FOURTH DAY: THURSDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2003

MORNING SESSION

(Congress assembled at 9.30 a.m.)

The President: Good morning, colleagues. I call you to order. Many thanks to the NKS Jazz who have been playing for us this morning and, indeed, once again for the sponsorship of the NUT. Thank you. (Applause)

Report of the General Purposes Committee

Jerry Veart (General Purposes Committee): Good morning, colleagues. The GPC received a proposal for a third emergency motion yesterday on redundancies at the Appledore Shipyard in Devon which were announced on 9^th September. The GPC has approved this request. Copies of Emergency Motion no. 3 have been distributed in the hall. That concludes my report.

The President: I take it that that is agreed, colleagues? (Agreed)

Protecting People at Work

George Brumwell (General Council) in leading in on paragraph 8 of the General Council’s Report said: Congress, it is never possible to say that it has been a good year for health and safety. This year, sadly, has been no exception. People continue to be injured, made ill and sometimes even killed by their work. Families lose loved ones, children lose parents and parents lose children. In almost any other field of human endeavour it would be front page news if people were dying in such numbers. The roll call of shame is depressing: 250 people are killed in workplace accidents every year. Four times that number, 1,000, are killed because of work-related road traffic accidents. Five thousand people - more than a dozen a day - are dying because they were exposed to asbestos at work, sometimes many years ago. More than all those numbers put together are dying early because of work-related stress.

As the composite before you demonstrates, it is one of the movement’s top priorities. Indeed, stress is an issue that transcends the artificial boxes we put our policies in. Stress is about working time, the work/life balance, workload and bullying. It kills more people than any other workplace hazard, through early heart disease or stokes. It causes more time off to be taken than any other preventable illness, whether people are diagnosed with a mental illness or not.

Health and safety is not all doom and gloom on planet Earth. Unions have a powerful message to put across. Union workplace safety reps cut the major injury rate in half when managers allow them to do their jobs. Where employers actually enter into partnership with safety reps, the results are far better. Indeed, in my own industry, which is construction, some research published last year showed there was nothing as effective as safety reps in reducing workplace injuries.

The composite concerns some of the changes we want to see in the powers of safety reps. That is not power for power’s sake but power in the interests of working people. Perhaps we need to go further. We need a vision for safety reps and that vision should be nothing less than that safety reps should become as central, as important and all pervasive as risk assessment, which is the bedrock of health and safety across the European Union. We heard from one of our safety reps on Monday, but as the General Council’s Report makes clear, we had so many high league quality nominees this year that we are also making awards in the regions and in each sector of the industry. We want to give safety reps a harder sell and we want the Government to do the same. The Prime Minister says that what matters is what works. In health and safety, safety and safety reps’ work should matter a great deal more than it does.

The next big issue that the composite address, Congress, is corporate killing. It has been Congress policy for years that people and businesses who kill their workers through gross negligence and carelessness should be punished accordingly. Again, this is not about revenge, although you can sympathise with those grieving relatives and colleagues who think that a bit of revenge would not go amiss in these cases. One of many reasons why we need corporate killing legislation is because it would send out the clearest possible message that killing people at work is just as wrong as people being killed outside their places of work.

This summer the Home Secretary promised legislation in the next Parliamentary year. The commitment is in the Labour Party Manifesto for the last election, and it is a commitment which is supported not only by the TUC but even by the Institute of Directors. It is not controversial, it is good sense, it will make good law and we look forward to seeing it on the statute book by this time next year. If you listen to Mr. Blunkett, we will be back here next September.

Not least amongst the many arguments for corporate killing is that it would put health and safety on the boardroom agenda. Many good employers have put health and safety on the agenda having not been forced to do so because they recognise the importance of protecting the health of their employees. I salute what they have done, and I only wish there were more like them.

During the past year we have seen another issue parachuted onto the boardroom agenda - employee liability insurance. We have been told that this class of insurance which phases out compensation when workers are injured is in crisis. It has become too expensive, we are told. It has become too difficult to get. Furthermore, it will become a boardroom issue in more than two-thirds of our biggest companies. So they will have more than health and safety on their boardroom agendas. That says it all. There are negligent bosses, some of them careless and some of them clueless who are focusing their efforts on the cure rather than the cause.

They say that employer insurance liability is in crisis, and they want the Government to bail them out, but these are the very employers who have presided over decades of crisis in injury, illness and death at work. There are some small employers with genuinely good track records who have been caught by insurance premiums, without reference having been made to their past performance. I sympathise with them.

The TUC would be happy to discuss the steps that could be taken to solve their problems if they are willing to enter into some sort of partnership with us over safety reps, as I mentioned early. The reason why insurers set their premiums so unsubtley is because those premiums are so low in the first place. On average you can buy an employer liability insurance for a worker for £70 a year. Compare that with your motor car insurance, and ask yourself: what is more valuable - your car or your colleagues’ lives?

What is happening to people at work is also of great concern to us, and it should be treated like grievous bodily harm. I am talking about the fact that workplace injuries are no less violent just because they take place at work.

Because of the efforts of safety reps, the Health & Safety Executive and progressive employers have reduced the level of workplace injuries during the past decade.

Violent assault at work is the centrepiece of the composite before you this morning. Violence has been imported into the workplace not by fellow workers but by the public. It is a sad fact that people who work with the public now appear to be easy prey to the thugs and criminals. Some of it is about money, people who collect cash like shopworkers, some of it is about drink, like publicans, but some of it is inexplicable, such as the assaults on the emergency service workers called to bogus incidents. Health workers are assaulted in accident and emergency departments and teachers are attacked by their pupils or the pupils of their parents.

Violence is the only issue to have grown in importance every time we conduct the TUC’s annual safety reps survey. It blights people’s lives and it makes people afraid to go to work as well as damaging the economy and public services.

You need to be pressing employers to manage the risk of violent attack, and many of them have responded. They should be congratulated for putting our members’ interests first. But some employers still believe that violence cannot be tackled. Of course, each individual act of violence is random and unpredictable, but overall they form a pattern and that pattern can be predicted and prevented. That is why the composite calls for employers to deal with violence just like any other hazard. Assess the risks, control the workforce and work with the trade unions.

Employers can do a lot to reduce the risk of violence. We want to work with them, but without new laws and new penalties, as the composite makes clear, sometimes that might not be enough.

Congress, the General Council understands why the composite calls for employers to be held vicariously liable, and where employers are simply ducking their responsibilities, we sympathise with the workforce, but we want to maintain a partnership approach to violence wherever we can. Therefore, we ask that you consider our position on that part of the composite.

Another delicate subject is the question of Health & Safety Executive resources. I have already spoken about the work that union safety reps do on health and safety. They do a lot. However, the people who we depend on for good health and safety standards are the inspectors employed by the Health & Safety Executive and local authorities. My experience as a Commissioner is such that I believe we have the finest health and safety inspectors in the world when it comes to workplace accidents and workplace health problems.

I ask you to give a big 'thank you' to them for the sterling work they do.

The big problem we get from safety reps is that they do not see the inspectors enough. Of course, the other problem is that there are not enough health and safety inspectors. All of us in the Commission are concerned about the state of the HSE’s budget and the local authority budgets are hardly healthier. The position is going to get tougher under the last spending review. We need to put a lot more pressure on Mr. Brown, who came to speak to us on Tuesday, because he is the one in-charge of the purse strings. The Chancellor spoke of health and safety as a cornerstone of a civilised society. We need more money in the next spending review to make that desire a reality.

I have spoken a lot today about the modern imperative of saving people’s lives, and that is always going to be the strongest argument for health and safety, but perhaps the Chancellor will need other arguments, too, if morals do not work. Maybe money will.

A lot of people say that health and safety costs too much. It is a burgeoning business. It is not. Health and safety saves money as well as lives, and the steps required to manage risks will give any company and any economy the sort of competitive that people like the CBI are always telling us is so important in the global economy. Good health is good business. It promotes productivity, it boosts profits and it delivers success.

In conclusion, colleagues, unions will never rest on the issue of health and safety. The General Council does support the composite with a slight concern about employers being pursued over violence. We will work with anyone to make sure that people are able to leave work every day as healthy as when they arrived. There can be no higher cause for trade unions than saving lives and no higher calling than doing so by becoming a safety rep. Thank you.

Improving work-place safety

Graeme Henderson (PROSPECT) moved the following composite motion:

(Insert Composite Motion 21 - Improving work-place safety)

He said: Prospect represents HSE inspectors, information officers and scientists. Let me just thank George Brumwell for his very kind words about the work that we do.

Congress, this motion is about the right of every worker to return home safe and well from work. It is about the right of every worker to work without fear from stress, violence at work and excessive exposure to smoke. It is about the responsibilities of employers and contractors to protect their workforce; it is about ensuring that companies and directors who neglect health and safety standards face the full force of the law through corporate manslaughter. Furthermore, it is about the responsibility of Government to create an effective legislative framework, including the abolition of Crown immunity, and also to provide the necessary resources for the enforcement authorities to do their work to ensure that the law is fully complied with. It is also about the essential role played by trade unions and, in particular, safety representatives to protect workers. Above all, it is about dignity and respect at work. That, perhaps, Congress, is why the motion is so long.

On Tuesday Gordon Brown said, and I quote: 'Because no one should see their health and safety recklessly put at risk in the workplace, we will support the Freedom from Fear Campaign and ensure greater protection for people in workplaces, from factories, to hospitals and shops, remembering that safety at work is the mark of a civilised society'. Gordon, that was excellent. What PROSPECT says is now put your money where your mouth is.

In the last year local authority inspections have fallen by 11%. In the Health and Safety Executive there have been 5% cuts across the board. As, indeed, George referred to, HSE resources have effectively been frozen for the next three years to result, in real terms, a decrease or cut of about 10%.

Recruitment has been frozen and 50 inspectors in the main operating division will not be replaced. Technical training for inspectors is being rationed and, perhaps, most disgracefully of all, in the north-west of England a pilot exercise is being conducted, which means that scalpings, finger amputations and multiple fractures will not - I repeat, will not - be investigated.

That is why PROSPECT is calling for an additional £35 million a year in order to double the number of inspectors so that workplaces can be inspected at least once every five years, to ensure that all serious breaches of law are investigated and strong enforcement action taken and to provide for additional scientific expertise and forensic support.

