REPORT OF THE 136^TH ANNUAL

TRADES UNION CONGRESS

held in

The Brighton Centre,

Brighton, East Sussex

from

September 13^th to 16^th 2004

President: Roger Lyons

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,

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

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

THIRD DAY: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15^TH

MORNING SESSION

( Congress assembled at 9.30 a.m.)

The President: Good morning. First of all, many thanks to the musicians who have been playing for us. Thank you very much.

Before we start I would like to mention the procedure on the General Council’s Statement to Congress on Europe, which is being circulated. When we come to the debate on Europe, I will call the General Council Statement first, moved by Kevin Curran on behalf of the General Council, then I will call the mover and seconder of Composite 17, which incorporates the NUM amendment, but all other amendments have been withdrawn. I will then give a right of reply to the mover of Composite 17, and then to Kevin Curran as mover of the General Council’s Statement. I will then take the vote on the General Council’s Statement, followed by the vote on Composite 17. The Statement is being circulated and if anyone does not have a copy later on this morning, ask one of the staff.

Secondly, on speakers, although we have not yet had to consider reducing the length of speeches, we may have to do that. We are falling a little behind so I would ask people not to repeat arguments that have already been made by previous speakers; if necessary, formally second. I may not necessarily be able to take all the speakers who want to speak on every motion. Please, let us all show a degree of discipline on this and we will get through the business.

It is a great pleasure now, colleagues, to invite a speaker, sororal delegate for the Labour Party. I did suggest that as she has already spoken to us twice we should take that off her time, but I will not be unkind because I love Mary Turner. It is not so much a visiting speaker as an address by one of our own in a different guise. Mary is President of the GMB, been a delegate to Congress for many years, and after one speech to Congress provoked a former president to award her the 'Best Dressed Delegate' award for her slogan-bearing T-shirt, and the phrase that was coined, 'You know when you’ve been Turner’d'.

Mary, you are very very warmly welcome, and I am delighted to be able to ask you to give the sororal address for the Labour Party.

Sororal Address by delegate from the Labour Party:

Mary Turner (GMB) : Thank you, President. I notice that every time I come up here we have to talk about clocks and putting times back, but I am honoured, extremely honoured, to give the sororal address on behalf of the Labour Party. As Chair of the Party’s NEC I have the pleasure of keeping some pretty big egos in their place but I have to say that I am more nervous this morning about giving this speech than telling John Prescott to shut up. There we are, that is life.

Colleagues, I am honoured. I am the first woman ever in my union’s history to be nominated to the NEC; that shows you how far the trade union Movement and my own union has come. I was the proudest girl last year when I was nominated by the Party to be the chair. I really always thought that by the time it was my turn they would change the rules, but here I am, the school dinner lady, on the NEC of the Party. That just shows we can make it. To get that honour the same day as Jack Jones and Michael Foot were honoured, believe you me, made me feel extremely humble.

I am a trade unionist, I am a school dinner lady, and in my own history, yes, I fed and led the 'March for Jobs' when they marched from Liverpool to London. Yes, my dinner ladies, as lowly paid as they were, gave up their week’s wages to make sure that those good people were looked after well. We marched and we marched to find employment.

Congress, throughout our shared history we have made some great progress for working people and working productively together under a third-term Labour Government I believe we can deliver so much more. That is what I want to talk to you about this morning, our ambitions for Britain and our ambitions for British people at work, and in their communities.

First, I think it is important to step back and think about what we have achieved since 1997. Let us reflect on some huge gains working people have made, and you have made, under Labour: the minimum wage, the New Deal, the four weeks paid holiday, new rights for trade unions, and the right for every worker to be represented at work. Labour is delivering for working people beyond their workplace. Our record investment in public services is delivering results in health, education, transport, and the fight against crime that working people as taxpayers can be proud of. I salute all public service workers, whatever job they do, and I am proud to be one.

We have heard a lot about Warwick, and rightly so. What took place was a discussion involving all parts of the Party working together. I congratulate all the trade union leaders here for that weekend and, in particular, I would like to pay tribute to Tony Dubbins. Tony led a great weekend and I was very proud. There were MPs, MEPs, councillors. CLP delegates, and trade unionists present. I am sure the 'Warwick Deal', as it has now been billed, will appear in future in our history books for some time. I was one of the negotiators there and what took place was not a secret discussion in a smoke-filled room, as some would have you believe, but instead a genuine dialogue between ministers, the Party, and the unions, on building the workplace of the future. No Tory minister ever came to talk to us when they were in power, of that you can be assured. We have now agreed a positive agenda for the third-term giving unions a significant agenda on which to work with government and employers.

As someone who represents members, my commitment is absolute in delivering the Warwick pledges. Our agreement includes a commission on women in work (not before time), chaired by our comrade Margaret Prosser, to take a systematic look at the factors shaping continuing gender pay gaps and women’s opportunities at work; an extension of the entitlement to four weeks paid holiday by making eight bank holidays a right in addition to the four weeks; eradicating the two-tier workforce across the public sector and, as many of you know here, that is my goal, I gave you that promise and I will keep going until we do make sure that all the little I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed; comprehensive corporate manslaughter legislation; and for manufacturing a review of business support and a commitment to work for a level playing field in procurement.

I know that not all our aspirations, or yours, have been fulfilled but we will continue as we always do as one family to work to meet them. We need to work together, colleagues, because if we do not the consequences are dire. If we look back 20 years ago this year to the miners, to the rape and pillage, the devastation, that Margaret Thatcher and Howard did to those communities, it was a vindictive act by a vindictive party that has no place for us any more. I pay tribute to those mining communities and to the good women that led the fight.

That is what Howard wants to take us to; he wants to take us back. That may be Howard’s way but it is not our way. Unemployment was 3 million, and I argued those figures as women were not allowed to sign on the dole because they never earned enough; millions were on the dole with no hope; and we had the highest number of suicides by men when their homes were repossessed and communities devastated. That was Howard’s way. It is not the Labour Party’s way. We had the attack on public services, hospitals, and schools. Why? Because Maggie and her cronies always went private. I remember Maggie saying, 'There’s no such thing as society.' We had people like Virginia Bottomley, who thought an intravenous drip was a Tory MP. I can remember those days. That is Howard’s way. It is not our way.

Congress, I know what I am talking about. I had to work under the Tory Government. I stood shoulder to shoulder with many of you -- the miners, those at Wapping -- as we fought for our jobs and our industry. Those Tory ministers would not speak to us. That was the Tory way. It is not the Labour Party way. A vote for Howard is a vote to go back to how this country was run in the dark days. I know there is not one person in this hall that wants to go back to those days, where the young people left school and were given their pension at 16.

In a third term, Labour will put particular emphasis on rooting out abuse at the bottom end of the labour market. We will also address people’s aspirations. People want satisfying work and the opportunity to participate in the success of their workplace.

Colleagues, today history will be made when hunting will be banned, for which we have waited for so long.

Congress, it was nice to hear Tony telling working people to go out and join a trade union, and that trade unions are relevant. We are relevant, and you are relevant.

In conclusion, there is an issue that I would like to raise. It is now over ten years since the labour Movement together helped to achieve free and fair elections in South Africa, and you played a big part in that with the Labour Party. Congress, now Maggie’s little soldier is under house arrest in a free democratic society. He will get justice more than his mummy gave to Nelson Mandela and all the other great people who liberated South Africa. I can assure the police that we will not be applying for the right to march, as we did for Nelson Mandela.

Congress, thank you very very much for inviting me and, just to let you know, on my CV I have reached new heights this morning. I have actually at my age reached the height of being on page 3. Isn’t it great? One up, Mary! Colleagues, it is page 3 of the Morning Star, and I am very proud of it, too.

Colleagues, I thank you for your invitation and you will never know how proud I am. I am proud of my union and I am proud to work with all of you. Please, please, please, give us the right for a third term. Never allow the Tories back to do what they did for 20 years because it will take us another 40 years to get back on the road again. Thank you, and good morning.

Presentation of Gold Badge of Congress to Mary Turner, Chairman of the Labour Party’s NEC and President of the GMB

The President: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of Congress to award Mary the Gold Badge of Congress.

(The presentation was made amidst applause)

Mary Turner : Thank you. Colleagues, in memory of my dad, the first thing he ever told me was: 'Join a trade union when you start work.' I joined a trade union from the day I left school and I am proud to wear that hat, and I am proud of this. Thank you very much.

The President: Congress, you will recall that on Monday we recognised the immense contribution of activists through the Lay Reps Awards. Unfortunately, Melanie Jenner, the winner of the Organising Award, could not join us then. However, she is here today and it is my great pleasure to present her with the Congress Award for Organising. Melanie Jenner.

(The presentation was made)

The President: Congress, you will know there is a number of motions which have been scheduled but could not be taken due to lack of time. We will try and take Motions 47, 48, and 49 at the end of this morning’s scheduled business. If there is time, I will also then take Composite 16, followed by Motions 70, 72, and 73. It would be immensely helpful, as I said earlier, if people bear in mind the pressure on time when speaking. Also, if anybody is going to speak, they should be here before their speaking time arrives.

Also today we will be having the General Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Zwelinzima Vavi, Pedro Ross Leal from the Cuban TUC CTC, and this afternoon we will have Hernando Hernandez, the Colombian Trade Union leader, speaking to us.

Regions

The Regional Dimension

The President: We now come to Chapter 10 of the General Council Report, on page 129.

Regional Government

Clare Williams (Unison) speaking to paragraph 10.2 of the General Council’s Report.

