven local radio interviews yesterday morning and there is disappointment in the voice of the commentators when we fail to attack Blair, the Government or decide whether Brown is better than Blair, or what is the awkward squad and are you in it, are you leading it or are you attending this or that meeting. They get quite disappointed. They say, 'Oh, you are not going to attack Blair?' and 'You are not going to rip down the Government?' One of the problems we have is how the media present the issues.
The other sad thing from my point of view is that they asked, 'Are there going to be some real battles about public services, pensions and Iraq?' However, they did not ask me if we had any problems about manufacturing. That is one of the purposes of this composite. It is to raise the question of manufacturing as high as it is possible to get on the political agenda.
It is not about individuals. It is not about Gordon Brown’s attitude or Blair’s attitude. It is about the fundamental problems in the industry and what is happening. The media are interested in whether we will see real people like Gordon receive a hostile reception or will people walk out when Digby Jones speaks? I say, 'No, the delegates, as I understand it, to Congress are extremely democratic, polite and will give listen and give a proper reception to anybody’s point of view'. It is also difficult, is it not, when you listen to that debate, when you understand that you vote for one and work for the other, to actually get too upset about what they are saying. What concerns me is what they are saying, because, to my mind, sitting listening, even though many of the aspirations and directions, which we could all share actually emerged to the words of the old song, as I see it: 'You say ‘either’ and I say ‘either’; ‘either’, ‘either’, let’s call the whole thing off'. Because what they singularly avoid doing is bringing the very measures that will lead to the results which they claim to be pursuing. Why, for example, when we make reference to the rail manufacturers and the plight of Alstom and Bombardier in Derby, is that they do not mention that the French Government insists that 60% of rail production has to be indigenous to France? Why do not we have that in this country? Why can we not do that? When we talk about the plight of industry being as a result of the awkward squad, of workers not being productive, why do we not refer to the only real strike in this country, and that is the investment strike? Why do we not hear Digby and his colleagues in the press attacking their own members, why are they not insisting on taking measures that will prop up their industries? Why do we not hear the Government arguing for measures like in other countries which support their industries, because every one of us knows that in France, Germany and Italy they would never allow to happen to their manufacturing industry what is allowed to happen to ours. Why, because they believe in the flexible labour market and the free movement of capital. Does it matter that a few of his members go to the wall as long as they prevail with the ultimate model of free movement of capital? It would be an impediment to have restrictions on how orders are placed. It would be a step too far to implement that legislation that made procurement an essential part of how our companies place their business.
There are many statistics, and I am not known for reading statistics or even reading speeches. I am not even all that happy about having moved this item, so when I get to the end, if I say something like 'It gives me pleasure to move this motion', forget it. I do not get any pleasure out of coming to a rostrum on the question of manufacturing.
The President: Your time is nearly up, Derek.
Derek Simpson: Five minutes passes rather quickly, doesn’t it? (Laughter) Let me just finish this list. We do not expect the Government to dance to the trade unions’ tune, but as a colleague of mine once said, 'It would be very nice if they humm’d along a little bit'. (Laughter)
Kevin Curran (GMB) in seconding the composite, said: I speak in defence of British manufacture. Since the industrial revolution Britain has been defined by its success in the manufacturing industry. We have exploited our natural resources, utilised our climate and added the essential ingredients of innovation, drive, engineering skill and industrial co-operation. We have developed what we now call 'clusters'.
We also had a limited vision of what could be achieved. There are many, many, unacceptable consequences, but the ability of the British people to turn ideas into practical reality and consumer goods was established throughout the world. We produced on a scale that was breathtaking, and we accumulated national, intellectual, design, engineering and economic capital. That is what helped to make modern Britain. As times changed, we adapted; steam to electricity, iron to steel, telegraph to telephone, horse and cart to internal combustion engine. Change, but always using the same formula - the virtual circle of research, design, innovation and training. We also had the constant cycle of investment, which kept the whole process moving.