Workplace accidents in the United Kingdom are estimated to cost between £16 billion to £18 billion per annum. We are asking for £35 million. It is for that reason that we are organising a lobby of Parliament on October 28^th and calling upon the labour Movement to support us by writing to MPs, the Minister and generally giving us as much support as they can.

We have already started that process, but if you write to your MP who sends a letter to the Minister, what do you get? So far you get a letter telling you that resources and the number of inspectors have gone up and that there really is not a problem. Congress, that is not the experience of our members. It is not the experience of trade union safety reps or members of the public who try to get an inspector to come out and investigate a complaint or accident. These are not the experiences of those who suffer injury or ill-health at work.

This composite motion is about decency, fairness, dignity and respect at work. Support the motion and support the PROSPECT campaign for additional resources for health and safety at work. Thank you.

John Hannett (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) seconding the composite motion, said: I am delighted to be seconding such an important composite. There will be many unions in this hall with members working in fear, not only of dangerous working practices, equipment or materials; in fear, not of negligence and criminal employers, but in fear of violent attacks, threats and abuse in and around their places of work, be they patients in shops or patients in casualty wards. In the public or private sector, working people are increasingly at risk. That is why I am delighted and pleased on behalf of my union, USDAW, to be leading our Freedom From Fear Campaign.

Let me give you some statistics and figures to illustrate how important this campaign is for our members. Violent incidents towards shop workers have increased by at least 75% since 1999. Incidents of verbal abuse occur on a daily basis in 36% of shops. In 2002, 16,200 retail staff were assaulted, 48,600 staff were threatened and

70,000 were verbally abused. Those are easy statistics to roll off the tongue for all relate to individuals on the receiving end. This is not USDAW’s claims. These are the industry’s own figures. In fact, they are an under-estimate at that. They are frightening statistics, but they are not just numbers.

Let us examine the human dimension. A 21 year old shop worker was regularly threatened by baseball bats by the same family had to resort to anti-depressants. Let me give one or two examples to make the point. A cashier who was stabbed in the arm when he refused to open his till during a robbery. A junior manager was told to sort out a customer complaint, and although she was not high enough in the grading system to authorise the refund, she was hit for refusing to comply. The store manager who tried to apprehend the shoplifter and was then knocked down by the getaway car. Three security guards were bitten by a shoplifter who was HIV positive and had to spend months taking a cocktail of HIV drugs. These are real people, real issues, not made-up stories. That is the reality today.

No one should have to go through receiving such abuse. That is why USDAW’s Freedom campaign - I want to pay tribute to the USDAW delegate in this hall who have worked tirelessly to make this campaign a success - is a significant campaign in USDAW’s calendar. We are not precious. We want other unions to support us. Anybody who is on the frontline in the service sector can be affected, and that is why our Freedom From Fear Campaign is all about - forging alliances with anyone who counts, with our own members but also with employers.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the date of 17^th September. That day is our Respect for Shopworkers’ Day. It will be at a hundred locations right across the country, working with the politicians and working with our members. Please support.

Tom Harrison (ACCORD) speaking in support of the composite, said: My union represents, along with UNIFY, all trade union members within Halifax/Bank of Scotland.

Congress, stress/stress is a wonderful thing. It is bad for your ticker, it makes you work quicker. Could this be the mantra that directors are presently chanting in boardrooms up and down the country? A recent article from the LRD fax service tells of a service by pain killer manufacturer, Anadin, stating that stress can have a positive influence on working life. It makes claims that most British workers believe stress improves performance and increases job satisfaction. Personal performance is not solely influenced by stress, though many employers seem to take the view that it is. There has to be balance and that balance can be different from one individual to another.

Why? In the President’s address Nigel went so far as to describe the unparalleled degrees of stress the job creates as the occupational cancer of the 21^st Century. If stress is occupational cancer, I am sincerely worried for my colleagues in the financial services sector for they, as I am sure is the position in many other parts of UK PLC, are experiencing a stage 4, terminal diagnosis with no remission in sight. In offices, branches and call centres around the country, stress levels are enormous and far above the level that would be a positive influence. Now, like a wonder drug, the HSE gives us a glimmer of hope with the six stress tests on a new code on stress at work, and also a reasoned consideration of stress from HSE Commission chairman, Bill Callaghan, when he says: 'There is a difference between the buzz people get from doing a busy and challenging job and an unreasonable pressure which can harm health, lead to absence and put additional strain on colleagues trying to cope in an even more pressured environment'.

Congress, let us grab this opportunity to bring on board employers in recognising stress as the occupational cancer it is. Its defeat through this code is as much in their interests as it is in ours but we have the case to make. Do not let this opportunity slip by or allow employers to pay only lipservice. Let us face it, it is about time. Support Composite 21.

Jimmy Craigie (AMICUS) speaking in support of the composite, said: President, in supporting this composite I want to concentrate on corporate killing - death at work. In 1996 a Royal Commission recommended a new offence in law of corporate killing. Since then 1,500 workers have died, and let us not forget how many others have died, as a consequence of work-related illness. I did not come to this rostrum to give statistics. What I came up here was to try and give you a flavour of the human cost of these deaths. I am a steel worker. I have been in the industry for more than 45 years. In those years I have spent most of them as a shop steward and convenor, and I have on 47 occasions had the task and heart breaking duty of visiting the families left behind by the deaths at their doors in the very early days of their loss. All 47 were my members. Many of them were personal friends. The anguish and grief which is suffered by the brothers and sisters, their children, wives, grandparents and parents really does cry out for justice.

The finest piece of legislation ever put on the statute book for construction workers was the Health and Safety at Work Act. That Act has certainly reduced the death toll. I believe that the chilling message that should be sent to the so-called captains of industry is this: '1. You are accountable; 2. If you continue to place profit before the lives of our members, then you must accept the consequences. If you have been accused and found guilty by due process of law, you will go to jail like any other criminal'. The point is that until those people are jailed, nothing will change, in my opinion. I do not believe that the charge should be corporate manslaughter. The charge should be corporate murder. As with any other criminal act, if a charge is reduced as a consequence of prosecution, then they can be done for manslaughter.

I cannot come to this rostrum without saying that until this Labour Party puts such legislation in place that defies employers acting in the way they do now, nothing will change! I beg your support for the resolution of this composite in its entirety.

Anthony Richardson (Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: My union particularly supports the section in the composite motion on Health and Safety Executive financing.

We in the Bakers’ Union pride ourselves on having one of the best health and safety training programmes in the Movement. We recognise that the best way to protect our members at work is to have the best health and safety reps doing the best work in the branches for the benefit of those members. That is obvious but there is no point in having excellent people on the ground if we do not have in place enforcement to back up that excellent expertise.

To highlight the situation, there has been and will be a freeze on inspector and specialised recruitment, 10% cutbacks by 2006, technical training for inspectors being rationed and the possibility of work done by untrained staff, and that is absolutely disgraceful. That is why we call on the Government to increase funding for the Health and Safety Executive.

At a time when this Government are directing us towards their revitalisation strategy, they are one of the least compliant. At a time when trade unions are year on year increasing their training budgets for safety representative training, and at a time when some businesses are actually upping their input into preventative safety measures, with better risk assessment and compliance with better risk assessments and compliance with initiatives to promote safer working practices, what is this Government doing? The answer is that they are cutting back in real terms of resources year on year.

One of the cornerstones of good health and safety housekeeping has to be the adage that prevention is better than cure. So how can a Government, supposedly of the people, cut back on the very resource that is there to protect those people? At a time when they should be increasing funding to meet their own targets of revitalisation, they are actually reducing the budget for the Health and Safety Executive.

The pilot scheme referred to by PROSPECT being run in the north-west will see inspectors for the first time not investigating serious accidents. Why? Because money is short and it is felt that their budget should be directed to other preventative initiatives.

Comrades, as you and I know, the most serious accidents and, indeed, fatalities are preceded by near misses or less serious occurrences. Adopting this pilot will ensure that the accidents are not investigated and are likely to be followed by more serious occurrences.

This Government, during its better times prior to 1997, castigated the Tories for under-funding the HSE and promised - promised! - to rectify that situation. Once again, comrades, that is a promise that has been unfulfilled.

Delegates, I leave you with this one thought. You can have the best employment rights from day one, the best pay rates in industry, the most holidays, the best paternity, the best parental and bereavement leave, but if you are in a box delete all the above. Support.

Lesley Ann Baxter (British Orthoptic Society) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: I want to emphasise our support for the section relating to stress at work.

I am an orthoptist and a clinician working in the NHS dealing with defects in vision. I wholeheartedy agree with this composite in that every worker has the right to return home from work safe and well. I also agree with our President’s opening address which stated that stress in the workplace and the culture of long working hours is totally unacceptable.

I work for a good employer who can recognise his problems and sends me on courses so, apparently, I can deal with stress. So I was not stressed the other day when I had to tell two young parents that their baby of six weeks old was blind. That took more than the 15 minutes allocated to them, because my employer sent me on a time management course. I was not stressed when the next patient complained that I had kept him waiting more than 30 minutes, for my employer sent me on a managing complaints course. I was not stressed to hear that a job vacancy that I wished to advertise has been put on hold due to financial difficulties, as my financial manager said that my budget looks healthy. I am waiting for the next course.

I have just had my appraisal and, apparently, because of all the courses I have been on, my patient numbers have now gone down, so I now have to go on another course.

Seriously, within the NHS the levels of stress and verbal abuse are significant. The levels are worsening and the number of staff having to take time off for stress-related illnesses is increasing. This puts more stress on us as the remaining staff. This spiral is self-perpetuating. Whilst we agree that a lot of good work has been done by the HSE to raise the profile of stress-related problems, what we all really need in the NHS is more well-paid staff. This is the only way to stop this spiral of stress-related illness continuing. Please support.

Meera Siva (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: I am speaking particularly on the section relating to stress.

Stress, by definition, is the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on them. I’ll be that many of you have suffered from stress at work. I am certainly suffering a considerable bout of stress right now by standing here giving this speech with a mild headache. Have any of you had time off because of stress or a stress-related illness? Again, I’ll be that some of you have.