(Insert paragraph 10.2 - Regional Government)

She said: I just wanted to share quickly under the Regional Dimension part of the Congress Report the work that the Northern TUC did in tackling racism and the anti-fascist campaign that we ran. The Northern TUC was the key body in our region that brought together a coalition under the umbrella of The North East Unites Against the BNP. That brought together every trade union, community groups, Labour Party members, people working with asylum seekers, and young people, to form coalitions in every part of our region where the BNP and the National Front were standing. Both parties had targeted the North East region and were thinking they would make great electoral gains. I am very very proud to say that through the trade union Movement, and particularly with the work of the Northern TUC, not only did they not win any seats but in some key areas, such as Sunderland, actually the BNP’s vote was halved. I think we should congratulate ourselves as a Movement on that.

Part of our campaign was a massive Respect festival in Sunderland, which attracted over 13,000 mainly local young people; that was a key event, I think, in making sure people understood, firstly, what the BNP stands for and, secondly, why they should not vote for them. Another key event for us was that at our annual Northern TUC Conference, as the National Front, unfortunately, had been given the right to march around Newcastle, which was an historic event, the Conference voted unanimously to suspend itself and join the protest. I think for me that showed the complete relevance of trade unions joining ordinary people from the community on the streets and actually making a difference. I will always have a lasting memory of Dave Anderson, General Council member, and Unison’s then president, along with Kevin Curran, being chased by the police on horses, and the fascists, which was quite an experience. I do have some photos to make sure I never forget that!

Very importantly, and I will finish with this, what it has done for us in the Northern region is that the TUC is now absolutely relevant to whole layers of new people, and particularly young people, and the unity of the trade unions through the TUC has been absolutely key to our success. People now realise unions are not just about sitting in meetings and talking, we are about action, and we make a difference. I am absolutely proud of the role of my union but also the role of the trade union Movement in the North East in making sure we have built lasting coalitions that meant the far right did not win any seats and they certainly will not in the future elections to come. I hope that as a TUC we will make sure it is an absolute priority for our work. Thanks.

The President: That completes Chapter 10 of the General Council’s Report.

Health and Safety

Protecting People at Work

The President: Before I call Composite 19, Congress will be aware that on Monday we were joined by workers from the Wembley Stadium site, who had been shamefully sacked in a dispute which was essentially between contractors. I am very pleased to be able to report that following a great deal of hard work by the unions involved, the GMB and Amicus, a full and final settlement of the dispute has been reached, all the workers have been re-engaged, and they will be on the blue book national agreement. The deal was voted on this morning. Well done.

I now come to Composite Motion 19 on Health and Safety.

Kevin Curran (GMB) moved Composite Motion 19.

(Insert Composite Motion 19 - Health and Safety)

He said: I am absolutely delighted to be moving composite 19 on health and safety at work. I am delighted because the track record of trade unions on health and safety is something that we have every right to be very proud of. Union safety representatives are the success story of the last three decades, with thousands of active reps trained by their unions and the TUC protecting health and safety in workplaces all over Britain. Independent research proves that workplaces where unions are present are twice as safe as unorganised ones, evidence that shows people join unions specifically because of our record on tackling health and safety, union safety reps reducing risk and protecting people, and delivering for people at work.

So, it is a genuine mystery to me why this fantastic contribution to society goes unrecognised by government. We contribute so significantly and achieve so much success in reducing injury and disease, imagine what we could do if we had more support. Yet the things that we know make a difference, every improvement we suggest or increased right that we ask for is turned down flat: roving safety reps so that we have the right to represent our members effectively, the right to stop the job, the right to issue provisional improvement notices, and the right to prosecute privately negligent employers on behalf of our members.

Why this reluctance to ensure that we can further increase our contribution to prevention? The answer is that, despite the proven success achieved by unions, our demands are at odds with the deregulatory agenda that this Government seems determined to pursue. Rather than a regime based upon increased rights and more involvement of union reps, vigilance by well-funded, properly resourced, and effective inspectorate, and stronger enforcement of the law, the Government is systematically undermining the health and safety system to reduce so-called burdens on business and, sadly, colleagues, the chair of the Health & Safety Commission seems unable or unwilling to oppose this folly.

The recent Select Committee presented a tremendous opportunity to go to government and demand implementation of its wise and sensible recommendations, to demand the tools, the support, and the resources needed to tackle the failure of employers to protect their workforces, to support a report that recognises that decisive action is necessary if work-related deaths, injuries, and disease, are to be reduced, but the ink was barely dry on the report before the chair, without even consulting the TUC commissioners, declared against improved rights for safety reps. He did that at a press conference called to announce increased deaths at work. How ironic is that?

The Government and the commission face a simple choice: to pursue to the delight of negligent employers a strategy that will reverse health and safety gains achieved over the last 30 years, a strategy which the Select Committee explicitly rejected and which the unions are firmly opposed to, or they can adopt a radical agenda for improving health and safety at work that will deliver for people at work, an agenda that should be resourced by a work environment fund that every employer must contribute to, an agenda based upon increased inspection, vigilance, and enforcement that enshrines the involvement of unions.

Congress, that is the choice. The Government is at a crossroads on health and safety. Down one road lies deregulation or a system funded by a compulsory levy on employers for support of safety reps, effective inspection, and enforcement of strong laws that will deliver a reduction in deaths, injury, and disease. It really is as straightforward as that. It is blindingly obvious which path needs to be followed. We need strong leadership from the HSE to take us down the anti-deregulation path. Deregulation does not reduce workplace risk, deregulation will not prevent deaths and disease, and deregulation cannot deliver for people at work.

Rob Thomas (NAPO) seconding composition motion 19, said: Much of the media and employers’ representatives in this country love to portray those who campaign on health and safety issues as either whingeing do-gooders or extreme left-wing activists, but over this issue in 2004 that is very far from the truth. Just listen to these quotes. On the subject of enforcement rather than encouragement: 'The evidence supports the view that it is inspection backed by enforcement that is most effective in motivating duty holders to comply with their responsibilities under health and safety law. We therefore recommend that the HSE should not proceed with a proposal to shift resources from inspection and enforcement to fund an increase in education, information and advice.' Who said that? The Labour-dominated House of Commons Department Select Committee on Work & Pensions, which reported in July of this year. On the subject of stress and occupational health, the academic, Andy Waterstone, an occupational health professor at Stirling University, said: 'The HSE does not present itself as a champion for occupational health advances but rather as an apologist for ineffective government.' On working temperatures, USDAW, that notoriously militant trade union, in a press statement earlier this year pointed to evidence that anyone working in temperatures above 25⁰C can start to suffer heat exhaustion, loss of concentration, and consequent loss of productivity. It is a fact that there are more regulations covering the temperatures in which you transport cattle than there are over working conditions for humans. Perhaps we should pretend the Tube trains are cattle trucks.

What kind of action do we need to tackle these problems? First of all, we need enough inspectors to detect breaches of health and safety law, and then we may well see an increase in the incidence of prosecution for criminal acts. Of course, you also need more effective legislation in the area of corporate killing as well. However, it is no good using all stick and no carrot. For some of the less serious breaches of the laws we need a more flexible approach and that is where this motion calls for the promotion of full criminal responsibility, and sanctions, for those who break the law. Being a union which represents probation officers, we know a bit about the availability of alternative penalties. At the moment, all the court can do is send someone to prison or fine them. We believe it would be much more effective if the courts had other options, such as community punishment or probation orders.

On the rights and functions of safety reps, again the Select Committee has backed the need for major improvements and backed the TUC line. Why is the HSE not backing this as well? On actions to make violence to workers a reportable event, my union tabled a motion to the 2001 Congress which specifically called for racially motivated offences to be recorded. At Congress that came to an abrupt halt because of 9/11 but we need to return to those issues straightaway. Finally, on the opt-out for the Working Time Directive the leadership of the TUC has done a grand job but where is the voice of the HSE on this?

So, this motion is calling for more action; without a big push at every level this will just have been a pious statement. We need a thorough review of the functions of the HSE and I urge all affiliates to ensure that something happens, and happens quickly.

Eddie Grimes (Amicus) said: I support this composite with specific reference to the amendment including subclause (b) in the composite.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment given to this Congress on Monday that legislation will be introduced to create the offence of corporate manslaughter, so why do we need to include this motion? Firstly, we have heard the same commitment before but this time we want to see it acted upon. The Works & Pensions Select Committee has recommended that the Government publish a bill on corporate killing by 1^st December this year. Secondly, the facts speak for themselves: 300 to 400 workers die every year in work-related incidents yet only five companies have ever been convicted for manslaughter. We cannot stand by and continue to see workplace murder take place almost on a daily basis and yet allow those responsible go free.

This motion is not about statistics, it is about people, it is about families, and it is about wrecked lives. Directors and bosses of companies have walked away from these tragedies and washed their hands of them for years. Further delays in promoting the necessary legislation and changes by government will mean that we will share the guilt of future deaths. Management has a responsibility to assess risk, manage health and safety, and make sure that their employees leave their workplaces as they come to it, fit and well. Not until employers see the threat of their necks being on the block will they take their responsibilities seriously.

The fact that employers frequently do not carry out their responsibilities is emphasised in an independent report released by the Centre for Corporate Accountability, today. Amicus fully endorses this position. Copies of this report are available in the Amicus stand today. It gives the shocking statistics that since Labour came to power there have been 2,000 deaths of workers and of which 70 per cent could have been prevented. Despite this horror story, the Government is being asked to consider recommendations from the Health & Safety Commission, and Executive, to move towards a more voluntary approach to safety rather than the enforcement system currently in place.

Congress, we cannot let this legislation remain a promise any longer. We must now demand government action for the sake of our members, workers in general, and their families. Support this composite.

John Hannett (USDAW) speaking in support of the composite, said: Congress, many of us in this hall today, many trade unions represent workers in the front line, in the public and in the private sector, face-to-face working with customers, clients, claimants and patients, in their millions every single day; in service sectors, which are increasingly open all hours, assessed by customers and fellow citizens who want what they want when they require it on demand. Many of our members move heaven and earth to deliver what I believe is a first-class service but they are doing it in an increasingly hostile and dangerous environment. Violence and abuse from customers plagues our members in the UK, particularly in the retail sector.