Congress, we are now in a very different and a more challenging environment. In response to that environment, our Government lags behind Europe. All but one of our EU competitors spends more in aiding their industry. Indeed, a recent DTI statement dismissed Government aid to industry as handouts to domestic companies. This Government has turned its back on British manufacturing. As a consequence, research commissioned by the GMB reveals that more than one million people of working age are now economically inactive, neither in work or claiming benefits. Most of those one million people live in Britain’s manufacturing heartlands. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing at 10,000 a month. We desperate need a Minister of Manufacture, not warm on words but strong support. We need a Government to say to manufacturing employers and manufacturing employees, "You are important to us, to our economy and our communities. We value and appreciate you. We will support you through these difficult times. We will ensure that the manufacturing sector remains strong in the UK and continues to create wealth and jobs for Britain.
I say to those doommongers in Government, the CBI and the Institute of Directors, and anyone anxious to ring the death knoll of British manufacturing: you may have given up but we have not. We all join with modern day innovators in British management who share our determination and our drive and our vision. Together we need to persuade this Government that manufacturing is worth fighting for.
I say this to the Government: look where your heartland support is and share our vision. Give us a Minister for Manufacturing to ensure that the Government works with us and we will give you economic and political success. Thank you.
Rob Middlemas (ISTC, the Community Union): President and delegates, I am a steel worker. I work at Skinning Grove, which is on the north-east coast. I work for Corus, formerly British Steel. I am one of a diminishing British band who were top of the world, in the premier league, in steel productivity, yet we are bottom of the league when it comes to sales production per head of population. We are barely a quarter of the Benelux countries and only 60% of US and French per capita figures, and they are only just above us in relegation zone. We are facing not only relegation but the prospect of going out of business altogether. If the Teesside works closes we will have lost critical mass and you can say goodbye then to the rest of British manufacturing.
Why are we in this grim situation? Manufacturing has been badly let down by top executives who were brilliant at finding ways of paying themselves fortunes in bonuses but crap when it comes to managing their companies. The last Corus chairman took three fat incomes whilst presiding over the collapse of the share price from £1.80 down to less than 4 pence!
However, management bears only part of the responsibility, as during most of the past 25 years British Governments have treated manufacturing as a lost and unimportant cause. Manufacturing has had to take second place to whatever was the prevailing policy fad of that particular day. When other EU countries intervened aggressively to assist their manufacturing industries, British Governments just kept their hands clean.
Unfortunately, our own Government supported the restoration of an obsolete state plant in Romania, while it provides less help for our manufacturing than all of the EU countries except Portugal.
That is largely behind us now. The euro exchange rate at last reflects economic realities and the Government is showing that it does care, a bit. It is looking at ways within the rules to give British companies a better chance of winning public contracts. British manufacturing now has a real opportunity to recapture its market share at home and abroad. The economic forecasters tell us that manufacturing should grow by 2.5% during the next two years. So at this critical time British manufacturing really needs a boost to its confidence to take advantage of those opportunities. So, Patricia, I hope you will give us that boost today. I support.
Barry Morris (National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades) in supporting the composite said: Congress, I would like to concentrate on one particular part of the composite, and that is public procurement and introduce delegates, who are not aware of it, to this magical word 'warlike'.
It is devastating to witness the demise of an industry, especially one in which, like me, you have spent a lifetime working. I refer to the textile industry. What is equally soul destroying is seeing a situation compounded by public procurement policy. The MoD has a spend of £1 billion for procurement. Only EU based companies can tender for contracts, but that does not require those companies to manufacture the goods in the EU. So we finish up buying cheap and often inferior products with the resulting unemployment that follows. It is, colleagues, economic madness. Jobs have been lost, companies have closed and they will never come back because of a cast in stone interpretation of EU rules by the MoD - unwarlike.
Best value really needs to be thought through. The current policy is not in the best interests of the UK taxpayer and it is certainly not in the best interests of British workers. The MoD, in reducing its number of suppliers, leaves SMEs out in the cold, specialist suppliers who have served the MoD over many years. On the one hand, we have government policy, which is to support small and medium enterprises, and then we have the MoD policy. So we do need joined-up thinking. The MoD hides behind a rigid interpretation of EU rules on procurement.
Other EU countries support their own respective industries. If any product is viewed as ‘warlike’ many EU countries take the stance that allows them to buy locally, but not so our MoD. For the life of me, Congress, I cannot understand why, under a Labour Government, we are having to highlight a ludicrous situation where thousands of our members are thrown out of work because the MoD is a law until itself.