The health sector as a whole, and health professionals as a group, run a high risk of suffering from conditions related to stress at work. I can vouch for this as I work in the NHS where staff morale is at an all-time low and recruitment and retention is a huge problem.

A survey done amongst nurses showed that 11% of them have a similar profile to people deemed to be in need of NHS psychological therapy. I must be in the percentile for physiotherapists for agreeing to stand here and speak the morning after the Conference do. Only half of these are receiving counselling or any other kind of treatment. These nurses also reported twice the level of sickness absence as other nurses.

The Health and Safety Executive has developed a range of standards of good management practice and stress launched in June of this year and piloted now in 24 firms. It set six standards aimed at easing the pressure and improving the quality of life for employees. This pilot must be supported and a high level of awareness and participation amongst all organisations, unions and workers will help to make the results of the pilot meaningful. This pilot will be the first real step to encourage enforcement activity by health and safety inspectors on stress.

To date enforcement action related to stress has been negligible and no prosecutions have been brought by the HSE. But the standards will not be enough. It is vital that stress is properly regulated. It is essential and cost-effective for employers that the problem of stress amongst workers is effectively tackled and, most importantly, it is essential for those workers whose lives are being made a misery by suffering from stress at work.

Congress calls on the General Council to publicise the existence of the new draft standards to employers and unions. We call on the General Council to monitor the impact of these standards in the piloting stage to the active in-consultation process during and after the piloting stage, to ensure the new standards are enforced for health and safety purposes and to use the results of the pilot to build a stronger campaign for proper legal regulation of stress at work in the near future. Please support the motion.

Lorimer Mackenzie (FDA, the union of choice for senior managers and professionals in public service) speaking in support of the composite, said: I am aware of the wish to watch the time, so I will make my two points very briefly. I have one point to make on stress and another on passive smoking.

My members, who are senior civil servants and managers in the public sector, belong to a group which is particularly vulnerable to stress, and they are particularly exposed to pressures. Stress and ill-health, as we all know, result all too commonly from a large number of pressures. In our case, this can only be addressed by a change in employers’ attitudes. We want employers, which in our case means the Government, predominantly, to create an environment in which members can resist the pressure to continue to work long hours of overtime all unpaid. We want a culture which does not disadvantage those who are unwilling to work until they drop.

I would like to echo the congratulations which have been given to our colleagues in PROSPECT for the great work which their members in the HSE do. But the HSE action in this area only goes so far. It is all right as far as it goes. If have not seen a change in employers’ attitudes and behaviour in the next couple of years, we want legislation to enforce such a change. As a first step, we would like to see the Government setting an example in the way it treats its own employees.

On the subject of setting an example, I am going to turn to my second point, which is passive smoking, and turn to the members of the General Council. I note and welcome the General Council’s support for the composite, but we also ask that it leads by example, Throughout this week it has been almost impossible to leave this hall without walking through a fog of cigarette smoke. (Cheers and applause) There is cigarette smoke at the doors to this hall, there is cigarette smoke at the doors to the Centre, cigarette smoke in the foyer, in the exhibition halls and there is even some beside where the food is sold. If the General Council is really dedicated to addressing passive smoking, the least it can do is to ensure a smoke free environment throughout the venue where it holds Congress. I support.

Mick Fell (ISTC, The Community Union) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: President and delegates, my Union speaks in support of corporate manslaughter. David Blunkett confirmed that the Government would produce the offence of corporate manslaughter. This marked an outstanding trade union success. This development is welcomed because 249 people were killed at work last year, and 384 members of the public were killed in workplace incidents. Think what this means to us. Typically, young people have been snatched away by a fatal accident at work. Consider the shock and suffering of the bereaved, the indelible impact that every one of these deaths brought to their families. Those families, friends and communities, in steel, in my own industry, have experienced more of their share of death, crippling incidents and accidents.

The toll of serious injuries in the industry is wholly unacceptable, even though senior management is committed to reducing that toll. Those who mourn deaths at work deserve something more than just bloody company commitments. The HSE estimates that 70% of the eight deaths at work every week are genuinely due to management failures. If a motorist drives negligently and kills someone, they could be charged with manslaughter and go to prison. If a director is negligent at work and that negligence results in an employees’ death, it is entirely unlikely that he will be charged, let alone be convicted.

The records show that the larger the company, the greater is the likelihood that there will be no charge. The law currently requires that the senior management must be the controlling mind in the company, and in a large company this is very difficult for the prosecution to prove. A powerful deterrent is missing from the commitment to risk cutting corners at the expense of safety. The new proposals should mean that a company director could be found guilty in a criminal court if management failure was identified by the court as a cause of death at work in an accident and that failure constituted conduct far inferior to what might be reasonably expected. The Bill will need to be amended to achieve that.

The CBI will probably fight the proposed legislation aggressively, but I have confidence in the TUC. We will be able to withstand employers’ pressure but we will need to be vigilant to ensure that legislation is effective in pinning down the responsibility and saving lives in the workplace.

I will tell you one thing before I finish. One fatality in the workplace is one too many and somebody needs to be made accountable. Adopt the motion, please.

Doug Sweeney (Musicians’ Union) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: For many years the Musicians' Union has marched under a banner which has said, "Keep Music Live'. However, a contribution to Composite 21 should really have the slogan, 'Keep Musicians Alive'. If you are faced with the prospect of entering a smoking, under-ventilated club, pub or restaurant, you can exercise choice. You can go in and experience the delights of passive smoking or you can leave and find somewhere more congenial. But those for whom this is a place of work, the staff of the premises, the waiters and the bar staff, including any entertainers and musicians, for whom this too is a place of work, the choice is to work or not to work. This is in a sector of mainly freelance and casual employment for musicians and entertainers. So the choice not to work means breach of contract and professional suicide.

In referring to passive smoking, I was speaking here of something that is just an annoyance and an irritant. Certainly it is that, and many of us have experienced the immediate effects of passive smoking - eye irritation, headache, coughs, sore throats, dizziness and nausia. But a major review by the Government appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded that passive smoking can be a cause in adult non-smokers of lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease. Research by ASH - that is Action on Smoking in Health - has concluded that 1200 deaths a year - that is three every day - can be specifically attributed to work-related passive smoking.

The tobacco industry has responded to this in two ways. Firstly, by funding, overtly and covertly, some of the poorest so-called research in the whole field of health studies and, secondly, by using this tainted research to persuade the entertainment and hospitalities industries that their business will suffer if smoking bans are put in place. However, a number of more rigorous and independent studies have found no negative impact in business as a result of bans in workplace or public place smoking. In fact, results from a number of countries around the world even suggest an enhancement of business.

What we are looking for is for the Government to accept the Health and Safety Commission’s approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking. The acceptance of this has only been delayed by five years. We wonder why? While we wonder, each year we inflict ill-health and premature death on too many of our fellow workers. It is time for action. Support the composite.

Sue Rogers (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: There is a new and growing sickness in our society, Congress, and that is a sickness which seems to accept that it is quite all right to abuse people at work. Research by the NASUWT has indicated that every seven minutes a teacher is abused, most of it being verbal. You know what I mean, a little casual 'Sod off', here and there, but in actual fact it goes beyond that to physical assault, to racial and homophobic assault, intimidation and sexual assault, all of which, unfortunately, are becoming frequently more and more common in my workplace. What we see is, at the most extreme from pupils and parents, situations where teachers are killed -- Philip Lawrence is the classic example - and raped. I know from my own example of handling a case of such a situation where to punish the teacher the parents saw this as a good and easy way of dealing with the situation.

At the other end of that scale are the petty, everyday stress and strains from the kind of verbal abuse that I was talking about. In that survey it became quite clear that half of the staff are not satisfied with the way in which management deals with this problem. Management, of course, does not like to give such behaviour too high a profile because it gives the school a bad name, it makes things look a bit dodgy and it looks as though they are not in control. So they try and sweep it under the carpet. They try and ignore it.

This year the NASUWT won a major case in the House of Lords, called the P. case, in our battle to believe that we could ballot our members to take collective action to refuse to teach a pupil who was disruptive. We won that case and we maintain that collective right. It is absolutely vital to us. Every month in our National Executive Committee meeting at least four to six cases come up that we have to deal with. It was a watershed for us.

However, just as we won one, we lost won. We took on the Shirley Pearce case, one of our lesbian members, who suffered homophobic bullying for five years, and the management did nothing to protect her. We lost that case because there was no legal protection against such things. We could not win it on sex discrimination. It left us also with something which worries us greatly, and that is an issue which the General Council highlighted - a lack of what we call 'employer liability', vicarious liability.

If we say the employer is not responsible - we all know of the Manning judgment, which concerned a black waitress who objected, and said that the hotel did nothing to protect her when having to listen to Bernard Manning putting on a private show for a small group - for protecting our workers, then what can we do? Schoolteachers will not be protected by their management, shop workers will not be protected and Heaven help the bank workers. All this is a need and a focus that we must have. This is a dreadful and growing problem in our society, and I urge you all to support Composite 21.

The President: There having been no one speaking against the composite, I take it that PROSPECT does not wish to exercise its rights of reply.

(The right of reply was waived)

· Composite Motion 21 was CARRIED.

TUC Organisation

Accounts

The President: Conference, I draw your attention to Appendix 3 on page 168 of the General Council’s Report, which is the TUC’s Accounts. The auditor is present on the platform. Does Congress accept the accounts as set out in the Appendix?. (Agreed)

The Future Funding of the BBC and the BBC Charter

The President: I will now take Composite Motion 22, the Future Funding of the BBC and the BBC Charter, indicating that the General Council supports the composite motion.

Graham Hamilton (Equity) moved the following composite motion:

(Insert Composite Motion 22 - The Future Funding of the BBC and the BBC Charter)

He said: This motion amongst other things calls on the General Council to campaign for the retention of the BBC licence fee as the primary funding for the BBC.

The BBC licence fee is currently included in a wide-ranging review ordered by the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, as part of the preparations for renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter in 2006. Equity and our sister entertainment unions believe that the continuation of the licence fee is essential for the survival of high quality, diverse and original public service programming on the BBC.