In a recent USDAW survey, in one week in the working lives of over 600 shop workers across the retail sector, they reported 887 cases of verbal abuse, extremely demeaning when you are on the receiving end of it repeatedly; 224 threats of violence; 107 actual violent incidents; and 80 cases of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Another survey amongst our union representatives revealed that nearly half of our representatives had seen violent assaults on staff in their stores just in the last year, and many stores had had several attacks; 72 per cent reported that threats of violence were a problem in their particular store and verbal abuse was a daily occurrence in over a third of those stores.

Congress, retail workers do an exceptional job and have the right to be respected, and our retail violence campaign was not only about raising awareness but bringing to the attention of the consumer that if you want a good service, you have to give respect to the individual providing that service. The levels of violence and abuse have a devastating effect on people’s lives. They worry about going to work and three-quarters of our members are worried about being attacked at work and, 87 per cent about being verbally abused.

Congress, that kind of abuse leads to stress and illness, and 38 per cent of our union representatives told us that they suffered ill health due to the fear of violence and abuse. An illness does lead to time off work; 48 per cent of our representatives and members at their store were taking time off as a result of the attacks of verbal abuse and violence. Finally, some people even leave their employment because they cannot cope with the ongoing pressure. That is why, Congress, we need a concerted coordinated approach to dealing with violence against front line workers, people who do real jobs and should be respected, working with the appropriate authorities, including the police, to resolve crime and disorder in and around our workplaces, working with employers to build a healthy, safe, and stress-free working environment, and supporting our members to organise around issues that really matter to people who do a fantastic job. Please support the composite.

Chris Baugh (PCS) speaking in support of the composite, said: As we know, the basis for health and safety law in the UK remains the 1975 legislation and trade unions quickly recognise the need to organise around the important new rights this legislation conferred, and it is still really the case today, but we know from experience, at times bitter, that the broad framework within which health and safety law is regulated has never been enough.

PCS represents staff, front line and the much maligned backroom office workers, employed in the Health and Safety Executive, a public body that fulfils a vital public function but, in our view, has been consistently under-funded, denied the powers of enforcement, and the resources to do the job our members and the public have a right to expect, a position that can only get worse if 104,000 civil servants are eventually declared surplus to requirements. That is why my union have highlighted the call for a properly funded HSE given a wider range of enforcement, in particular, that inspections should force employers to show evidence of workers’ involvement and consultation with workers’ representatives.

Again, we know that you do not get worker involvement in health and safety, or on any other issue for that matter, without workplace organisation and safety reps. There is a wealth of experience that shows the positive benefits of being a member of a trade union and we know that union membership has a beneficial effect on both injury and illness rates, however scandalously high they remain. This is a powerful weapon in organising the agenda to which PCS, and the Congress itself, were committed on Monday. So, when the Prime Minister commends flexible labour markets, it is worth restating the real meaning for many of our members: a human resource agenda that reduces job control, a battery of work targets, IT systems that mean in an office environment chained to a display screen, and five million workers, a fifth of the UK workforce, suffering high levels of stress.

A Whitehall study of 10,000 civil servants found the familiar story of lack of job control, unattainable targets, conflicting priorities, and poor management, as the major causes of stress at work. But rather than address the underlying causes as part of a media-inspired attack on the so-called 'sick note culture', the Government now threatens for its own employees to reduce sick pay entitlements and compensation for those retired on grounds of ill health. The growing experience of PCS members, we believe shared by many across the public and private sector, compels us to challenge the Government and employer indifference to how modern times makes so many of our members quite literally sick at work. It means fighting to defend the vital public services performed by members in the Health & Safety Executive. It means campaigning against the underlying causes of stress at work, and demonstrating to those we hope to attract into union membership that unions can offer an alternative to the stressful and increasingly unsafe work environments to which millions of UK workers are currently consigned. Congress, please support.

Suresh Chawla (BECTU) speaking in support of Composite 19 with particular reference to sub-paragraph (a) and the amendment, said: as I am sure we are all aware, many regulations are flawed with irregularities, inconsistencies and injustices. Regulation 8 of the Safety Representatives Regulations states that it is fine for safety representatives not to be employees of the employer concerned, but only when representing employees from two specific unions, which are Equity and the Musicians Union. Whilst we are very pleased that two of our fellow entertainment unions can appoint roving safety representatives, there is a clear need for the rest of us to be able to follow suit.

Within BECTU, like so many of our unions, more and more of our members are freelances and self-employed, on short-term contracts, in different locations across the nation, resulting in a nomadic occupational lifestyle. We must amend this legislation to ensure that all of our members, in all of our unions, are protected by the right to roving safety representatives.

I urge you to support this composite motion.

Graeme Henderson (Prospect): Representing inspectors, scientists and other specialists in the Health & Safety Executive.

Prospect calls upon the government to implement the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on the work of the Health & Safety Commission and Executive. The Select Committee identified three main issues: the lack of resources to HSE; the lack of enforcement; and also the lack of support for unions and safety representatives. In particular, the Select Committee made the following key recommendations: first, that in the context of the 2004 Spending Review, the HSE Inspectorate should be recognised as a front-line service and should be protected. The Select Committee endorsed the view that Prospect put to them, both orally and in writing, that the number of inspectors in the HSE’s Field Operations Directive should be doubled within six to seven years. It also recommended that substantial additional resources are needed in the next three years, as indeed the seconder from NAP indicated.

The Select Committee concluded that it is inspection, backed by enforcement, that is most effective in motivating employers to comply with the law, and it called upon the Executive and the Commission to do away with the proposal to shift resources away from enforcement towards education, information and advice.

It also concluded that in view of the huge job that the Health & Safety Commission recognised as needing to be done in the field of occupational health, it is extremely concerned at the reduction in the HSE’s in-house expertise, particularly in the reduction and dumbing down of the numbers of employment medical advisers - 120 twelve years ago, now down to 15 doctors and 27 nurses.

We recognise that we face an uphill struggle to ensure implementation of the report. The Public Expenditure Review announced massive cuts in our sponsoring department, Work and Pensions -- up to 30,000 jobs are to go by 2007. In a paper that was presented to the Health & Safety Commission in April, by HSE’s Director of Resources, predicated upon a flat cash settlement, she concluded that HSE staff would need to decline from the current 3,800 to either 3,000 or possibly 2,800 by 2007.

Last year, when I moved the composite on health and safety, Prospect challenged the Chancellor to put his money where his mouth is. Gordon, you do not often get a second chance in life but this is your opportunity, and for the sake of millions of workers and their families take it.

Robert Crow (RMT): We are supporting this composite, with particular reference to the paragraph in relation to the accidents to, or the manslaughter of, four of my members that took place on Valentine’s Day this year. A run-away train in Tebay, with no proper brakes whatsoever on that wagon, a lump of chestnut fencing stuffed under the wheel, rolled down the hill, over a mile and a half, full of tons of used steel, rolled over and killed four of my members. The other six were fortunate to get out of it. Really, in all honesty, we do not want a witch-hunt, but when there is agro at Wembley this week they can find copper after copper to investigate what went on up there, so why can they not go down and find out why our members were killed in the railway network? That is the issue to be looked at, and in the rest of the other corporate killings that take place.

Since then, there have been three further incidents. In one of them, the same vehicle was involved, in Motherwell.

To be honest with you, we are fed up with coming here year after year talking about tragedies to people, whether it be in the building industry, the mining industry, the railway industry or anywhere else. We do not want a witch-hunt against anyone, but we want a proper public inquiry to make sure that this never happens again. One company was responsible for the wagon and another company was responsible for the wagon it was attached to, and the fact of the matter is that there were no standards put in place as a result of privatisation of BR.

When these managers walk out year after year, when they go to their places and villas they have in the Costa del Sol, when their companies make millions of pounds out of the railway industry, they get pats on the back. If they are prepared to make millions of pounds out of the railway industry, when they kill our members they should be banged up in prison and not going back to their villas or wherever they go on the Costa del Sol or anywhere else where they may live.

Also, I would say that the Health & Safety Executive has been absolutely spineless when it comes to this. Hatfield they have dropped. Take one of our members up there, Alan Fenton. The police went round there with a sledgehammer, smashed his door down and took all his particulars out of his house. They did not go round to Corbett’s house when he was let off two weeks ago for Hatfield.

By the way, let us make it quite clear, so long as the likes of Digby Jones are out there saying that trades unions need to be relevant, whilst our members are being killed in the trades union Movement there is more relevance than ever for the trade union Movement to be hard and fast on safety for all workers, wherever they work.

Ian Lavery (NUM) supporting Composite 19.

This composite highlights very clearly many issues relating to the failures of the Health & Safety Commission and, indeed, of the Health & Safety Executive, and chiefly the lack of protection in terms of corporate manslaughter for our members. As trades unions and health and safety representatives, we witness massive problems every day in each and every workplace. Whether it is in the railway industry, whether it is in a shop, on a building site or in an office we experience it every day.

A major concern for the National Union of Mineworkers, among many others, is the lack of legislation in relation to corporate manslaughter. That is where our members are killed as a result of corporate negligence.

As previous speakers have already mentioned, the government have repeatedly promised to act and have repeatedly failed to do so. The Department of Work and Pensions Select Committee called for the doubling of HSE inspectors, coupled with increased finance for the HSE - quite laudable recommendations, welcome recommendations too. But it is not enough; we must have the power to do something against these employers. If we are doubling the money we must at least increase the service in terms of health and safety. Directors, managers and staff at the very top level must face up to their responsibilities when they cause the death of employees in the workplace. Until legislation is implemented by the government and the workplace is adequately policed by inspectors, with powers that they are prepared to use, then these greedy, hungry, profit-seeking company directors - as Bob has adequately explained - will continue to kill our members in pursuit of profit.