Technical textiles, we are told, is the area to go into, so we have. It might surprise you to know, delegates, that the MoD have armoured vehicles that are made up of only 60% of technical textiles. Warlike vehicles they must be, but we remain the poor relations. Local authorities, too, could keep thousands of people in work not as a favour but by buying quality clothing made locally and the economic success that that would bring if a change in procurement rules transpired. Fire, police and NHS, to name a few organisations, have to be clothed. Best value needs to be considered, not just the lowest price. It has to take into account the research and development that specialised products necessitate. How many times did we hear during the Iraq war that our armed forces were either having problems with kit or short of it and buying their own? Remember the boots that melted, colleagues! Well, they don’t melt when they are made in Northampton.
It is too late for many, but it is not those companies remaining. We need a change in the current rules, the change that would allow local authorities and government departments to support the UK industry. If France and Germany can clothe their armed forces because of their interpretation of 'warlike', then, surely, we could. I support.
Joe Marino (Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: President, we are supporting the composite and speaking specifically to that section of it that deals with below-cost selling.
Let me say, right at the start, that there are two things that we are not against. First of all, there is nothing technically wrong with discounting and you will never outlaw discounting. We are not asking for that. But what we are asking for is a level playing field. Nor is it our job to put forward propositions to assist the employer in that sense. We are concerned about the issue in manufacturing industry where certain retailers abuse the power that they have in order first to manufacture, to sell their goods to those retailers and, therefore, put jobs and consumer choice at risk.
It does not happen in other countries. That is why we are asking the General Council to look at what happens elsewhere in the European Union, but also in places like the United States of America. For example, if retailers want to discount an item in the United States, then they can do so for a specific period of time. After that, they are then not allowed to do it for a 12 month period. That stops the ludicrous situation of retailers being able to force manufacturers through things like Internet purchasing where a manufacturer is told, "If you want to keep your business, then what you have to do is make a secret Internet bid" and it must be at a lower price than what you have your existing business for.
That may be fine and maybe, to an extent, as we are told, it keeps inflation down. But at the end of the day, first of all, it destroys consumer choice because you are going to drive out business. It is not just in the food industry, by the way. We heard from KFAT that it happens in the textile industry as well. You force those companies out of work, workers lose their jobs and consumer choice is cut down.
We have a company -- I am not going to name names because it is unfair to do so -- in our own industry who have actually taken a stated position on discounting that, "We are prepared to give the stuff away, first of all, in order to drive out business our competitors and, once we have done that, we are going to be able to control the market". That is short-sighted and, at the end of the day, comrades, what it does is it forces people out of work.
We are asking the General Council to look at what is happening in the rest of the world and to bring back information on that so that we can then start the campaign. But I really do want to emphasise that we are not attacking individual retailers and we are not attacking discounting per se. We are attacking unfair advances given by certain retailers and the Government have to wake up to this because, at the end of the day, it will result in unemployment and it will also stop consumer choice.
On that basis, Chair, we support Composite 8 and we hope the General Council will do that research. Thank you.
Tony Burke (Graphical, Paper and Media Union) supporting the composite motion, said: Congress, along with metals, textiles and electronics, printing, packaging and paper-making are also suffering. Companies that once employed hundreds of workers now operate with a handful of workers who wonder if they will have a job at the end of the week -- never mind at the end of the year. Skilled workers who invested their lives in the industries have been thrown on the scapheap and what future do they face? Low paid, short term or agency employment.
Two hundred GPMU members, sacked at a day's notice at Crown Wall Coverings in Lancashire, now have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. To our members it seems that Bruce Springsteen was right when he sang, "All the good jobs have gone and they ain't coming back".
The recent IPPR Report indicated that by 2010 a further 700,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing. By 2050, if current trends prevail, manufacturing will account for just 5 per cent of employment. That is a disaster for our members, a disaster for the country and a disaster for our unions. Without a strong manufacturing base, we will not have decent public services and we will not have a strong service sector.