The BBC has a key cultural role within the UK by setting programme standards and bridging the gap between the information rich and the information poor. It continues to be the main public service broadcaster in the UK. Without the BBC this country’s cultural creative landscape would be dramatically altered for the worse. Without the licence fee the BBC cannot survive as a public service broadcaster. It cannot be run on advertising. Advertising I being spread wider and wider between more and more broadcasters, and it is still suffering from the effects of an economic downturn.

ITV reports an 18% downturn in advertising since the year 2000. It makes no sense at all for the BBC to share a diminishing source of revenue. Although the licence fee cannot be argued to be the most equitable means of funding, we are not convinced of any other alternative means. Introducing advertising to the BBC threatens the quality and diversity of BBC programming. Producers would seek programmes generating high audiences to ensure high advertising, for example, reality programmes, quiz shows and so forth. Similar problems are associated with sponsorship. Programmes would become reliant on their sponsors and editorial values could be threatened. The risk of sponsorship withdrawal would make planning for the future less certain and it is likely to result in a decrease in worldwide recognised quality of programming.

Subscription television would not work either. According to comparative figures, it costs £4 to collect the BBC licence fee per head, compared with £24 per head to collect one year’s subscription to Sky television. A combination of commercial and public funding would not work either. We would also argue against any mixed system of funding. We are concerned that if the BBC was funded by both a licence fee and forms of commercial funding future European rules might threaten to turn the BBC into a ghettoised public service, providing a limited range of worthy programming equivalent to PBS in the USA.

Making the BBC reliant on advertising revenue or subscription income would not only serious question the future of the BBC, with a consequential loss of thousands of jobs in this country and around the world, but it would also endanger all other broadcasters with whom they would have to compete for income.

I urge Congress to place on record its total commitment to the continuance of the BBC licence fee and recognise that its abolition would be a complete disaster for television broadcasting within the United Kingdom.

Please vote unanimously for this motion which calls on the TUC General Council to campaign vigorously for the retention of the BBC licence fee as the primary funder for the BBC. I move.

Brian McAvera (The Writers' Guild of Great Britain) seconding Composite 22 said: Why is the BBC under attack? Why is the Charter renewal once again supposedly a hot potato? The answer as usual, I am afraid, is deeply disquieting. Governments do not want independent voices; they want a world of spin doctors. Governments do not want accountability. Just as Bush's political acolytes in business have been awarded licences effectively to print money, so the current government have already passed the Communications Bill that, coincidentally, allows for the possibility of American ownership of our media.

At one and the same time the BBC is under political attack. Neat, you might think. The Hutton Inquiry effectively holds it up to ransom, and the thread as always is the removal of the licence fee. If you go anywhere in the world, whether you are at the far end of Poland or whether you are in China, the BBC for all its admitted faults -- and they are legion -- is held up as a model of public service broadcasting. It is treated as an impartial voice. Dismantle it and effectively you dismantle the major part of who and what we are. It is the BBC that has been central to our culture for almost 70 years, not Labour, not the Tories, but effectively the BBC. It is the BBC whose training services funnel into every ITV and independent company. It is the BBC that is the training ground not just for writers like myself but for directors, be they in radio, television or film.

Do we really want to dismantle an institution that has given us classic TV drama from Z Cars to Between the Lines, from Dennis Potter to Bleasdale, that has given us documentaries from Attenborough to Patrick Moore, that has given us news from Newsnight to the Today programme? What the current government are doing is deeply unethical and frankly stupid. With the current government the ephemeral local events, the flotsam and jetsam of party politics, are used to turn the BBC into a political football.

Let us be blunt. In the context of the Hutton Enquiry even if the BBC should turn out to be utterly wrong in its reporting, one blip on the radar screen is no reason whatsoever for the removal of the long-standing Charter. The arguments -- as you have heard from previous speakers -- against the Charter are facile. In terms of advertising most people do not even like the BBC's own advertising. The whole point is that we do not want product placement in all of our programmes. Is anyone who has watched Sky seriously saying that it is the equivalent of the BBC but costs two or three times as much? The only reason to attack the licence fee is political. So vote for this motion.

Jeremy Dear (National Union of Journalists) supporting the composite said: Those who followed the intricacies of the Hutton Enquiry, or indeed the slightly less intricate editorials in The Sun newspaper, could be under no illusion that the BBC is under the most coordinated and sustained attack it has faced for many years. But, as others speakers have said, it is an attack not just on individual stories or individual journalists but an attack on the very values that underpin the BBC: the concept of public good, of public service, of media freed from the domination of individual owners or subservience to the commercial interests of shareholders; the concept that public service values take precedence over the pursuit of audience share.

The BBC is being undermined by those who hate its values -- a publicly owned, publicly accountable broadcasting network, committed to public service, catering for all sections of the community, reaching all parts of the country regardless of costs, with a remit to educate and inform. They are undermined by those who hate the independence of the BBC. The licence fee is not just a useful way of funding BBC programme-making, it is vital in helping provide greater political independence from the government of the day. They are undermined by those who take the skills and professionalism of our members at the BBC, undermined by those who want the BBC to be a broadcasting civil service not a groundbreaking news provider.

Look at those who deride the BBC and its public service commitment, who attack its funding and question its Charter and ask yourself this: whose interests do they serve, yours or their commercial or political interest? Of course, we should not be surprised at the likes of Rupert Murdoch being at the forefront of those attacks. It is they who stand to gain the most, commercially, from the diluting of the public service commitment and the marginalisation of the BBC.

Broadcasting policy in Britain has been driven for too long by commercial values. It has been derided as the poor relation, unable to deliver the real choice a free market could offer. The reality is a greater drive for profit delivers not better quality, not more choice, not better representation; it delivers conformity, less choice and fewer jobs. The reality is -- and we should be proud to say it -- that far from restricting choice the BBC's public service requirements and public funding through the licence fee have served to enhance creativity, technological innovation and quality. Our defence of public service does not mean we believe the BBC is perfect. It remains hideously white. There is a culture of bullying -- and we talked about our members sacked -- and sometimes poor industrial relations. Do not fall victim to the myth pedaled by some that somehow the answer is to hand regulation to OFCOM, appointed by the government, largely unaccountable and presiding over a system of regulation that has the promotion of competition at its core.

Finally, this Congress needs to send a clear message: renew the Charter, support the licence fee and, government, hands off our BBC.

Tony Lennon (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union): Jeremy Dear referred to the attacks that have been made on the BBC, and if you want a stunning example of one of those I suggest you read this newspaper, perhaps making its first appearance ever at this rostrum, the Daily Telegraph. Earlier this week, in the most prominent position in the newspaper, there was a stunningly vituperative article not from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells but by the Editor of the Daily Telegraph himself, and I paraphrase his words. In his view the BBC is run by a gang of leftie pinkos, it is anti-establishment, it is anti-business and it is anti-American. That is what the Telegraph is effectively saying about the BBC.

This article is not unique; it is part of a concerted campaign being run by big media companies, most of whom have mouth pieces in the British press, and their aim is simple: either to marginalise the BBC or, in the case of some the people running this campaign, to abolish it completely. This composite is asking you to reject that campaign.

I will give you -- as my colleagues have done -- a number of very simple and straightforward reasons why, as trades unionists, we should support the BBC, despite all its blemishes. Firstly -- and this a vested interest on behalf of some of us unions -- it is a big employer and it is a unionised employer. We may have our differences with them, and if you read this composite carefully you will spot one that is still rumbling, but comparing what happens with the BBC with what we experience at its biggest competitor, BSkyB, there is no question that the BBC treats its unions sensibly. In BSkyB, as you might be aware, we have spent the last eighteen months trying to seek recognition in an enormous establishment and we have had every dirty trick in the book thrown at us. Reason No.1, the BBC is a unionised employer and we should not be ashamed of supporting them.

The second and important reason for supporting the BBC is that it gives us a shining example of a public service, which is publicly funded, publicly run, delivers a quality product and is also value for money. Those of you who have Sky dishes -- sports fans out there -- consider you are paying £40 a month for your service. The person sitting next to you, who pays roughly the cost of a daily paper to watch the BBC, is getting 8 TV channels, 10 radio channels, a fabulous website and lots more. That is value for money. It did not need PFI, it did not need foundation status, it did not need massive privatisation to achieve it. The old model of public service works and the BBC shows us how it does.

The third reason, and the last one, yes, the BBC does give you choice. It gives choice to audiences of programmes that are independent of advertisers, independent of the media barons who are running the campaign against the BBC, and independent of the government, as I think the Hutton Enquiry is going to demonstrate.

For those three reasons, if you believe that this country needs a public service broadcaster that puts programmes and people first rather than profits, support Composite 22.

* Composite 22 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Children's Television and TV Food Advertising

The President : I call Composite 15, which the General Council supports with reservations. I will call on the General Secretary during the course of the debate to explain the position.

Jane Liddiard (Writers Guild of Great Britain) moved Composite Motion 15.

(Insert Composite Motion 15 - Children’s Television and TV Food Advertising)

She said: Larry the Lamb, Andy Pandy, Play School, the Box of Delights, the Secret Garden, remember them? I could go on with a long list of delightful children's programmes -- programmes of quality remembered with great affection long after childhood has passed. My elder son is passionate about Bag Puss, and he is 26! I myself can recall the black and white episodes of Robin Hood. Remember the jingle, the arrow thudding into the tree? Those are memories.

It is tempting to say 'They do not make them like that any more', but they do -- just. My friend, colleague and Guild member, Lucy Danielle Raby, who spoke at this Conference two years ago on writers' rights, recently created a live action series for Children's BBC Television called Big Kids. It is about parents who act like naughty children after a hypnotist’s show has gone wrong. It is imaginative, superbly written, great fun, and children love it, so much so that it has been consistently top of the list for repeats over the summer holidays. It can be done. We can have children's TV programme that are high in quality, entertaining and popular. We do not have to feed them a diet of cheap noisy feckless cartoons, which is not to say that all cartoons are bad -- Wacky Racers, Bob the Builder, the Simpsons -- but we have to preserve the integrity of all children's television and, sadly, this will not be done unless we insist because the TV companies will not do anything that might mean smaller profits unless they are forced to. This is where the problem lies.

Quality costs so the TV companies cut, broadcast endless repeats, produce cheap reality style entertainment and dish up the same old formulae. Recognise this? Inspector Bill investigates the attempted murder of a forensic scientist at a rural GP's practice. She is carted off to Casualty at Holby City. Original drama that is not about medics of one kind or another, or police of one kind or another, is as rare as hen's teeth, but I did like Spooks.