There have been 100,000 miners killed in the mining industry. In British industry last year, 249 people were killed; thousands have died as a result of occupational illness; and thousands die of industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis, empheysema and asthma. In excess of 10,000 employees are killed by work every year. That is 29 per day, more than one an hour, and there are very few convictions.

In the trade union Movement we have a moral obligation to seek justice for the widows and widowers and, yes, for those children who lose their beloved parents as a result of corporate negligence. Justice does not only mean a lengthy battle for compensation; it means a fight to ensure that those responsible for the ruination of family life are held accountable for their actions or inactions, as it may be. Yes, the world would be a safer place and, yes, the prisons would be fuller institutions.

Teresa Mackay (T&G) speaking in support of Composite 19 said: The Health & Safety Report for 2003/2004 shows that 49 per cent of fatal injuries to workers occurred in construction and agriculture. In construction, 70 workers never came home; for agriculture, forestry and fishing it was 44. For my industry, agriculture, that means almost twelve deaths per one hundred thousand, making it the worst and most dangerous industry in the country.

Of course, the Morecambe Bay incident forms part of those statistics, with the terrible deaths of 21 Chinese cockle pickers. We should also remember that two other workers are thought to have drowned but their bodies have never actually been recovered. We should also remind ourselves that this horrific disaster makes it the worst since Piper Alpha. This, I have to say, was the turning point for the government’s acceptance of the T&G’s and Jim Sheridan’s Gangmaster Licensing Bill, which received Royal Assent on 8 July. According to DEFRA, there are 3,000 gangmasters in the UK, employing 60,000 workers, but no one really knows. The young Chinese reporter from the Guardian, who spoke at the Gangmasters Meeting on Monday, knew of one gangmaster in Norfolk who employed 25,000 workers. This same reporter went under cover for two weeks and experienced the most appalling working conditions.

The Gangmaster Licensing Act has become the legacy of Morecambe Bay but, if it is to work, resources have to be made available. Announcing over 104,000 job losses in the Civil Service does not send out the right signals that proper investment is going to take place. What it does point out -- as the PCS have graphically pointed out -- is that we are dependent on the Civil Service at every level, and that we in the trade union Movement must wholeheartedly support whatever action the PCS will take to save those jobs.

Roving safety representatives have also been a major campaigning issue for those of us working in agriculture in the T&G. Six of us have just completed a two-year pilot project sponsored by the HSE to see if roving safety representatives make a difference in this very dangerous industry. Although the results will not be formally announced until the HSE’s Agricultural Industry’s Advisory Committee meets later this year, all signs seem to indicate that, just like the Workers Safety Advisers Project, it was a resounding success.

One of the major problems that our union has had to face has been the reluctance of the National Farmers Union to allow T&G members on their farms. What this project showed was that none of the farmers, who were all volunteers, had any problems with our visits or objected to our talking to these workers. On the contrary, they were more than willing to participate.

If we are to turn this industry’s dreadful record around, which includes massive under-reporting of incidents, the government and the HSE must seriously look at ways in which the roving safety representatives can become a reality. Our project, just like the Workers Safety Advisers, will surely prove that such schemes make good health and safety sense.

Support the composite.

Bob Hudson (Community) Supporting the motion on behalf of Community. In May last year David Blunkett confirmed that the government would introduce the offence of corporate manslaughter, but there is still no progress. On the contrary, we seem to be going backwards. The likelihood of a successful prosecution under the existing law receded completely after the recent Railtrack case. Reportedly, Ministers themselves now fear that they themselves may be charged for the fatal errors employees in the NHS and other public services commit. There is no truth at all in this, and the story just looks like another bit of spin to avoid action.

Since the Home Secretary made that pledge, 235 people have died as a result of injuries at work, and there were more than 150,000 other injuries. There were no convictions of top bosses. In the steel industry we have experienced more than our share of death and crippling accidents. The incidence of serious injuries in our industry is wholly unacceptable, even though top management is committed to reducing the toll, as we are.

About 70 per cent of these deaths and serious injuries at work are generally due to management failures, and the record shows that the larger the company the greater the likelihood that there will be no charge. We need new effective legislation to put top managers in the dock. That would really bring home the priority that health and safety should have.

I urge Congress to adopt the motion and the General Council to press the issue vigorously with the government to see that they honour their pledges.

The President : Composite Motion 19 is supported by the General Council.

* Composite Motion 19 was CARRIED

Health and safety in commercial aviation

Jim McAuslan (BALPA) moved Motion 91.

(Insert Motion 91 - Health and safety in commercial aviation)

He said: I want to tell you about Belinda. Belinda and her husband flew with a major BAE 146 operator. During her time operating as crew she suffered severe medical symptoms on exposure to fumes. Her son was born with a genetic syndrome and she and husband were advised that they had chemical damage to chromosomes.

I want to tell you about Captain Julian Soddy, a physically fit pilot who developed flu-like symptoms and memory loss. A visit to his doctor revealed symptoms similar to those experienced by people exposed to sheep dip. He lost his licence.

I could tell you many other stories from across the world, too many for fume exposure to be explained away as a personal sensitivity. The fact is that engine oils contain organophosphates, neurotoxins, sensitisers and carcinogens. The tin reassuringly warns you that it contains TCP. There is evidence that the ingestion of oil fumes causes a range of complaints from headaches and gastrointestinal problems to heart, lung and neurological disorders. It is looking more and more like it does what it says on the tin. There may be some short and long-term problems, some result in those affected being ill-health retired. In Belinda’s case it was worse.

It does not need to be this way. Other lubricants for engines and auxiliary power units to bleed air systems of aircraft have been known about for 25 years. More recently, the Australian Senate undertook an extensive review making very specific recommendations. These have not been actioned. They gather dust, 'Not my responsibility'. The regulators say it is not a safety issue and that there is no proof of long-term health problems, but they have not been prepared to release all their findings, including some from Porton Down. Manufacturers say it is a maintenance problem; the oil companies say 'It’s safe' as long as it does not get into the cabin. For the want of funds, some decent research by eminent scientists goes undone. Everyone says that someone else is responsible. It is massive failure in the duty of care.

So who is to lead? No part of the Chicago Convention, which regulates aviation, requires countries to regulate for health and comfort of passengers. Here in the UK we have the bizarre situation - as you will hear - that in one of the most safety critical environments, aviation, the remit of the HSE does not extend into looking into health. This is not a case of deregulation; it is a case of no regulation.

I recognise from the previous debate that the HSE is itself struggling to deliver on its existing agenda and that more responsibility is probably the last thing that it wants, but if not you then who? In BALPA we are part of a small group of organisations and individuals that are saying that action is needed. We have launched our own campaign and you can find details and watch video clips on our website, BALPA.Org. Our aim is not scaremongering; it is to improve reporting by crew of incidents so that we have reliable data and can make the right decisions based on facts.

However, BALPA is but one voice and getting the various groups to put pressure on decision-makers is beyond our resources. That is why we are asking for your support, so that the TUC can take action, because the TUC is at its best when it brings together those working in isolation, best when it acts as a catalyst to challenge inertia and indifference, best when it does not accept at face value the reassuring noises of industry.

Congress, we ask for your support for this motion to help us improve environmental health in aviation to the same standard as aviation safety.

Dave Reed (T&G) seconding Motion 91.

Firstly, as a British Airways worker I would like to thank all delegates and trades unionists for the outstanding support shown to our members in the T&G and our comrades in Amicus and the GMB in our recent British Airways dispute. As our General Secretary says, if we fight back we may not always win; but if we do not fight we will surely lose. We fought back, we won and we thank you.

Secondly, if you had come to this Congress in the 1970s the chances are that few delegates would have flown in a ‘plane. Today, many of you here have flown. Air travel is no longer the preserve of the rich; it is for every person. While air travel has grown dramatically, safety is of paramount importance. Whilst the safety record in aviation is an enviable one, there is no room for complacency. That is why the T&G is seconding this motion, because when it comes to people working and travelling on a plane, moving at 500 miles an hour, at 30,000 feet, the number one most important issue of course is that of health and safety. For example, take the impact of poor quality recycled air in aircraft cabins. Our government must give a lead by commissioning independent research to establish the medical facts and to improve ventilation systems.

We need to end the blurred lines of responsibility that exist between the HSE for our ports and ground workers and the CAA for our people working in the air. We must develop as a matter of urgency ways of working to support and address the problems associated with stress, workload, long hours and fatigue.

We want to reduce the weight limit on each bag to a more reasonable level, and we seek your understanding there. We want our check-in and customer service members to be able to work without fear of verbal and physical assault. We seek your support and understanding on that.

We do not want you to board a ‘plane unless the pilot is properly certified. Cabin crew are also vital to safety and security. We call for cabin crew in Europe to be properly certified. I am sure the public would welcome that.

Air travel is essential for our economic future. It has opened up new horizons for travel for ordinary people. It has brought communities together. Passengers deserve to travel in a comfortable, safe and healthy environment and our members deserve the same.

Therefore, let us ensure that this crucial industry remains a safe industry. Support Motion 91.

The President : The General Council supports Motion 91.

* Motion 91 was CARRIED

Safety and preservation of theatres

Barbara White (MU) moved Motion 92.

(Insert Motion 92 - Safety and preservation of theatres)

She said: It is more than 90 years since the Theatre and Public Halls Act was introduced in 1908. Its principal objective was to exercise control over, and improve, the condition of theatres and licensed halls for the purpose of ensuring the safety and convenience of the public. I must admit that most of the provisions of the Act have been repealed.