Congress, Labour's 1997 anthem was "Things can only get better". In 2003 it does not seem that way to our members: 600,000 jobs lost in manufacturing; around 40,000 jobs lost in the printing, packaging and paper industries. Okay, there have been contributing factors. They switched to digital technology and our absence from the euro has taken its toll but let us have a look at other factors. Low productivity is caused by a lack of training. Lack of proper information and consultation with the workforce has been highly damaging to our economy.
Congress, the recent Porter Report on UK Competitiveness highlighted many of the problems we have. We have too many companies who take the low road. They are locked into low cost goods and they are locked into low cost services. Digby Jones stressed the importance of the future knowledge economy. The Porter Report suggested the UK is not even well placed to compete in a knowledge economy for the future. What a condemnation!
Congress, we need a manufacturing strategy based on real investment, real skills, real training and proper information and consultation with the workforce. But, importantly, to Patrici Hewitt I would say that we need a government that is prepared to really get behind manufacturing to give us the support and give us the help. So support manufacturing workers and their families and support investment in all of our futures. Thank you very much.
Brian Revell (Transport and General Workers' Union) supporting the composite motion, said: Good morning, colleagues. I wish to comment on the below-cost selling in Composite 8 which arises from the Bakers Union motion.
I also want to take this opportunity to draw to your attention that food manufacturing is a major part of the UK manufacturing industry. Food manufacturing employs half a million people in our country. The food industry is under greater competitive pressure from globalisation. We are getting poultry coming in from Thailand and Brazil and we are finding products are coming into this country from many parts of the world that have never been traded globally in the past. Also, the food industry is under far greater pressure as the power of the supermarkets gets greater and greater.
The practice of selling at below-cost prices distorts the market and imposes crushing pressures on bakeries and other food processors. Power is not evenly spread along the food chain. It is concentrated in the hands of the giant food retailers and the supermarkets. When a supermarket sells a loaf of bread at 17p, when a supermarket sells baked beans at 7p a can and when a supermarket sells milk at 35p a litre, they sell at a loss. But there is a hidden cost: dairies, bakeries and food factories can be put out of business by this competitive pressure. Supermarkets may be trading in over 20,000 product lines and it is obvious that they can take a loss on one or two lines to get the customer into the shop.
With power comes responsibility. If power is not used wisely then there must be regulation. France, Germany, Ireland and Spain have already introduced legislation to prohibit low-cost selling. Similar legislation should be introduced into the UK. But, colleagues, we need to go further. We would like to ask the TUC to call a meeting of the food industry trade unions in order that we can collectively develop a policy to protect the British food manufacturing industry from the violent pressures of a market which is dominated by major retailers. Support the composite and let it be a call to action. Thank you.
(The right of reply was waived)
* Composite Motion 8 was CARRIED
The President: Delegates, you will have noticed the arrival on the platform of Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Racial Equality. Trevor, can I welcome you to Congress today. I will be saying a few more words of appreciation later when I invite Trevor to address Congress. (Applause)
Equal rights
The President : Colleagues, we now move on to Chapter 2 of the General Council's Report on page 22 and I call Gloria Mills to lead in on race equality issues on behalf of the General Council.
Race equality
Gloria Mills (General Council) moved section 2.5 of the General Council's Report on race equality. She said: Good morning President and Congress, we commend adoption of the report. The General Council would like to offer support to Composites 5 and 6. We invite you not only to vote for these motions but to recognise and understand the very serious nature of the rise of racism and fascism in this country.
It is often said that there is no room for complacency in fighting racism and this is certainly true when it comes to opposing the far right and the BNP. The General Council commends the work of the unions, particularly those unions that have been active in supporting local communities but the election of 16 BNP councillors in the local election of May 2003 is something that we should be seriously concerned about. It is something that this country should be ashamed of and it is something that should never have been allowed to happen. The demonisation and scapegoating of asylum seekers since the general election, the hysteria and the media obsession with the issue have made the racist rhetoric of the far right acceptable. It has given confidence to the BNP. It has given credibility to their racist message and encouraged support for their policies in local elections.