It is easy to forget, as in the BBC's case, that they providing a public service with public money, where the only profit the TV licence gets is in the quality of programmes they are offered. Sadly for children, this trend usually means not paying writers on children's TV as much as those on adult TV. The stress and pressures are exactly the same but so often pay and conditions remain too poor to retain good writers. It is tempting to be swept away by the image of writers like Linda Laplante, who earn big bucks, but I can assure you that they are the exception. I know of one established writer who has finally moved out of children's TV writing because pay and conditions are so poor. Why should writers be expected to make sacrifices? They have a living to make just like everyone else.

Children's television deserves to have the very best talents. I was at a lunch recently and was asked by the guy sitting next to me what I did. Maybe he expected me to say President of the TUC. When I told him I was a children's writer his face fell. 'Ah, but when are you going to do some real writing for adults?' he said. It was all I could do not to clock him one with a copy of my latest script!

Respect and proper acknowledgement is another important factor in retaining and recruiting good writers. A fellow Guild colleague, Richard Carpenter, adapted Philip Pullman's 'I was a Rat' for Children's TV. Richard is a screenwriter of exceptional quality and with a long CV in children's television. He spent many hours on this adaptation. Its success depended on his talent, but he did not even get a mention when it came to promoting this before it was screened.

You do not need me to tell you that children are our future, but I am going to. They are. There is always a fear that if we give them the best they will turn out to be horrible brats, a bunch of Shirley Temple on speed. Not so. If you give them the best you will get back the best, as my former colleagues in teaching will testify. The best means that the new regulatory framework must give high priority to children's television, with the government, OFCOM, the OFCOM Content Board and the TUC Executive ensuring that this is done. Muffin, eat your heart out, we are going for it! Support this motion.

The President : I must admit I was right. Half-way through I thought, 'There's a good teacher'!

Diana Markham (British Dietetic Association)in seconding Composite 15 said: I will deal with TV Food Advertising. Halting the rising prevalence of childhood obesity is a public health priority. The incidence of overweight and obese children in the UK is increasing. In 1996, more than 9 per cent of children were obese, including 17 per cent of fifteen year olds. The reasons for increased obesity are largely due to changing dietary habits and more sedentary lifestyles. Grazing and snacking are increasing, family meals are decreasing, resulting in higher intakes of fat, sugar and salt. The consumption of processed foods, confectionery and soft drinks has increased; activity opportunities at school have decreased; safety fears result in parents being cautious about their children playing outdoors. More people use cars, children spend more time watching TV or playing computer games for recreation. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2000 showed that 40 per cent of boys and 60 per cent of girls failed to meet the Health Education Authority's recommendation of 60 minutes per day of moderate intensity physical activity.

Individual behaviour is strongly influenced by the environment from an early age. Children are especially susceptible to marketing messages. Parents are well aware of the pester power exerted by their children in response to advertisements seen on television. Half of the advertising during children peak TV hours features food. 75 per cent of this promotes unhealthy, fatty, sugary or salty foods. What are the consequences of obesity? Physical health suffers resulting in raised blood pressure, raised lipid levels and now the first cases of obesity-related type 2 diabetes in adolescents. There are also emotional and psychological consequences. Children have low self esteem, lack confidence and have a negative self image.

Childhood obesity can be tackled by intervention strategies targeted at individuals, as well as being population based. Doing nothing is not an option. In schools, PE and extracurricular physical activity can be increased, including nutrition and healthy eating and cooking skills within the curriculum, discouraging the use of vending machines, providing affordable and accessible leisure facilities out of school, improving facilities for walking or cycling to school, increasing resources to the NHS and including prevention and management of childhood obesity within the national service framework for children, government legislation or regulation to address concerns regarding misinformation.

The Dietetic Association requests that Congress urges the General Council to open discussions with the Food Standards Agency in order to explore joint representation to the Independent Television Commission seeking a review of the existing codes of advertising standards and practice in order to reduce the exposure of young children to the advertising of unhealthy foods during children's peak viewing time on television.

The General Secretary : Congress, the General Council very much support the thrust of this motion about the importance of children's TV, but consider that an explanation perhaps needed to be made on one element of the text, and that is the final paragraph which calls on the government, OFCOM and the General Council to continually research and monitor children's TV and to issue regular reports to the public. There are many demands that are placed on the General Council, and sadly the TUC's resources are rather limited, and we do not really have the expertise or the resource to monitor the channels in the way that this motion perhaps might be taken to imply.

So, although the vision of the General Council at their monthly meeting reviewing the latest edition of Teletubbies might have a certain charm, I think we will actually have to look to the work of other organisations to help inform our future debate. To see this as an area where we would have the capacity to issue regular reports I think would not be a realistic prospect.

With that brief explanation I commend the motion to the Congress.

Jane Liddiard (Writers Guild of Great Britain) speaking in reply said: I fully expected that. It was cat among the pigeons. We do not expect you to sit watching television day in and day out on our behalf, but we want to raise the profile of children in all spheres and television is very important; they watch a lot of it. So that is what we are talking about.

* Composite 15 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Defending Asylum Seekers' Rights

The President : We now move to Composite Motion 6, Defending Asylum Seekers' Rights. As was originally explained by Gloria Mills in her lead-in to Race Equality, the General Council support this composite motion.

Lesley Auger (National Union of Teachers) moved Composite Motion 6:

(Insert Composite Motion 6 - Defending Asylum Seekers’ Rights)

She said: I know that the substantive debate has already taken place on asylum and racism. On Tuesday. Congress overwhelmingly supported calls to defend asylum seekers' rights and wipe out racism. This composite seeks to strengthen Congress's commitment, so I ask for your support.

I want to tell you about Goran, a 16-year old asylum seeker. Goran came to Britain, specifically Salford where I teach, 18 months ago after fleeing mid-Europe where members of his family were murdered by an armed gang in his presence. Injured, traumatised and unable to speak English, Goran and the surviving members of his family began to re-build their lives here. Eighteen months later Goran speaks English like any other Salford streetwise kid and he has gained eight GCSEs. His form teacher told me that Goran was one of the best things that had happened to his school in recent years. Not only had he shown great strength of will to overcome his horrific experiences, but his fortitude has also motivated several disaffected pupils in the school. Goran is a hero. Goran is cool. If Goran had had to go into an accommodation centre it is probable that he would not have mastered English so quickly and so well, which enabled him to achieve excellent exam results.

Of course, schools have to be properly resourced to deliver high quality education for these children. It is certain that Goran, had he not been in mainstream stream schooling, would not have been able to help build bridges between racial groups which the BNP and other racist organisations seek to prevent or try to break down. It is well-known that ignorance of other people's circumstances leads to fear, violence and murder. Keeping asylum seekers in separate units can only result in escalating hatred and prejudice.

This motion also calls on the TUC to work with LEAs to highlight the positive contributions of refugees and asylum seekers to local communities. We have already heard of some of the press coverage by Trevor Phillips on Tuesday: asylum seekers barbecue Queen's swans. This sort of coverage fuels hatred, racism and violence against asylum seekers. We need to promote the positive messages about asylum seekers and the benefits of a diverse society. Trevor Phillips also told us that the NHS would not survive if it were not for immigrant workers.

In addressing point (vi) of the action points, the NUT is deeply concerned about comments made by the Prime Minister on the BBC Breakfast with Frost programme in January of this year, that the government may withdraw from its obligations to asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights. The government are unhappy that Article 3 of the Convention means that those refused asylum cannot be deported back to countries where they claim they would be tortured or killed. Any tinkering with Articles of the Convention would be a slippery slope. What next? A withdrawal from obligations on the rights of children to education? We must ensure that the rights and welfare of children seeking asylum are protected in the same way as those of other children.

Delegates, I have recently returned from union business in Ethiopia. I met members of the Ethiopian Teachers Association who had been tortured, who had been imprisoned, and I have met members whose colleagues had been tortured, imprisoned, murdered for their trade union activities. Some of our Ethiopian colleagues have had to flee their country in fear of their lives because they are considered to be a threat by their government. The NUT actively supports their asylum in our communities. To send them back would be inhuman.

Congress, this motion is intended to highlight the often flammable issue of asylum in a rational and reasoned way.

I will finish by telling you that Goran wants to be a doctor, and I am sure he will be. If he stays, our society will be better off for him. If he goes, we can be pleased and proud that we were a part of his success, a success that we seek for all of our children in our communities.

Shirley Rainey (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) in seconding the composite motion said: Fact or fiction? It is often difficult to decide what the truth is about asylum seekers with all the negative publicity, but what cannot be disputed is that people have been arriving on our shores seeking asylum for years and that many, one in six, have a physical and/or mental health problem. Yes, at the present moment refugees and anyone who has formally applied for asylum are entitled to register with a G.P. and receive free prescriptions and eye care, but first find your G.P. -- a very difficult process but made worse if you are shipped off round the countryside.

Other barriers to health care are the lack of understanding by some professionals of uncommon and complex health problems, of the relevant cultures, and inadequately resourced interpreting and advocacy services. I know how frustrating the latter is. I have recently started working with a young girl with cerebral palsy, asylum seeking from Zaire. Her mother tongues are French and Swahili. I can say Jambo and Habari in Swahili and my French is not much better. Fortunately, I have the support of a voluntary organisation and I thank them but it is not ideal, not very confidential, and makes continuity of care almost impossible.

There is a real lack of planning by the NHS, and an integrated approach is needed. That must include using the real skills and knowledge of local refugees in planning the health services they need. Good health is dependent on more than the healthcare, as you will know. It also requires good nutrition, housing, transport, access to social services and, of course, real money in your pocket so you can go out and buy what you and your family really need.

Support this motion to ensure our asylum seekers and refugees receive their basic human rights.

Pat Lerew (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) speaking in support of Composite Motion 6 said: The NASUWT is pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Composite Motion 6, and in particular paragraph one clause (ii). We living in the relative comfort and security of Britain today can only begin to think about the kind of situations which cause people to abandon their roots and lifestyle to seek asylum in a new country, which they hope will treat them better. It must take an even greater desperation than that to risk the health and lives of your children as well.