You will remember that the 1908 Act concentrated on safety and convenience. What convenience? In countless towns around Britain audiences still sit in uncomfortable seats and spend the interval in queues for the toilet or crushed in a bar. Theatre-going in Victorian and Edwardian times was a very popular pastime, attracting all sections of the population, but the buildings reflected the class structure and social divisions of the period. As only about one-quarter of the audiences entered through the front door and the foyers, bars and toilets were planned with this in mind.

One of the most frequent complaints from the public relate to seats with inadequate leg room. This is not surprising when you realise that the average height of people 100 years ago was four inches less than today.

Once again, we come back to that word 'convenience'. The Theatre Trust’s most recent survey states that 65 per cent of theatres would benefit from more women’s toilets. From the queues that I have seen, and been involved in, I would say more like 100 per cent.

We must not forget the less able-bodied and wheelchair users. Access presents particular problems, with 48 per cent of theatres having totally inadequate provision for patrons in wheelchairs.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, performers continue to work in conditions that long ago would have been condemned in most other professions. Dressing rooms and spaces for technical staff often exhibit conditions that would not be tolerated in any other industry. These theatres were simply not designed for the paraphernalia of modern lighting and sound equipment, or for the weight and size of modern scenery, or for today’s rigorous standards relating to health and safety. It goes without saying that entertainment unions give safety the green light and danger the red.

What would it cost to make things better? The figure of £250 million would give fairly radical remodelling in those buildings that are least satisfactory. When we think of this figure we must also remember not only the cultural importance of the West End theatre but the fact that it generates ticket sales of £246 million a year. The total direct spending attributed to the West End theatre industry was £700 million, with a further £350 million in indirect spending. This level of economic activity contributed tax revenues to central government of at least £200 million a year.

Without investment the prospects are bleak. Theatre audiences cannot be expected to tolerate indefinitely conditions that reflect theatre-going 100 years ago. In the minds of most people, the National Lottery might seem the most obvious potential for such a programme. Although there is nothing in the regulations to prevent these theatres applying to the National Lottery, applications to Arts Council England have been rebuffed and it is clear that the Council has never regarded commercial theatres as one of its priorities. The present owners of theatres are currently spending around £6 million a year on their theatres, or £150 per seat across the West End theatres as a whole.

The VAT on West End ticket sales recouped by the Treasury now amounts to over £48 million per annum, nearly three times the amount needed annually to refurbish these theatres. We cannot afford, nor do we have the option, to rebuild theatre land. Most subsidised theatres have now been refurbished with money from the National Lottery, creating a marked imbalance between the two sectors. There is now very little alternative other than to look to government to secure a solution.

As an inheritance, theatre land is the envy of the world. Those responsible are determined to play their part to invest in it and to help maximise its potential. We need to act now.

Graham Lester George ( WGGB ) supporting Motion 92 said: London’s West End theatres are part of its identity. I could say all the usual stuff about culture and heritage, but it is more than that; it is about a city’s personality. Paris expresses itself in the boulevards and in the pavement cafes; Berlin with its dynamism and the old and new vying for attention; Rome with its piazzas, fountains and antiquity around every corner that says 'Hey, this is where it all got going'. But London is famous all over the world for its theatres. Those theatres are rightly known both for what they house, the best drama and best entertainment productions anywhere, and for their unique interiors that lend that special atmosphere that is West End theatre.

Unfortunately, many of them are crumbling or in danger of crumbling. Often it is not at the front of house where the problem lies; but backstage, cramped and often hazardous spaces strewn with ropes and timber supports, electrical cables and other paraphernalia. It is where all the invisible, magical work is done to create the illusion out front that the actors are in a park, up a mountain or just in an urban living room. But they are not good working conditions back there, although the workers - the carpenters, the electricians, the ASMs, the designers - tolerate the discomfort and inconveniences, and the dangers, because they are doing what they love to do: deliver their magic night after night.

But this is the 21^st century and we cannot continue to ignore the health and safety problems that beset these venerated and venerable theatres. They are magnets for tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world, bringing millions of pounds to the economy of this country, but so far without access to Lottery cash. They are in danger of becoming unworkable, in danger of subsiding into darkness, thereby depriving the West End of its unique beating heart and those visitors of a reason to come.

I therefore ask you to support Motion 92.

The President : The General Council supports the motion.

* Motion 92 was CARRIED

Bullying and Harassment

Carol Machan (BDA) moved Motion 93.

(Insert Motion 93 - Bullying and Harassment)

She said: Sadly the BDA over the last few years has recognised that bullying and harassment remain at an unacceptably high level within the NHS. As a small organisation we spend a large amount of our trade union resources advising, supporting and representing members who have experienced this serious workplace issue. I am aware, from reading reports and surveys carried out by other unions, that the prevalence of bullying and harassment remains high. We confirmed this as a serious issue doing our own survey of BDA members this year.

I am not going to describe the meaning of bullying and harassment, as everyone here is aware of the term. I just want to say the BDA have used these terms together to ensure that all possible perceptions of such actions are covered by this motion.

As trades unions we have been involved in highlighting this issue with employers and campaigning to ensure that the issue is taken seriously. In the NHS there are now policies that we are advised by senior management are taken seriously and that they are there to protect employees. However, the reality of this problem is that it is often ignored and made more difficult to pursue. Even with glossy policies, with a clear approach to this and timescales for how situations should be managed, individual employees do not get the support of their employer. My own experience confirms this. Supporting members through these bullying and harassment policies is a long and extended process with more hurdles than the Olympics.

I will just quickly describe one situation, which I think demonstrates that the NHS with its policies says it is committed to eradicating bullying and harassment but clearly avoids doing anything about it. Last April a member working in the NHS came forward to us asking for help after a long period of bullying. This member had been working as a dietician for nine years in two different departments, having never been off sick and always enjoyed working and socialising with colleagues. After having a baby she changed to part-time work in another department. Coming to us about five months after starting this new employment, she had been off sick for almost one month. Worried about this, and about what happened to her at work, she was in despair. On hearing her situation we obviously agreed to support and represent her, and embarked on helping her work through her local policy. The NHS Trust assured me that they took bullying and harassment very seriously and that a thorough investigation would take place.

You might think that I am about to give you an outcome as it is now about 15 months since we started this process. No, having been shouted at, pulled and pushed, ignored in front of others, and singled out by this bully - which, I must tell you, was all witnessed, including a picture of our member placed on a notice board and people being encouraged to use it as a dartboard - we waited eight months even to hear whether the investigation had been completed or not. Now, after one year, we have a statement from the Trust saying 'There may be some small element of behaviour which could be construed as harassment but not enough to do anything about it.' The BDA are currently seeking legal advice, which again is not easy as you may know.

Legislation is not clear in this area and so we have been advised by our lawyers that results are often unsatisfactory as the laws are not designed specifically to tackle this area. We come to you for help. Members, employees, should not be bullied at work and employers must take this issue seriously. As a small organisation, we seek General Council’s advice and support. We believe the government must consider and examine ways to extend legal protection for all victims of this endemic problem. Employers must take this issue seriously and, if evidence shows that they have failed to act, they must be forced to do so by adequate protection to victims under law.

It is bad enough having to go to work but what about being in fear of going to work, to be bullied at work, to be bullied in your workplace? Please support.

Peter Pendle (ACM): Bullying is not a new issue and it is a shame that two unions representing professionals in the public sector find it necessary to raise this matter today.

In seconding this motion, I wish to draw your attention to the types of problems we are facing in the public sector, and in further education in particular. I will give you an example of the serious effect that bullying can have on an individual and then outline how the TUC can help us campaign for effective policies to tackle this problem.

Bullying is one of the most common reasons for ACM members to call our Help Line. The inescapable conclusion we must draw from this is that bullying, whatever the non-believers say, is a very serious issue. In further education, you will be relieved to hear that procedures to tackle bullying and deal with complaints are fairly common. Most colleges have bullying and harassment policies for employees. Sadly, though, the good practice often ends on paper.

We too have seen employers fail to accept that there is a problem, fail to use procedures that they have in place and fail to support the victims of workplace bullying. Yet the impact of bullying on an individual is surely reason enough to take every case seriously. Recently we helped a member in his late forties. He had a responsible, challenging job that he performed well. Then the bullying started. It was persistent; it gradually ate away at his confidence and his work suffered. Regular periods of sick leave turned into long-term sick leave. The stress caused by bullying turned into severe depression. So ill was our member that he would not answer the ‘phone at home in case it was the college. He rarely went out in case he bumped into someone from work, and if he did he could not go anywhere near the college. Our member was a wreck, his work and working, family and social life destroyed by a bully, aided and abetted by a college employer who ignored all the danger signs.

The college lost a hard-working manager and it also had to pay him one-third of a million pounds in compensation after we lodged a personal injury claim - a small victory for a broken family.

This is a sad example of workplace bullying and it is precisely why we need your support for this motion. Through the TUC we need to press for better legal protection and we need to continue raising awareness of the serious impact that bullying can have on the workplace.

Ann Robertson (T&G) speaking in support of Motion 93 said: NHS workers have the right to work without fear. In 2002 violence and aggression accounted for 40 per cent of all reported health and safety incidents in the NHS. The zero tolerance campaign was welcome but, as this motion points out, written procedures are one thing, real change on the ground is another. NHS Trusts are not meeting their targets in reducing violence. This is an urgent problem, not just for NHS workers like me but for patients too. All research shows that violence and aggression leads to staff sickness, resignation and demotivation. Tackling this problem must be central to the government’s plan to rebuild the NHS. The government must send out a clear message that anyone who is violent towards an NHS worker will be subject to the full force of the law. Employers who do not take this problem seriously must be held to account.