Not only do we see people in this country willing to go out and vote for parties of the far right, but they are gaining a foodhold in our local councils. They are polluting and they are poisoning the body politic of this country and our public institutions. Where those parties are elected to local councils we are also witnessing an increase in violence against asylum seekers, refugees and the settled black community. These matters are not unconnected. They represent dangerous developments in this country. They feel intolerance, tension and fear in our communities.
The BNP has used the politics of hate to try to achieve political success at the ballot box and they are gaining ground and making inroads in local politics. Wherever the BNP engage in activities of racial hatred there is an increase in racial tension and racial attacks. These developments represent a significant shift in what is seen as acceptable in this country and what is not. It gives more than a veneer of political respectability to parties of the far right. Local councils give the far right political influence over local policies and local decisions that affect local communities. Political representation gives life to their policies. That is why we should take up the General Secretary's pledge never to rest so long as the BNP have a seat on local councils. It is not okay to vote for the parties of the far right. It is not okay because they stand for hate and division in our communities and work places.
The General Council is supporting Composites 5 and 6, as I have said. Composite 6 rightly points out that educating the children of asylum seekers separately in so-called 'accommodation centres' is a disgrace. Where is the compassion that we expect from a Labour Government? Where is the humanity and where is the fairness we were promised on asylum policy?
We need to have dynamic organised campaigns against the far right. The TUC and affiliated unions have been leading the challenge so far. We need actively to mobilise trade unions and community support at local level. Where unions have organised against the far right they have had a huge effect in helping to stop the far right from gaining a foothold in those councils.
We are pleased with the work of the TUC regions and trades councils but we need to do more. We need to be bolder in asserting our values and bolder in saying that we stand for promoting a message of justice, equality and unity.
It was 10 years ago that the world became aware of the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence on the streets of South London, a murder for which there has still not been justice. We have seen a monumental failure in bringing to justice the people who murdered Stephen. That is why we need to ensure that institutional racism is rooted out of all public institutions.
How can we seriously challenge institutional racism if we do not tackle the larger and perhaps more dangerous racism posed by the rise of the far right. The fact is that we have to challenge both and we have to challenge those who wish to re-write the Stephen Lawrence Report. There is no benefit in re-writing the Stephen Lawrence Report. The challenge is that we should not get bogged down in a sterile debate about defining what is and what is not institutional racism. We know racism is, all too sadly, alive and well -- whatever form it takes.
Our commitment is to fight racism in all its forms and that includes institutional racism. The General Council wants to see the new duty to promote race equality extended to the private sector. That is why we are committed to working with the Commission for Racial Equality to deliver its obligations, to promote and enforce a new public duty and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. That is why it is important that Leslie Manasseh from the General Council will be representing the General Council and the TUC on the new task group that has been set up to implement the findings of the Research Report on the barriers facing black workers in the labour market.
But we need to see tangible outcomes to this work. We need to make the Government and employers aware that there is an economic penalty to racism in local communities. It drives away investment and jobs in those communities. It stifles regeneration and undermines the Government's commitment to community cohesion. Our task is a challenging one. It is about turning rhetoric into reality. It is about giving real hope to people who are under attack. The trade union Movement stands side by side with them in their hour of need. Let us commend the UNISON campaign slogan: "Let us say no to racism and no to them and us". Thank you Congress. I move.
Opposing the BNP and Racism
Billy Hayes (Communication Workers' Union) moved Composite Motion 5.
(Insert Composite Motion 5 - Opposing the BNP and Racism)
He said: Congress, campaigning against the BNP must be a major priority for the trade union Movement. Since the local elections the BNP has gained two more council seats in a recent by-election in Grays with a side ward in Essex, in Heckmond Dyke and Kirklees. When the BNP win a council seat racist attacks increase.
In Burnley between April 2002 and March 2003, 237 racist attacks were recorded. This is an increase of 149 per cent from April 2000 to March 2001 when 95 crimes were recorded and this corresponds with an increase in BNP activity in the area. Advances by the BNP do not emerge out of a vacuum. They are made possible by the context of a negative climate created by restrictive asylum and immigration legislation. We saw the hysteria on the issue of asylum in some tabloid newspapers and the growth of racism, particularly towards the Muslim communities in the aftermath of September 11th. A policy like citizenship tests on British history for new immigrants, far from stopping the BNP, legitimises BNP racism.