How let down they must feel when they are given the kind of reception which shuts them away and treats them with suspicion, the sort of reception that can only make them more desperate for the future of their children. Most of them will be more concerned about this than their own futures and, like all parents, wanting their own children to have a better chance than themselves.

Not only will educating these children separately exacerbate any trauma and persecution they have already suffered, it fails to give them the opportunity to adjust to their new surroundings and help integrate their families into a new lifestyle, because it is the children who are the most sociable, adaptable and keen to be part of everything. Educating the children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres is a form of educational apartheid. Excluding these children from our schools, nurseries and our education system is morally and ethically wrong. How can they be assimilated into the local community if their only experience of life in the UK has been through a form of society imprisonment? This is the same government that has sworn to eradicate the blight of exclusion from children's lives but instead legislates for discrimination against some of the most vulnerable in our communities. Educating asylum children in mainstream setting, providing them with the same educational opportunities, can seek to improve this. The government should commit itself to implementing its policy and targetting funding to mainstream children serving the needs of asylum seeking populations.

No school should be left in the situation of one I know where it was geared up to cater for the children of the local community who were largely from the Indian sub- continent. The teacher there was skilled in their cultures. She was not similarly skilled to cope with an influx of children from the Balkans during the Kosovan crisis, and there were no more resources locally to help that school. This kind of mis-management merely increases the difficulties of integration.

We now stand on the brink of the establishment of a series of virtual communities that will have devastating consequences on these vulnerable people and will do nothing to improve race relations in this country. The government must not pander to the racists by instituting policies of segregation and exclusion on racial lines. We need specific dedicated resources in our mainstream schools to educate the children of asylum seekers, thereby assisting to integrate their families into their real local communities.

Please support Composite 6.

Sue Bond (Public and Commercial Services Union): Talking particularly to the fourth paragraph and bullet point (vi).

Last Thursday in Manchester, which is where I work, a young man set fire to himself. He was an Iranian asylum seeker fleeing from persecution, but under something called section 55 he had been denied access to hospital treatment, housing, benefits or the right to work. He was terrified of being sent back to Iran. He was sick, desperate and destitute. And now he is dead. How many more victims will there be of this government's restrictive and discriminatory policies, people fleeing for their lives from war or persecution, traumatised by torture or the horrors they have witnessed? But if they fail to weave their way correctly through a Byzantine maize of Kafkaesque complexity then they are denied accommodation, healthcare, benefits or mainstream education. Why?

Each period of immigration to the UK has led to a growth of prosperity, as they bring new talents and skills. Many recent refugees are doctors, teachers, health workers, engineers, IT specialists, but do the government welcome them? No, they do not. They introduce more and more restrictions on their access to services, and end up sharing and using the same language as the far right. Does that counter the far right? No, it does not. For the BNP, these government policies have been a real vote winner for them and I should know because I live in Oldham where the Nazis sneaked their way into local estates in the guise of respectability, blaming asylum seekers in particular and the Asian community in general, for all the daily problems people face. And the result? Well, so far there has been a 70 per cent increase in racist attacks, the murder of an Asian taxi driver and the desecration of Muslim graves. Only by eternal vigilance and a broad united campaign did we stop them winning seats on the local council.

This motion calls on the General Council to campaign on defending the rights of asylum seekers, and there is a lot to campaign about. Last month over 30 refugees in London were evicted from their accommodation because they had not claimed asylum properly at the port of entry. They ended up sleeping rough on the streets: no blankets, no food, no shelter. Some ended up in hospital with dehydration, and unless the law is changed this is going to happen again and again.

So, finally, I would like the General Secretary and the General Council if this ever happens again, which it will, to go down there with food parcels, take the press, take them to Congress House, whatever. We need to shout from the roof tops that this is an unacceptable and disgusting policy that affects so harshly the most vulnerable people in this country.

George MacIntyre (National Union of Journalists) speaking in support of Composite Motion 6 said: Of course, there has been negative reporting on asylum seekers and refugees, but we are as a union working to address that. There has been workplace reaction in the Daily Express, in Birmingham, and as a union working with refugees in the media project, Press Wise, the northern TUC and Amnesty International. We have held highly successful 'Bursting the Myth' seminars where media coverage, warts and all, is put under the microscope. In Newcastle we organised such an event. We felt that if five or six refugee asylum seekers or their representatives turned up that would have been a success. We got 40. From that we organised training days where the refugees are shown how to deal with the press, how to handle negative reporting. That is an experience we are willing to share with Congress. If any colleagues here today need help in setting up such a training day we will help where we can.

The NUJ works with all asylum seekers, not just journalists. We continuously adapt to changing circumstances, but in all the changes there is one thing that is constant. People are not asylum seekers or refugees by choice. They are not welcome in their own countries. They must be made welcome here, and they must be treated -- as the President said in his opening address -- with dignity and with fairness.

Sheila Kettles (UNIFI) supporting Composite 6 said: It is reported that there are 22 children of asylum seekers being held in Dungavel Detention Centre in Scotland, children whose parents have fled from persecution and who are now incarcerated in a former prison, children whose parents have fled their own country in terror, hoping to find asylum for their families. Instead we hear reports of a family, a mother and two young daughters, eventually being taken to hospital after one of the girls became ill and being told they would be escorted to the toilet in hospital by male guards. We hear of a woman being fined her £3.50 weekly allowance for taking a couple of weetabix to her room to feed her young children, who sometimes did not want to eat at the specified meal times. We saw the frightened faces of the A family, a mother and her four children being deported to Germany a week prior to a damming report on Dungavel. One child held prisoner in Dungavel is one child too many.

Scotland has its own legal system. Education is a devolved issue and health is a devolved issue. Why, then, is it possible that the education, health and rights of children held in Dungavel cannot be commented on, or indeed acted upon, by the Scottish Executive? This is the same Scottish Executive who are currently running an excellent high profile media campaign promoting Scotland as a country where we embrace many people, many cultures, a view held by the majority of Scottish citizens.

However, the many people/many cultures campaign does not appear to extend to those children of asylum seeker in Dungavel who have committed no crime but are still imprisoned. That women and children are being treated in this manner in the 21st century anywhere in Britain is totally unacceptable and cannot continue. It is appalling that the majority of MSPs are staying silent and hiding behind the Westminster Government on this issue.

Congress, a rally organised by the STUC last Saturday saw over 1,000 people demanding the closure of Dungavel. Support for this motion will add the full weight of the trade union Movement and keep pressure on the Scottish Executive to speak out and the Westminster Government to act.

Collette Corkhurst (Transport and General Workers' Union): Earlier this week we heard about the dangerous way in which the BNP have capitalised on the negative messages about asylum seekers. Unfortunately, we seem to be going back to the bad old days, but now instead of hearing 'No blacks', 'No Irish', it is 'No asylum seekers or refugees'. Again, it is that same old cry: they are taking over our jobs and are given all the best houses. But the sad thing is that more and more people seem to think it is OK to make these statements and to get away with it. After all, it is what the papers say, and from their actions it seems to be what the government believe as well. It is up to us as trades unionists to make sure that we are at the forefront of challenging this negativity and putting forward the arguments for fair treatment.

Like others, the T&G believes that one of the worst proposals is the segregation of asylum seekers' children from other school children. This is immoral, unfair and impractical. Where is the sense in this? How can it be a positive move or improve relations in our multicultural and multiracial society? If we do not vigorously oppose this dangerous proposal now we are leaving ourselves and our communities wide open to divisions and hatred in the future. Schools should be an ideal environment to build and foster respect and understanding about other backgrounds and where children can learn from and about each other. Separating children of asylum seekers is not a good lesson in citizenship and goes against any message of integration.

The T&G, along with the TUC affiliates, and other organisations have long called for a decent and fair asylum policy. However, instead of trying to ensure that asylum seekers and their children have the right to the basic needs of education and health care, these very rights are being eroded. We must put an end to this. After all, we are not talking about luxuries, we are not talking about special treatment and we are not talking about extras. We are talking about basic human rights.

Please support this motion.

* Composite Motion 6 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Compulsory Testing and Citizenship

The President : I now call Emergency Motion 2, Compulsory Testing and Citizenship indicating at the same time that the General Council supports the Emergency Motion.

Paul Russell (NATFHE) moved the following Emergency Motion.

(Insert Emergency Motion 2)

He said: This is just one more initiative that is unnecessary, badly thought out, insulting, patronizing, punitive and, finally, very dangerous. Why do I say that? Firstly, it is unnecessary because it addresses a problem that does not exist. In Bradford where I live and work, my college has waiting lists of 12 months or more for every class providing English for speakers of other languages. My college provides scores of classes in college premises, in community centres, in church halls, in schools, etc., you name it. The only reason there are queues for these classes is that there is not enough funding or, in some cases, enough space or sufficient qualified teaching staff to provide more. It is all about resources. Give us the resources and the job will be done, and it will be done properly. However, Blunkett's plan presupposes a model of a person who has come to this country with little or no English and who is perfectly happy or determined to stay that way, and who thereby presents somehow or other a problem to society. That is aimed at an entirely fictional person. The problem is not lack of interest or motivation; it is lack of adequate and appropriate provision.

Secondly, it is so badly thought out. Mr Blunkett, following his magnificent success as Secretary of State for Education, now thinks that testing is good for people. Well, in reality it rarely is, and especially for people who may be damaged in all sorts of ways, made to feel inferior, excluded from society, living here under sufferance. Then having come up with this great idea of compulsory teaching and testing of not only English but also something called citizenship Blunkett, has had to start up a high powered committee to decide what the hell that might mean. They have come up with a curriculum that looks to me to be about six different A level syllabuses. I wish I had time to read you the page; it is frightening. I reckon it is about an A level in six subjects. I would suggest history, politics, sociology, social policy, law, general studies and probably add on as well religion and philosophy, not to mention prejudice and bigotry. All of this is on top of the English. The first year indigenous British undergraduates to whom I teach English would nearly all fail any tests based on such a syllabus as would the majority, I believe, of members of the House of Commons.