At the National Policy Forum we made progress. The Labour Party made a commitment to encourage the use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders against people who abused public sector workers. However, we cannot afford to wait for a third Labour term; we need action now. Official figures show that hundreds of NHS workers are assaulted very day, and not all incidents are reported. NHS workers care for everyone else; now we need you to care for us. Please support this motion.

Pat Dwan (UNISON) speaking in support of Motion 93. I say without fear of contradiction that there are employers out there who should carry a government health warning. Bullying and harassment, I am sorry to say, is not only confined to the NHS but can be found in the majority of our workplaces today.

I work for an NHS Trust in Wales where recently, following input from the Royal College of Nursing -- dare I say it -- UNISON and the British Medical Association, we closed down our cardiac unit for one week and we dealt specifically with issues that are contained within this motion.

Many employers, when faced with bullying and harassment issues, do not know how to handle them; their policies do not go far enough, they are too weak. Their first port of call is to the union rep. They call her or him in and they use them to dig the employer out of the mire. We have in the NHS, as my colleague just said, a zero tolerance for violence to staff. But this is mainly used by service users. It does not go far enough. This policy of zero tolerance should go to the bullies and harassers who are actually employed by the NHS. The other procedure that they have is prosecution, but they very rarely use that.

A clear message should go from here today, not only to NHS Trusts but to all employers and the government. My union, UNISON, and all other unions are watching and waiting. We are willing to act on behalf of our members. You need to sit down with us; we will help you rewrite your policies and they will be far more effective.

The protection of our staff is a right. We need it; we need it now. The policies have to be rewritten and rewritten in our favour. Please support Motion 93.

The President : The motion is supported by the General Council.

* Motion 93 was CARRIED

Campaigns

Owen Coup (GPMU) speaking to paragraph 9.2 said: I would like to refer in particular to the bullet point on migrant workers. The GPMU welcomes the work already undertaken by the General Council concerning the safe working conditions of migrant workers. We would, however, like the TUC to consider broadening their work to encompass the more general issues of agency workers and, more particularly, those relating to health and safety. We, the GPMU, see agency workers increasingly in large printers undertaking magazine and catalogue work. In practice, those agency workers have limited health and safety rights. They often lose out on basic induction training and personal protective equipment. They can unwittingly undermine existing health and safety arrangements for permanent workers. Of course, some employers see agency workers as cheap labour.

We need clear guidance on health and safety to ensure employers and agencies meet their duties towards agency workers. Our experience tells us that agency workers’ rights and protection fall down a big hole between the employers and the agencies, even though we as a union do what we can. Agency workers need protecting in relation to health and safety. We therefore call on the General Council to look into this further and to press the TUC representatives on the Health & Safety Commission to keep up the pressure on protecting agency workers and migrant workers.

We ask for the General Council’s support in this matter.

The President : We will certainly take that into account in our work. Thank you.

Terry Britton (T&G) speaking to paragraph 9.2 said: I would like to spend a few moments on paragraph 9.2, particularly in relation to asbestos. I have heard all the speakers this morning and asbestos has not been touched on once. We all know what asbestos is, but few of us know what asbestosis is. That is a related disease from asbestos. It is a nasty disease. It can fester in your body. One fibre can fester in your body and be thirty years before it shows its head. You forget where you got it from. It comes down to one of the related body diseases.

What I would like to say is: why do we have seven lines in the middle of a General Council Report on the biggest single industrial killer that has ever been known? It should be one of the motions that is top of the Agenda. Okay, there is a committee dealing with it but in my own union I intend to push this, and I fully intend it to be on the agenda from the Transport & General Workers Union at the next TUC Congress. It is a nasty disease; it does not want sweeping under the carpet. If you sweep it under the carpet you do so at your own peril. Please do not do that. As I say, it is the biggest industrial killer. Morrish & Co. have a fact sheet on their stand downstairs. I am not on commission for this! The fact sheet tells you some of the signs to look out for.

You might not have worked in an asbestos-related industry; textile workers who I represent have done. We had a case not so long ago where thirty years ago there was a big weaving factory. The roof caved in and a lot of these people now have either died -- we have found out since -- or are dying. We are taking court action against this company. It does not matter what industry you work in. You might have members who have been in contact with asbestos. I would like you to join us the next time the TUC comes here, whichever union you represent, in getting this on the agenda and getting it to the top of the agenda.

The President: I can assure you that asbestos and asbestos related diseases is a central part of the TUC’s health and safety work. We liaise with affiliated unions on it and we will continue to.

Earlier this morning in her address from the Labour Party, Mary Turner referred to the days when Mrs. Thatcher supported apartheid and the apartheid oppressive regime in South Africa. She did make a plea that democratic South Africa treats her son fairly in its judicial process currently under way. I am sure that Congress all agrees that he deserves a fair trial and a fair punishment. (Laughter and Applause)

Address by Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary of COSATU.

The President: As one of the early founders of Anti-Apartheid, I remember the trade union campaign which was founded against Mrs. Thatcher’s opposition or her support for apartheid, and it resulted in a complete and utter victory, a resounding achievement, and this year is the tenth anniversary of the end of apartheid and the creation of a new and democratic South Africa. We should remember that trade unions were central to that tremendous achievement. Trade unions in Britain were in the forefront of the campaign against apartheid, but even more central for the trade unions and the people of South Africa itself. I am immensely and enormously pleased to have Zwelinzima Vavi, the General Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions here today. Comrade Vavi, welcome to Congress. We celebrate your ten years of freedom. The floor is yours.

Zwelinzima Vavi (General Secretary, COSATU) : Do you remember that on the streets of London as part of the world movement in opposition against the Apartheid system and as part of the anti-Apartheid movement we had our most active friends in Great Britain.

President, General Secretary, comrades, delegates and friends to this Congress, democracy brought a huge increase in political power in labour rights and social and economic opportunities for black people, including workers and women. It fundamentally improved conditions for the majority of our people. We saw improvements in pay and conditions for lower level African workers, especially in the first few years of democracy. Blacks and women benefited from laws banning discrimination and improving basic conditions of employment. They also gained much greater access to education and skills development. Workers also benefited from the extension of government services to African communities. As such the AUC led democratic movement used access to state power to begin to unravel the legality of apartheid. Still the state pursued a contradictory strategy. On the one hand, it provided basic services to the people and changed the apartheid labour market. On the other hand, it relied heavily on conservative macro economic strategies.

The gains listed above have been offset by rising unemployment and the resulting fall in incomes for the poorer households. Slow growth and low investment levels. To the extent that the economy has created jobs at all. They have been low level insecure and very poorly paid jobs. That is the average income from work declined sharply between 1995 and 2001. Essentially, the first decade of freedom has meant the attainment of political power and not the total control by the state. Whilst the ANC is the leading party in government, the old style bureaucrats, the reactionary consultants and advisers even from the IMF and World Bank have to, an extent, usurped political formulation in critical areas. On his part, the democratic movement has weakened its capacity to formulate and develop policy whilst the tripartite alliance is largely marginalised from policy making. Fundamentally, economic power remains firmly in the hands of white capital centred in mining and finance.

Unless the economy is restructured significantly, it will be very hard to realise the goals of our struggle to build a non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous South Africa. We also noted the process of class formation taking place in our society. Whilst the ruling class remains largely white and centred in mining and finance, we begin to see the emergence of a small black bourgeoisie. The working class has also been restructured with the job losses and expansion in the informal sector. Capital strives for short term gains, and profits have resulted in new forms of insecure and poorly paid quality jobs.

The overall cost of our political strategy, therefore, in this context is to upset the workingclass hegemony of society to counteract the power of capital. To that extent we seek to combine the state and social power in a way that consistently tilted the balance of power in favour of workers and their working families. Freedom must bring tangible and real benefits to the poor. The complex changes facing the working class demand a long-term vision to build a strong trade union Movement and to assert the working class leadership. The march to our long-term vision demands patience, resilience and bold thinking, foresight and visionary leadership.

COSATU in its recent Congress held in September of last year adopted a medium to long-term vision which is called the 2015 plan. That plan defines priorities. It defines the benchmarks and core strategies for taking forward our initial democratic revolution. The two central pillars of our strategy is to build the working class power and ensure quality jobs. This twin task must be linked to reinforce one another. Engagements at the policy level must support organisational development. Our vision is shaped by benchmarks that I am going to mention.

Firstly, the systematic and rigorous implementation of the organisation development programme that will ensure recruitment of workers into trade unions and we aim to reach a membership of four million by 2009, or by the time when we go to our tenth Congress, from the current membership of 1.7 million. We are seeking to ensure that we build the trade union unity at least amongst the main centres which exist in the country.

Secondly, I want to defend our political gains and space. In this regard, we want to build a stronger ANC and a stronger SACB. We do not need weaker alliance partners. For each election, we will have a balance sheet based on our vision of what was achieved, what still needs to be done and what have been our setbacks during this period. On that basis, we will develop a framework for what should constitute an electoral platform between the parties that form part of the tripartite alliance. This analysis will then be used to contribute towards development of the election manifesto. We have, in the past, established election teams to mobilise workers and voters during the entire election campaign. We want to continue to do mobilise financial resources to implement our election plan, deepening the debates on all major challenges facing the working class and the workers, whilst at the same time playing a major role in delivering membership education and deepening the political consciousness of the working class on the ground. In that context, we are building a pool of cadres with deep organisational, political and ideological depth.