Congress, the Government are now preventing asylum seekers from obtaining legal advice. The Government are aiming to prevent asylum seekers from receiving medical treatment on the NHS. Asylum seekers are being forced to beg on the streets in the absence of any means of survival. Is it any wonder that racists like the BNP are gaining when the Government are clearing the ground for it? What happened to our commitment to the UN Convention on Refugees which obliges our Government to protect those fleeing persecution?
Our Movement must learn the lessons from campaigns that have defeated the BNP. Where the threat posed by the BNP is exposed and the anti-BNP majority cast its vote, the BNP can be defeated. The coalition against racism "Unite to stop the BNP" was key in stopping the BNP in Oldham for two successive years and, more recently, in the Hampton Park by-election in Burnley with a high turn out defeated the BNP.
The approach of bringing together all those opposed to the BNP and ensuring political parties explicitly campaigned against the BNP in elections is one that has to be read and must be copied everywhere. Ignoring the threat they pose cannot defeat the BNP. Their racism must be exposed. We cannot ignore the threats and hope that they go away. This has never worked.
We welcome the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's proposals to extend the "Respect, Not Racism" initiative on a national basis. This followed the huge success of the Mayor's Respect festivals in the last three years. Over 100,000 people attended this year's Respect at the Dome, dedicated to the memory of Stephen Lawrence. The "Respect, Not Racism" conference on November 6th is an opportunity for public authorities, trade unions and voluntary organisations to work together to promote anti-racism; to celebrate the contribution of our diverse community; to oppose discrimination and to share experiences of countering racism.
In June 2004 in local elections, there will be all out multi-vote elections in the Metropolitan Boroughs, and the BNP will need to finish third to gain council seats in those boroughs. The European elections will take place on the same day. It is likely that the 'oh so clever' Nick Griffin will stand in the north-west region.
The trade union Movement has a duty to prioritise opposition to BNP in these elections. We do not want to see the growth of a large fascist party as it happened in France, Italy, Denmark and other European countries. This is quite literally a matter of life and death, particularly for Britain's black community.
We, as a Movement, have done excellent work on ending racism. We have done excellent work in terms of discrimination. But we have to take the campaign to the BNP and be specific that support for the BNP for growth of the BNP should be met head on. This is a serious issue ----
The President : Billy, you are going on a little bit.
Billy Hayes : Congress, to wind up, support the proposition. Say "no" to racism. I move.
Sam Allen (The University & College Lecturers' Union) in seconding Composite Motion 5 said: Congress, as an education union, we have several specialist concerns about the impact of BNP activities in our community. The segregated education being forced on children of asylum seekers is a form of discrimination and makes the growth of mutual understanding and acceptance impossible.
There is a rise of BNP far right activities in our colleges and universities. Lecturers who take a stand afford little protection and their health and safety are put at risk. Several of our members have been named and websites While our members are very happy to teach English to refugees and asylum seekers from all over the world, we think the compulsory testing of English language and Britishness in the new citizenship test is grotesque. We need a very broad based approach which is fundamentally welcoming to asylum seekers and refugees, seeing them as an enrichment and not an obstacle. We need to counter the racist view of BNP and not the far right organisations by organising the broadest front against them.
This means an alliance between trade union and a range of anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations. Wherever BNP or far right candidates are standing, everyone should work together on a "Don't vote BNP" campaign . It is not only about working together. It is about actually getting out to campaign against them.
We do not need any more support for American military misadventures. We need to spend our resources on building a generous, welcoming, multicultural society. We call on the TUC General Council to lead this campaign. We also call on the TUC General Council to tell Bradford Council to stop allowing the BNP to use their building to hold meetings. In the words of Bill Morris yesterday, "Racists and their supporters have no place in our Movement" and we, NATFHE, echo that. Diana Holland also said this morning, "We cannot retreat from the BNP. We need to take them on and fight them".
The fight begins tomorrow. It is our Movement. We have got a right under that place to lead that fight. I second. Thank you.