So by what right does this government make demands of those who wish to be recognised as British citizens that they do not make of those who were born here? In this country we do not make adults attend classes. We do not make adults take tests. We do not force them to know anything about anything in order to have a passport or to vote for the government. The whole process is insulting, patronizing, discriminatory and punitive. It emphasises difference as a deficit, as a lack, a mark of inferiority, a fault which must be put right by compulsion and testing. That is why it is so dangerous. It is not only a classic example in itself of institutional racism; it contributes to the media-fed culture that encourages racism, and assists the agenda of the organised racists in the BNP. It gives succour and support to those who want to present cultural difference as a social problem, and some sort of threat to social cohesion instead of the asset that it is to our society.

That is why we, as the organised labour Movement, must campaign to get these proposals scrapped before they create even more mischief.

Gloria Mills (UNISON) in seconding Emergency Motion 2 said: The introduction of compulsory testing in English and civics is ill conceived because the government have offered no evidence to justify this policy change; they have offered no credible reasons for it. It is wrong because to link citizenship with compulsory testing is wrong. There could be no justification for this. It is ill conceived because it panders to prejudice and feeds individual and institutional racism.

But, most of all, what will these Britishness tests achieve? They will discriminate against people with foreign accents and will cause great misery to people. What are we going to test next? How we dress, how we talk? Maybe those of us who were born in the Caribbean, and who speak with patois, should all book our elocution classes now.

The reality is that these tests will legitimise institutional racism. These measures are harsh. They will penalise people who have earned the right to qualify for British citizenship. Sir Bernard Crick said in his report 'Life in the United Kingdom' that citizenship is more esteemed when it is earned and not given. However, the people who earn citizenship in this country do so by the contribution they make to this country; they do so by being good citizens, by working, by paying their national contributions and by paying their taxes. It is certainly more esteemed to know that you are valued as a British citizen, by being treated with respect and being treated with dignity.

These tests are wrong in principle. They will cause practical difficulties for people. They will also undermine the confidence that people have in British institutions. I do not know how many of you define Britishness but I will tell you that there are three abiding characteristics of Britishness that I learned as a girl in the Caribbean: one, to value and cherish the defence of fair play; two, tolerance and respect for others; and, three, understanding and standing-up for the underdog. That is the test I would like this government to pass. The most important test I want them to pass is the test of playing fair with asylum seekers and playing fair on race, because for a lot of us in this country there is no fair play when you are stopped nine times because you have a black skin. I think it is really important that we do say no to these tests. They are wrong.

* Emergency Motion 2 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Seafarer Crewing and Employment Agencies

The President : I now call Motion 84, indicating the General Council's support for the motion.

Paul Keenan (National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers) moved the following motion.

(Insert Motion 84)

He said: From this rostrum this week we have heard about low unemployment figures and we have heard about more people at work in this country than ever before. How do you fancy a job at sea, a life on the ocean wave, travel to exotic ports all round the world and get paid for it? There are thousands of places available, that is according to this leaflet that was picked up by one of our officials outside a tube station in London just a few months ago. It is advertising jobs for 20,000 people to work in various sectors of the UK shipping industry. It promises up to £250 a day for a variety of different positions. Job hunters were invited to send just £1.50 to an address in London to receive further details. There is only one snag though, none of those companies ever existed.

NUMAST helped to bring this particular scam to the attention of the fraud squad, but we believe it is just the tip of a massive international iceberg of exploitation. The leaflet we found in London bears a striking resemblance to a jobs for cash scam targetting workers in Kenya, Tanzania, Morocco, Syria, India, Vietnam and Pakistan. The company in question is believed to have obtained as much as half a million dollars by charging thousands of people medical and passport fees for non-existent jobs. The whereabouts of the company's managing director are unknown, but he claims to have an office and to do business in London.

Over the past few years this company has left a trail of thousands of vulnerable victims, but they are by no means the only such operator. At least four similar racketeers have been discovered in the past year alone and last month another company, Caledonian Offshore, was discovered to have been conning money out of job seekers in Mexico, Peru and the Philippines.

Under ILO Convention 179 governments are meant to ensure that seafarers are not illegally charged fees for recruitment and employment, but Convention 179 has been ratified by only a handful of countries whose numbers shamefully do not include the UK.

NUMAST urges Congress to support this motion, not just to help to combat the international crooks preying upon poor and vulnerable victims but also to bring some desperately needed regulation into a fragmented and disordered global market. Once upon a time, shipping companies used to employ their own seafarers to serve upon their own ships but in today's highly globalised and cost competitive shipping industry the majority of the world's 1.2 million seafarers are recruited and employed through agencies. The quality of these agencies and the standards of control exercised over them vary widely but there is one common thread running through many of the key labour-supplying countries. Agencies exercise an incredible amount of power and control over job seekers.

An International Commission on Shipping was presented with extensive evidence of non-payment and under-payment of wages, seafarers being forced to sign double contracts, forced to pay travel costs to and from the ship, and the blacklisting of crews who approach unions for assistance. The Commission concluded that there is no doubt that some people running agencies are involved in the secret and illegal recruitment and transfer of people to other countries, which in many cases involves the provision of fraudulent, forged and unearned qualification certificates. Despite all the evidence it found of widespread flouting of ILO Conventions, the Commission said it was unable to discover any evidence of any action being taken against offending agencies anywhere in the world.

In shipping we need international regulation. Through the ILO, seafaring unions are seeking to secure agreements on a Bill of Rights for the world's maritime workforce including establishing the important principle of legal liability for such agencies. This motion seeks the TUC's support for that work and for the continued pressure on the UK Government to support those principles and to ratify ILO Conventions on recruitment and replacement of seafarers.

The treatment of seafarers is a scandal but the nature of shipping means that it is a scandal that is out of sight and out of mind. It should not be. Ships remain essential to our well-being, carrying more than 90 per cent of the world's trade, but the rise of agencies has meant that more and more seafarers are being treated as disposable commodities, valued for their cheapness rather than their competence. It has to stop and this motion is one step on the road to returning sane and supportive standards to a vital international industry.

Richard Rosser (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) in seconding the motion said: There are so many groups, and we have heard about so many this week, of workers in need of decent standards and protection from abuse and exploitation. One such group is quite definitely seafarers. Cost cutting and the growing use of low-cost labour from developing nations has led to huge pressures on pay and conditions in the maritime industry.

Last year a report to the International Labour Organisation on seafarers' living and working conditions found that the crewing agencies were used to supply the majority of the world's 1.2 million seafarers, as the mover said in his speech. ILO Convention 179 has the laudable aim of seeking to set global minimum standards of practice for crewing agencies operating in the highly cut-throat international market place of world shipping. ILO Convention 179 makes it clear that countries should regulate private crewing agencies and laws should be in place to ensure that seafarers are not charged for recruitment services. Not surprisingly, the development and enforcement of such regulations is constantly hindered by the massive power of many of these agencies.

An earlier report to the ILO detailed corruption, illegal agencies and clandestine and oppressive recruitment practices. It revealed how the demise of the Soviet bloc had led to the rise of an increasing number of private crewing agencies that were operating with total impunity.

Other investigations showed that in the Philippines -- that is the world's number one source of seafarers -- there are some 300 crewing agencies in operation. Although the Philippines has ratified ILO Convention 179, the ILO noted what they described as disturbing practices such as watchlisting and blacklisting of seafarers contacting union officials. Even in the rare cases where agencies had licences suspended or withdrawn, they have been able to continue operating by registering under a different name. It is time these agencies were subjected to a clean-up and a clear-out and the ILO has recognised that.

With the on-going overhaul of its maritime conventions, the ILO is seeking to build a new Bill of Right for the world's seafarers based on decent seafaring principles, but this process needs support from governments, from unions and the international shipping industry if it is to succeed.

In seconding I ask you to support NUMAST's motion and help to ensure that our government lend their influence to the development of effective safeguards for seafarers and effective rules to combat cowboy crewing agencies.

* Motion 84 was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

International Labour Organisation

Jackie Lewis (Unison) speaking to paragraph 6.10, the ILO, said: Congress, we heard yesterday about the work of the TUC, and affiliates, to promote equality within the UK. The TUC, and affiliates, are also doing important work on equality in international forums and trade union bodies but at best there is still resistance to an inclusive approach to equality in too many of those bodies, resistance to including sexual orientation, even more resistance to gender identity issues, and at worst an outright rejection of the rights of LGBT workers.

The role of the ILO, the only international organisation empowered to set standards of workers’ rights, is obviously key. Unison therefore welcomes the encouraging developments at the ILO Conference in June, reported in 6.10. A special sitting discussion looked at the ILO’s global report, Time for Equality at Work, under the follow-up to the ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Although there was no mention at all of LGBT workers’ rights talking about long-term in the actual report, it was agreed that they should be taken up in the follow-up work together with other previously unrecognised forms of discrimination relating to age, HIV status, and disability.

This came about because the ILO Workers’ Group argued that the ILO must take an inclusive approach to equality and that came about due to excellent work over a number of years by some trade union federations, including the TUC. The Workers’ Group also called on the ILO to study and disseminate good practice on these discrimination grounds. One important aspect of this is the ILO code on HIV-AIDS and the TUC LGBT Conference in July endorsed the call of workers for this code to be made mandatory. Unison hopes the General Council will support this. But, Congress, we cannot mention HIV-AIDS today without acknowledging the WTO talks going on in Cancun and the scandal, the scandal, of millions dying while drug companies make their millions. This must end now.

In the ILO, Congress, we are obviously talking about a long-term main plan. The work that has been done has set a really solid foundation. The ILO may not yet be swathed in rainbow colours but this work must continue so that the next global report on discrimination in four years’ time is truly about equality for all. Thank you.

The President: Thank you very much, Jackie. I am sure the General Council will have noted your comments and they will be taken on board. That completes Chapter 6 of the General Council Report. I now move to Motion 11, Global Rights for Seafarers, again indicating the General Council’s support for the motion.

Peter McEwen (National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers ) moved Motion 11.

(Insert Motion 11, Global Rights for Seafarers)

He said: President, Congress, at a south coast port not so very far away from here, NUMAST officials are dealing with a case that speaks volumes about today’s shipping industry and the plight of too many of the 1.2 million seafarers who work within it. We are helping to secure unpaid wages for the Estonian crew of an Italian-owned vessel, flying a Mongolian flag, that was sailing from the Baltic to West Africa. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a landlocked nation is running one of the world’s latest flags of convenience, can you even begin to imagine the jurisdictional nightmares of dealing with this sort of case.