These programmes are designed to ensure that the working class provides a leadership of society within the ANC and key organs of the people’s power. We seek to strengthen the civil society especially the community-based organisations and ensure stronger involvement of our local structures in local government processes. We want to ensure a stronger role for the working class and black women in the public discourse. We want to ensure that clear measures are in place to reverse the rising unemployment, the poverty and the inequalities in the society. We want to ensure that the workers have a share in the national income. In this context, we want to increase the capacity of the affiliates to influence sectoral and workplace restructuring processes. We want to ensure that there is a stronger development and democratic state that can ensure growth and a development strategy and ensures redistribution on the larger scale. We want to play our role to see the resurgence of the African Trade Union Movement, because that is absolutely essential in relation to the dynamics that we continue to interact with at the national, continental and global level. We want to see a better co-ordinated and international policy that will contribute to the struggles to build a better world based on the equitable redistribution of resources and closing the growing gap between the rich and poor within and inbetween nations.

In this regard we want to build stronger international trade unions and improve the co-ordination and unity of social movements as well as improve the co-ordination between progressive political parties, progressive governments, the civil society and the trade union Movement which must be strengthened into one solid block that should demand a change in the global system. Success on this front can only be stronger if we succeed to strengthen the rule of the International Labour Organisation as well as transform the United Nations and its institutions, in particular the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. We hope that in this path we shall be walking side by side with the TUC in realising all of the dreams that we have. Thank you very much for having us in this Congress. (Applause)

The President: Thank you very much, Zwelinzima. We wish all the best to the leadership and membership of the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

Care of elders

The President: We now move back to Chapter 4 to page 40 of the report. I call Composite Motion 8 - Care of elders.

Tony Kearns (CWU) moved Composite Motion 8

(Insert Composite Motion 8 - Care of elders)

He said: I want to explain where the majority of the origins of this composite came from. It was not a matter of the CWU just deciding it would be a nice idea to put forward a motion on the care of elders. The CWU has 22,000 retired members amongst its number, and it has a Retired Members Conference. The majority of this proposition was drawn up by the Retired Members’ Advisory Committee of the CWU, placed before a retired members conference and carried, and then placed before the CWU general conference and carried there as union policy. So the issues which this proposition deal with comes from those to whom it matters - the retired members.

If you look at the composite motion it talks about campaigns, engaging retired members, direct contact with MPs and of active opposition to the closure of nursing and residential homes. More importantly, it backs the position of the National Pensioners Convention. So why have we put this demand before you and why do we have this need? It is because the treatment of the elderly in this society is nothing short of a disgrace. We kid ourselves if we think we live in a civilised society when we have the levels of pensioner poverty that we do. Two-and-a-half million pensioners need income support. The Government’s own figures show that 27% of pensioners in this country live below the poverty line. During the debate yesterday on pensions, we heard about remuneration for pensioners in society, but that is only half the issue. It is a vital starting point, but that is not all that matters. If we want to call ourselves a civilised society, it is an absolute disgrace that last year more than 70,000 elderly people had to sell their homes to provide long-term residential and personal care for themselves. Why is that?

The position in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales some improvements have been made in the funding of personal care in residential homes. But those people in England needing personal and residential care face means testing. They face bills running into thousands of pounds. Those elderly members who do not meet that criteria, their money runs out long before the care ends. So we have a situation where people have given their lives to producing the wealth of the fourth richest economy on this planet end their days with a loss of independence, a loss of dignity and a loss of the right of choice, and it happens at the most vulnerable time in their lives.

Means testing degrades and impoverishes the whole of our society. It is a disgrace and it has to end.

The question is how does it end? It ends with the carrying, in a fashion, of Composite Motion 8. It ends by our campaigning vigorously for the full implementation of the Sutherland Report, which was a Royal Commission in 1999, which had 24 recommendations, the majority of which have been carried into law by the government but not the issue of long-term residential and personal care for the elderly in society. That needs to be done. It encourages retired workers to become active participants in pensioner forums, the very forums that affect their daily lives. We have to press our local MPs to continue opposition to foundation hospitals, which will inevitably lead to the privatisation of the NHS.

The issue of care and nursing is part and parcel of the Government’s move away from the model of the NHS, providing public sector orientated health, in favour of the competitive and commercial market.

If you visit the UNISON website there is some excellent material about the campaign against foundation hospitals. I urge everyone to do that. We, therefore, ask Congress to oppose the closure of nursing and residential homes for the elderly through active campaigns. As I said earlier on, more importantly, we should be publicising the campaigns, rallies and activities organised by the National Pensioners’ Convention.

The National Pensioners’ Convention are fighting for the provision of all health care and treatment and aids to support day to day living to be provided without delay free of charge. Furthermore, pensioners on discharge from hospital should, where appropriate, be resettled in their own homes with the necessary medical and social care. A number of other points were raised at the National Pensioners’ Convention.

This Amendment is based on the true traditions of this Movement. It sets out demands; it identifies targets; it engages with those affected and supports by direct action those groups leading this fight.

We have heard a number of references in the past couple of days to the agreements made in Warwick and the future manifesto of the next Labour Government. However, there is another manifesto to this one, which is the Pensioners’ Manifesto. It only costs you a pound if you buy it in the stall just outside this hall. It gives a comprehensive way of dealing with the elderly in our society. As we run-up to the General Election, this document will grow in prominence. There are 11 million elderly in our society. We need to support the NPC in its campaigns and activities around this document, and we need to support long-term personal care for the elderly in our society before we can call ourselves a civilised society.

Anne Duffy (Community and District Nursing Association): CDNA supports all care of our elderly population. We support and applaud all those who have actually given us our National Health Service that we have come to know today. We continue to campaign against all issues around elder abuse, which we see on our day-to-day travels. We continue to campaign for proper health and social care for all our elders.

Community and district nurses are continually encountering elderly abuse when carrying out their everyday duties. We have identified the fact that our members feel unsupported, in particular around basic medication as a major concern. We support Composite 8.

Myfanwy Manning (UNISON) speaking in support of the composite motion said: I am speaking specifically to the issue of long-term care and deploring our Government’s cynical and contrived separation of personal and nursing care which leads to the means testing that the mover of the composite spoke about.

Colleagues, would any one of you present today say, as our Government do, that people who cannot get out of bed without help, cannot walk, cannot feed themselves and cannot go to the toilet without help are unworthy of State provided care? In the UK we are proud of the equity that underpins our Health Service. When Tony Blair spoke about first-class public services available to all, he conveniently forgot to add, 'except anybody needing long-term care'. They are excluded. This is institutionalised discrimination against elderly people. These are attacks on chronic illness in old age and it is an insult to the architects of the welfare state who bequeathed to us a huge programme of reform which gave us some social justice.

But what sort of social justice is it that forces old people, as you have just heard, to sell their homes, homes they have worked and saved for all of their lives? You really have to be there, colleagues, to know how heartbreaking this all is; to be ill, unable to cope, to need care and then to be stripped of your dignity, your savings and, finally, your home, to know that all hope has gone because even if you get better you have no home to return to. How dare our Government deprive our most vulnerable citizens of the most fundamental of all human rights - the right for their lives to be sustained without having to foot the bill! The Government have cross the rubicon on this issue, colleagues, and has created the mother of all health inequalities. UNISON will not stand by and see this happen, and that is why we have set up the Right to Care Campaign, which is a coalition of 17 organisations campaigning for all nursing and personal care to be free across the UK, just as it is in Scotland where, to their immense credit, the Scottish Parliament voted to provide funding for long-term care.

This is an issue which will touch the lives of everyone of you in this room. If it is not yourself it will be someone who you love. I want to leave you with one thought, and it is this. If our Movement is about anything, it is about caring for people who cannot fight for themselves, who are too vulnerable to fight their corner. That is why we need everybody in this room to join the Right to Care Campaign, to fight for these people and to fight so that we win justice for them.

The President: Composite 8 is supported by the General Council.

· Composite Motion 8 was CARRIED.

Address by Pedro Ross, General Secretary of the Cuban TUC

The President: Congress, this May Day I was in Havana, Cuba, taking part in the International Workers’ Day celebrations, which have become a symbol of Cuba during the past 40 years. While I was there I told them what our TUC Congress agreed last year, that we are opposed to US aggression against Cuba, including the economic blockade, and we salute the magnificent international aid that Cuba and the Cuban people give to so many other states, especially in Africa.

While I was in Cuba we were able to discuss a memorandum of understanding between the TUC and the CTC, the Cuban National Trade Union Centre, which was subsequently endorsed by both organisations. Of course, there are some issues about which we have different perspectives with the CTC, but we have extended the hand of friendship to the Cuban Trade Union Movement and I am extremely pleased that we have with us here the General Secretary of the Cuban TUC, Pedro Ross, who I call on to speak to Congress.

Pedro Ross (Interpreted) : Comrade Roger Lyons, President of the TUC, dear brothers and sisters. On behalf of the Cuban workers, I would like to express my gratitude because of the invitation expressed to me in order to attend this Conference, and to convey a brief message of greetings and solidarity.

We are responding to the growing expressions of friendship and solidarity shown by the British workers and trade unions towards my country, a country that for more than forty years has struggled in order to maintain its independence and sovereignty against the most powerful that has ever existed in the annals of history - the United States of America.

You are all aware of the cruel and inhuman economic blockade that armed aggression, terrorist acts and biological warfare has cost our people numerous material damage and thousands of human lives.

Dear brothers and sisters, you are also familiar with the fact that despite all of these aggressions and attempts to sway our people by the way of devastating hunger and diseases, we have been able to develop a social masterpiece unparallelled amongst under developed countries, such as our universal system of education, health and social security for all Cubans without exception, massive development of culture and sports, basic nourishment assured for all citizens and access to full employment that enables us today to exhibit unemployment figures that are below the level of 3%.

The Cuban people believe in solidarity amongst workers of the world. More than 40,000 young people from impoverished Third World countries have completed their university and technical careers in Cuba by way of scholarships completely free of charge. Ten thousand poor youth from Latin America and the Caribbean are being trained as medical doctors in our country and once graduated they will return to their communities of origin to serve. More than 60,000 Cuban doctors have rendered their services in poor nations without receiving a single penny in return. At the very moment that I am speaking, 20,000 medical doctors and dentists are providing solidarity in 64 countries around the world.