Mick Rix (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) in supporting the composite motion said: Comrades, we need to acknowledge that our Movement is under attack. The British National Party is systematically working to infiltrate trade unions and undermine our work. We have known that they have been interfering in a recent union election and are attacking our own union's political funds. BNP activists who work to poison relations between union members and disrupt union procedures are bringing, in some respects, political work to a halt. It is intolerable that the law as it presently stands makes it difficult for unions to deal with these neo-fascists under our rules. We know, through bitter experience, how the law currently works.
It is welcoming, though, that the TUC is taking a clear stand on this issue and pressure now must be brought to bear on the Government to repeal that legislation. Do you know one of the worst things? Regular public statements by politicians, especially against asylum seekers, is fuelling race hatred in this country and is aiding and abetting the BNP's growth. It is about time some of our politicians started to face up to their facts and responsibilities and started to combat racism head on rather than fuelling racism within our society.
This legitimises, unfortunately, the BNP's rhetoric. It nourishes their roots on feeding racism, bigotry and hatred. Our Movement needs to take a more active role in fighting the racist element in our organisation and within the wider communities. Our Movement sometimes can react too slowly. We need a greater emphasis and resources to root out these racist poisonous scum.
I would like to say that another damaging thing is taking place in Queensbury, in Bradford this week on Wednesday. The BNP are holding a majory rally. Local politicians and indeed MPs and community activists have urged Bradford Council to ban that rally under the Public Order Act. The Tory and Liberal controlled Council of Bradford have refused to do so. I am going to urge the TUC: Let us start putting some pressure on today to start to fight back against the BNP attacking our communities.
Finally, comrades, I would like to thank all the messages of support that our unions received during our recent legal case. I would like to thank the TUC especially for taking this on on our behalf. And I would like to make this final point. I have been asked, would we do anything differently as a trade union in the recent legal challenge that was taken against us. The answer is no because the answer is simple. There is no room for Nazis; there is no room for racists in our Movement and our communities and I am damned proud of what my union did. I support.
Veronica Dunn (UNISON) in supporting the composite motion said: President and Congress, the BNP claim to speak for working people; that they are the party that can help to turn around all the problems faced in many regions.
We all know the truth, Congress. They only have one policy -- to stir up racist and fascist feelings and they are simply using our very real social and economic difficulties as a front for creating division and hatred. They have targeted areas where the Government has not addressed the results of industrial decline. They have used the lack of jobs and poor investment in public services to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear. They have used the issue of poverty to promote the idea that things would be better if asylum seekers and immigrants were not allowed to live in Britain.
Brendan Barber called yesterday for us to take our campaign to every street corner. Let me tell you a real story. Last Thursday, there was a by-election in east end of Newcastle -- in the world I was born in. Before the election took place, the local paper, the Sunday Sun, said, "We have only contempt for the fascists and racists who go by the name of the BNP." Their attempts to sow division and discord among neighbours sparks memories of Moseley, Mussolini and Hitler and those whose narrow-minded bigotry allows them to be drawn towards such hatemongers cannot hide from such inevitable comparisons. The rest of us, though, should determine to deny these dangerous fools success at the ballot box in the local government election that takes place -- a strong statement, Congress.
My UNISON branch lobbied the count where a substantial number of BNP supporters turned up to support their candidate, who lost. Their behaviour was, as you can imagine, provocative, swaggering and intimidatory. One of them pointed his finger at me and declared, "The streets belong to us". Congress, let me say, "No way. Never. Not while trade unions exist"! Not while the Northern Regional TUC is doing everything it can in Sunderland, Middlesborough, Newcastle, Durham and Darlington to bring together the broadest coalition of trade unions, church groups, labour party member and community groups. Hundreds of people turn up at every meeting. They are showing a commitment to working towards a real multicultural society where black and Asian people can be free from racist attacks and can participate equally with equal opportunity and for equal pay.
Trade unions have a huge responsibility here not just to train their own activists but to work with trades councils and other organisations working in this area -- National Assembly against Racism, Show Racism the Red Card, Seachlight and the Coalition Against Racism -- to ensure that message permeates everywhere. We need to provide more training and trade unions should commit to put all our activists through this type of training.