However, the sad reality is that the majority of the world’s 1.2 million seafarers are, in effect, dispossessed people. They are deprived of basic rights and lacking any recourse to normal grievance procedures. More than 30 years of relentless cost-cutting has seen the international shipping industry switching from systems of regulation involving social partners at a national level to a fragmented, deregulated, free-for-all using flags of convenience, such as landlocked Mongolia. They are designed to evade basic minimum standards of safety, health, and employment.

In the ultimate expression of globalisation more than half the world’s merchant fleet now operates under flags of convenience taking advantage of cheap registration fees, low or no taxes, and the freedom to employ cheap labour. In an increasingly fierce competitive shipping market, each new FOC is forced to promote itself by offering the lowest possible fees and the minimum of regulation. In the same way, shipowners are forced to look for the cheapest and least regulated ways of running their vessels in order to compete and FOCs provide the solution, often failing to exercise any effective control over the ships using their flags or imposing sanctions on owners violating accepted standards. In many cases FOC ship registers are not even run from the country concerned. Liberia, for example, is the world’s second largest ships register and it does not even operate from within its own state but rather all its offices are in the United States of America. Seafarers employed on FOC ships are often denied their basic human and trade union rights since FOC registers lack even the political will, or the resources, to enforce minimum social standards. The home countries of the crew can do little to protect them because the rules that apply on board are those of the country of registration.

NUMAST believes that there should be a genuine link between the real owner of a ship and the flag that the vessel flies, and that is in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We thought we had the backing of the UK Government on this issue but we were proved to be sadly mistaken in June of this year when the UK Government shamefully failed to lend its support to proposals put before the United Nations by a broad coalition of labour, environmental and human rights organisations campaigning for effective measures to make flag states discharge their legal requirements.

The UK’s ambivalence towards the idea of taking a tougher line against substandard ship registers contrasts with the previous assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the Government’s support for the idea of a genuine link. There is still time to persuade the Government to change its stance and we hope that this motion will serve to generate support from the UK when these issues are considered again at the United Nations later this year. It is imperative that we support the fight against the scourge of the FOC system. We urge congress to support NUMAST and seafarer unions throughout the world in their struggle for decent working conditions and the elimination of working practices that would be shameful in the 18^th century let alone the 21^st.

In proposing the motion, NUMAST accepts the amendment tabled by RMT on the basis that in line with existing policy the repeal of section 9 of the Race Relations Act is preceded by agreement on measures to ensure effective machinery for determining the pay and conditions of non-domiciled seafarers serving on British ships. To repeal without this sounds wonderful in theory but in practice would be a disaster. I move Motion 11.

Bob Crow (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) speaking in support of the motion, said: I am glad that NUMAST have accepted the amendments on the repeal of the Race Relations Act. It is only a shame that Peter did not accept it six months ago when we were campaigning to the Government. Nevertheless, that is history now.

The reality of life is about discrimination. Some people’s eyebrows go up when you talk about repealing sections of the Race Relations Act. If you look at the Race Relations Act, section 9, which we are asking to be repealed, says that it is not discriminatory for a ship owner to pay two different rates of pay to seafarers working on a ship. I make our position absolutely clear, we may argue as a union to have ships going out with the red ensign but the reality of life is that what we want at the end of the day is people paid the same rates of pay. We have friends right across the world, the Malaysian unions, unions in China, unions in the Philippines, and we have nothing uncommon at all with those seafarers working with them.

Our only argument is this. We could not care less that people working on a British ship are black, Filipino, Malaysian, gay, or lesbian. We could not care less what worker works on the ship so long as they get paid the same rates of pay and conditions. That is the real argument out there, at the end of the day. Recently, we met with David Jamieson, the Transport Minister, and he said, 'Yes, Bob, you have an argument but the reality of life is that these people being paid £2 an hour, or on some occasions £1.50 an hour, working on these ships in British ports is that when they go back to their own countries they live like lords.'

I do not see my job at the end of the day, or my job when I serve on the International Transport Federation, as just raising the standard and conditions in my union. My argument is to raise the conditions and standards for every worker throughout the world. We are true to our saying, workers of the world unite and discrimination just does not stop on the British shores.

Our argument is quite clear. We are asking for a repeal of section 9 and by repealing section 9 make it quite clear that if you can be discriminatory for two railway workers working out of Dover, then why can it not be discriminatory for two seafarers working out of Dover on a ship. This piece of legislation has to go and discrimination has to be ruled out, and in our view as speedily as possible. The only people who gain out of discrimination on paying seafarers low pay and conditions are the bosses. Instead of paying £7 or £8 an hour to a British seafarer, they are paying £2 an hour to a Filipino seafarer and by virtue of the fact that they are saving £8 per hour on profits. That is the reason why discrimination has to go at the expense of the profits for these big ship owners throughout the world.

On that basis, we support the resolution and ask you to pass it unanimously.

The President: Thank you very much indeed, Bob. There are no further speakers.

Motion 11 was CARRIED unanimously.

The President: Motion 85, Exploitation of Migrant Workers. The General Council supports the motion.

Exploitation of Migrant Workers

George Brumwell (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) moved Motion 85.

(Insert Motion 85, Exploitation of Migrant Workers)

He said: I am going to follow on where Bob Crow finished about the exploitation of workers but the exploitation I want to draw attention to is part of a wider problem in almost every sector. It is in education, it is in health, it is in agriculture, it is in catering, and it is very much in the construction industry. Since we have turned our attention to the abuse that is taking place in Britain, on British contracts funded by British taxpayers, we have come across some appalling examples of exploitation. If we were to examine how this is created, it is about gangmasters acting as agencies, advertising in the trade press cheap migrant labour, and they usually pay half the levels of British pay but make massive illegal deductions from those pay packets. They charge them for accommodation, which will be nothing more than a timeshare mattress in a seedy house. They will keep in their possession all their documentation so that they are trapped and they are prisoners.

There are many illegal workers in this country, up to 50,000 immigrants, working in the construction industry in London. I will give you a couple of examples. We had a look at the Scottish Parliament, which is under construction. That is being built for a tender price of £40 million. It has another year to go before it is finished and the costs have rocketed to £400 million and, surprise, surprise, we found exploited Romanian labour on that particular contract. We are grateful for the assistance we had from the Scottish Executive but we always have to flush it out. Main contractor Bovis profits, incidentally, were up to £243 million in the last year and you do not have to be a mathematician to start balancing the two. On PFI contracts in the Midlands, where we work in partnership with the health authority we are able to monitor and root out the exploitation. The third PFI in the Midlands is Staffs Health Trust and they will not come to terms with the union so that is one we will give a lot of attention to. If the union is kept out, that is where there will be abuse and exploitation. I suppose the one that is attracting the most interest from us as a trade union is the Home Office building, a contract in the centre of London for about £300 million; 70 per cent of the labour force there are Portuguese. The contractor is French and Portuguese labour has every right to be here but it is a well-known fact that the lowest pay rates in Europe are to be found in Portugal. So why do they import Portuguese workers into Britain if it is not to exploit them? That should be an exemplary contract and the Government should really set an example.

What we want to do is manage a migration programme that removes the exploitation. The Government must put in place a scheme to monitor and record. Certainly the unions in all sectors want to be prepared to work in partnership to avoid this abuse. I think the most important and effective way is in America. Whenever any project is found to have illegal labour that has been exploited they are hitting the pocket, they are hitting the profits, with massive fines imposed upon people who use and abuse this kind of labour.

Colleagues, it is a wide issue. It is important and it is one this movement has to address. We welcome immigrants to this country. My industry has always depended on immigrant labour but I think for the future we have to protect and raise the standards so that there is no more of the naked exploitation that we have found over the past few years. Thank you.

Angie Marriott (Unison) in seconding Motion 85 on Exploitation of Migrant Workers, said: Congress, some of you may be concerned about the tone of this motion. We want to clarify that this does not however reflect on the commitment, spirit, or intention towards supporting migrant workers. Congress, the use and exploitation of migrant workers to support the British economy is nothing new. What is new is the Government’s belief that such a strategy is wrong and does not reflect the practical reality of migrant workers’ lives. This policy is driven by the current asylum and immigration debate that has become a euphemism for racism and xenophobia. Successive pieces of legislation have closed off routes for legal immigration and work to all expect white commonwealth citizens.

Congress, the Government is now faced with a policy of contradiction by pandering to those who argue for keeping people out on the pretext that immigration will threaten our multicultural society and on the other hand they utilise migrant workers as the solution to the Labour Party shortages and sustaining growth in British economy. Unison has been actively developing its work programme with migrant workers in the public sector, especially in the health service. Last year, 41,656 nurses and midwives applied for registration and 13,721 were accepted. This was a 63 per cent increase on the previous year. Statistics show that 45,000 overseas nurses and midwives are currently working in the United Kingdom. Unison has set up an overseas nurses network in order to support, recruit, and represent nurses who face massive exploitation, isolation, race discrimination, language barriers, and fears. A recent BBC programme highlighted how private nursing agencies were recruiting overseas nurses through the backdoor into private nursing clinics here in the UK. Then recruiting them into the National Health Service within months of being here despite the Government’s agreement not to recruit nurses from countries with HIV-AIDS epidemics who already have a shortage of nurses.

Congress, at Unison’s Health Conference in April this year we heard how overseas nurses were being treated here in the UK. Qualified experienced midwives were being recruited to carry out laundry duties and cleaning duties, and were paid the lowest grades, that of a newly qualified nurse. We heard how many nurses never received pay increments for years and how they were put into predominantly white communities and faced racist attacks and abuse. Congress, we need to campaign on this issue. Thank you.

Teresa Mackay (Transport & General Workers’ Union) speaking in support of Motion 85 and paragraph 6.12 of the Report, said: President, sisters and brothers, over the course of the summer we have seen TV and media exposing the plight of tens of thousands of documented and undocumented migrant workers, toiling in our fields and on our building sites where they have been abused, underpaid, harassed, intimidated, and killed, as well as facing social discrimination and serious health risks. They are deceived and coerced by people-traffickers, the organised criminal gangs such as the Russian Mafia