A different type of project exists in Oldham in the ward where Nick Griffin lives. UNISON has worked for two years with families of activist children in a youth inclusion programme to challenge the rise in misinformation from Griffin and his cronies. Good practice exists. Let us share it. Congress, let us send out one clear message this week: "no racism. No them and us".
Pauline Arthur (CONNECT): President and Congress, in supporting this composite, I am concentrating particularly on the part which encourages Congress and all its affiliates to support Searchlight in exposing the loathsome and criminal activities of the BNP.
Ten years ago this month the BNP had its first local councillor elected in Tower Hamlets. Last week we saw them get their 17th councillor in Essex. We know that they are fielding candidates in other by-elections in the coming months and they have plans to have many candidates in the 2004 local elections and, at the same time, they are setting their sights on the European elections. This has to be more than a wake-up call for us.
By providing active support to Searchlight, we can support an organisation whose aim is to combat racism, fascism and all forms of prejudice. Searchlight is a non-sectarian organisation in political, ethnic and religious terms. It believes in achieving the broadest unity in this fight. Its formation in the summer of 1962 was in response to the resurgence of open violent neo-Nazism activities. Since 1975 they have published Searchlight as a monthly magazine.
Searchlight has most recently opened a new service, the Searchlight Information Service, that carries out specialist research on the far right and racism in Britain. One of the many functions of this service is to expose the illegal and the extremely unpleasant activities of fascists, racists and anti-semites. It works closely with the media. Searchlight remains the first port of call for many journalists writing on the subject of fascism and racism. It regularly plays a role in producing documentaries for television and for providing radio interviews. The intelligence and information that they provide is unique in the world.
Everything I have said is reason enough to support Searchlight but, for me, there are more compelling reasons why you must suport them. These people are the bravest people we may ever be privileged to be associated with. They go undercover into fascist and racist organisations and they reveal those organisations' innermost secrets and activities. The personal risks they take are massive. Few people would have the courage to take those risks. But it is a job that has to be done and they do it. It is a job that has to be done because, if we are to beat these organisations and ensure that everyone is free to live their lives in peace and without fear, it has to be done and they do it.
Why do they do it? They do it because it is about shining a light into the darkest and most loathsome corners of the black heart of fascism to show them up for what they are. It is a job that has to be done and they do it brilliantly. Their aims are totally dedicated to exposing the worst secrets of these organisations and their leadership. It is what they do and they do it brilliantly.
Congress, we all have a responsibility to oppose the BNP and these racist/fascist organisations. I ask you to show our commitment by supporting Composite 5 unanimously and by supporting Searchlight. Congress, please support.
Rob Thomas (The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff) in supporting the composite said: I am drawing particular attention to the cause of appeal, section 55, of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That is a section which leads to refusal of benefits for asylum seekers. That is the legislation which makes it easier for racists in this country to treat mainly black asylum seekers as something less than human.
As recently as 31st July this year, Shelter and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants brought a legal challenge to this legislation and won. In announcing his judgment, Mr. Justice Maurice Kay made the following statements: "For a protracted but indefinite period of time for the determination of his asylum application, it will often happen that, denied access to employment and other benefits, he will soon be reduced to a state of destitution without accommodation, food or the means to obtain them he will have little alternative but to beg and sleep rough. The applicants have been forced into a life so destitute that no civilised nation could tolerate it". That is what the judge said.
During that court case Shelter gave evidence to say that all three men cited in the proceedings were malnourished and living in appalling conditions. Also, they explained that there is virtually no charitable provision available to people denied support as a result of section 55. What is the Government's reaction to this? They immediately slap in an appeal. On previous occasions when they have lost an appeal they threaten to immediately changed the law.
Just tell me this. What makes David Blunkett and others in this current Government believe that they know better than judges who sit in court for day after day of a legal hearing to decide on the facts? What makes them think that when courts rule against them time after time on human rights grounds that they know better. But they do not know better. The Institute of Public Policy Research, just within the last fortnight, have issued statistics which, it argues, show that present law is excluding genuine asylum seeks from protection. The proportion of negative decisions made by the Home Office, overturned on appeal, has risen from 17 to 21 per cent in the last quarter.
Once again the Home Office tries to subvert the legal system. It is wrong that the 2002 Act makes it easier for them to do this. It is shameful that th