Still Cuba is under a threat. The new Bush programme for Cuba has reinforced measures of economic blockade as well as new aggressions against our sovereignty. Millions of dollars have been destined for the development of subversion and counter-revolution in Cuba. Several of these millions have been assigned to create independent trade unions under the scope and protection of the US Interests Section in Havana, acting as stooges and servants of a foreign power. Their aim is to discredit the image of Cuba in the world arena, to regard Cuba as a nation that represses human rights and, therefore, prepares the world opinion and necessary condition for launching direct armed aggression against my country.

Cubans were profoundly convinced of what solidarity really means. We highly appreciate in all its magnitude the solidarity demonstrated by you during these years and especially the active participation of the British trade union Movement towards the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, including trade unions such as UNISON and many other organisations in the UK. We also commend and appreciate the resolution of solidarity with Cuba presented by the Community & Youth Workers’ Union during last year’s TUC Congress which was unanimously endorsed by all.

We also value as well the courageous attitude of the TUC represented in the recently held ILO Conference in Geneva when understanding that acting against Cuba would only serve the interests of the Bush programme geared towards destroying the Cuban revolution and, thus, implant their domination upon the island. We are confident that the TUC and their affiliated unions will maintain their support to a just cause in order to prevent the giant from the north from having a pretext that would justify a military attack against Cuba.

Dear Comrades, the forthcoming British trade union conference of solidarity with Cuba to take place in November is no doubt another example of the increase in support of the British trade union Movement towards our cause. All the workers of the world are experiencing today difficult times. The economic policies implemented during the past 20 years have destroyed many of the historic achievements conquered by the workers during hundreds of years of hard struggle. Even in the most developed of countries there is sky-rocketing levels of unemployment, job uncertainty and large segments of marginalised people.

In the southern countries, unemployment, hunger and diseases, especially HIV AIDS, threaten to destroy entire nations. New wars of rapacity and conquest are killing thousands of men and women as well as inoffensive children. Yesterday, I recalled the disappearance of the opprobrious regime of apartheid in our system in South Africa. I remember that 30 years ago we were fighting together with our South African brothers in Angola. I was there for four years. The sacrifices in sweat, blood and human lives were not in vain. Colonialism, imperialism and modern slavery were defeated. Nelson Mandela, an icon of freedom and liberty, has said that apartheid would never have been defeated if not for the decisive contribution made by the Cuban people.

Brothers and sisters, Hurricane Ivan, which fortunately did not hit our country, has already gone away, but the hurricane which has lasted for more than 45 years, the infamous and criminal blockade imposed by the United States of America against my country, that permanently harms our elderly, our women, children and nation as a whole is still in place. This hurricane has not bent the will of the Cuban people. We shall continue to endure with the support of all of you and we are sure that this hurricane will also disappear as apartheid did. All the workers of the world are experiencing today the need for solidarity amongst the workers for the purpose of building a world of peace and social justice for all.

Let us struggle for a better world that, without any doubt, is completely possible. Victory forever. Thank you. (Applause amidst a standing ovation)

The President: Thank you very much, Pedro. I can give an assurance that the General Council of the TUC will continue the dialogue based on the Memorandum of Understanding in building strong fraternal and sororal relations between our two centres.

Equal Rights

The President: Delegates, we now return to Chapter 3 on Equal Rights. We are on page 24. I call Motion 12. The General Council supports the motion. It is moved on behalf of the TUC Women’s Conference and seconded by PCS.

Equality/human rights commission

Mary Davis (NATFHE, The University & College Lecturers’ Union) moved Motion 12.

(Insert Motion 12 - Equality/human rights commission)

She said: This Government are embarking in the biggest change in our equality framework seen in 30 years. They call this a leap forward in the battle against discrimination. What they are proposing to do is to merge the three Equality Commissions together with the new commissions, the so-called 'orphan strands', and add human rights to all of this but with no new legislative framework. I wish there was a Minister on the platform. They are never there when you want them. What we want to tell them is that this is at best a leap in the dark but at worse a tremendous leap back, and we must resist it. What is wrong?

What we have now is a mess, but not because the existing commissions are not any good but because the law is a mess. The current law has to be sorted out. It is piecemeal, complex and expensive to access. A basic trade union principle must always be that there must be no worsening of what we have already got. I can tell you, sisters and brothers, this is a major worsening. As far as women are concerned we do not want to be a strand in some big diversity melting pot where an unaccountable board can establish hierarchies of oppression in a flavour of the month approach to equality. Women are 50% of the population and of the workforce. We want specific and specialised advice and action backed by stronger laws. I know that I am not speaking only on behalf of the Women’s Committee or women in general, because I know that every single equality group is saying exactly the same thing. This Government must listen.

We have all had to submit our response to the White Paper called 'Fairness for All - A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights'. The TUC response is that the White Paper will not advance the cause of equality and social justice, and it will not. There is far too much emphasis in this White Paper on the business case. We have to feel terribly sorry for business people who do not understand our complex laws and, as a result, this new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will spend almost all of its time on advising them.

What about the enforcement role? That is downplayed amazingly. We need a separate commission for human rights, anyway, but the point about this proposal is that it absolutely does nothing to resolve the crisis for those suffering discrimination at work. The composition of the Board itself is laughable. There are no guarantees for trade unionists with trade union experience serving on that Board or also with people serving on the equality groups. I think that PCS, which is seconding this motion, will say something about staffing.

I have to let you into this little secret. Jackie Smith, who is the Deputy Minister for Women & Equality, told us at the Women’s Conference, and I quote - I am sure this is absolutely accurate - 'The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will need to be realistic about what it can achieve with finite resources given its widened remit over six strands'. That really, really encourages us. This encourages us that this great leap forward is going to be something dramatically different in that it is going to be dramatically worse. There are many other things wrong in the composition of this commission. We need not to incorporate human rights. Human rights are important, but let us have a separate commission for them.

What we want is a commission with teeth, with separate sections for each equality strand, properly serviced and functioned. What we want is an equality law with teeth, covering public, private and voluntary sectors. What we want above all is for this commission to have strong enforcement powers and the ability to pursue claims which test the law. That is not what this commission is offering. That is why it is a great leap backwards.

We should end the attempt to put our equality agenda into the comfort zones of white male middle class England. This might suit the Government’s electoral strategy but it does not suit our equality agenda. We want more and we deserve more. Every single equality group says the same. This Conference must give that message loud and clear. Apparently, no one at the moment is listening, but I am sure that Brendan you will convey this message very strongly. This matter must be taken up and fought for within your trade union Movement. Otherwise we are going backwards rather than forwards.

Sue Bond (PCS) in seconding the motion said: I am pleased and proud to second this motion because PCS believes that a single body as proposed is a recipe for failure for all the reasons that Mary has outlined. PCS has a particular interest in these proposals because we represent staff in the three existing equality commissions. Will you be surprised to hear that, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge on Monday to consult with stakeholders and work with unions to help fashion change, that PCS has been denied a place on the interim steering group for this body? Clearly, the main recognised trade union that recognises the workers who have been delivering equality for more than two decades is the wrong kind of stakeholder.

Our particular concern is the resourcing of this body, because the brutal efficiency savings demanded in Gordon Brown’s Budget announcement will apply to the equality commissions, too. Already the Commission for Racial Equality is facing a 13% cut, redundancies and the closure of their office in Leeds. Furthermore, ACAS, the only Government body that advises on sexual orientation, religion and belief, faces a 15% cut. That is one reality of Gordon Brown’s cuts.

The Government are silent on the funding for this new body. Do they see it as a cost-cutting exercise. We not only have to fight for strong enforcement tools to tackle discrimination. We must also fight for the staff and the resources to use them, ring-fenced for each area of discrimination. You cannot achieve equality on the cheap. Investigations and enforcement costs money and you cannot put a price tag on equal rights. Without proper resources, this champion of diversity, as Patrician Hewitt calls it, will come into existence with one hand tied behind its back. Without enough staff the enforcement tools it is given to crack down on discrimination will remain gift wrapped on the shelf unused. It will be a watchdog without teeth, a whisper not a clarion call for equal rights under the law and that doorway to justice for so many of the oppressed, unequal and the vulnerable will stay closed. The Government’s bright shiny promise of a fairer, more inclusive Britain will fall broken in bits to the floor with the others. Do not let that happen. Please support this motion.

Stewart Brown (FBU): My union is speaking in support of Motion 12, submitted from the TUC Women’s Conference.

Is it the intention of this Government to continue to introduce legislation that drives us towards equality across the whole of society when, maybe, they think or believe that is what they are doing, but quite clearly from a trade union point of view it is being done incorrectly, and they seem to be getting things done back to front. How else do you explain the bringing together of the three existing commissions and the tag on of human rights? Coupled with new legislation, the proposals before us are absolutely mad, to say the least. So what are the proposals are why are we so concerned about the approach taken?

The legislation introduced last year was the Equality, Employment, Sexual Orientation Regulations, which gave gay men and lesbians protection in the workplace at long last, but, and this is a very big 'but', along with legislation introduced for age and religion, the legislation does not extend to goods and services. Therefore, it is not equal.

The situation is quite simple. We do not have equality now, we have never had it and now we get the chance to make things equal it is not even close. We now have proposals after lengthy consultation, which the Government, obviously, never paid too much attention to have a new single equality commission. That is great news and welcome news, but the catch is that we have equal rights attached. This development is not welcomed, and we foresee many problems with the idea, one of which is the budget for the new Commission, which no doubt will be swallowed up with cases concerning human rights. Therefore, it will dilute the cash required for the six other strands.

We in the Fire Brigades’ Union believe that for the Commission to work properly we need to be answering some important and essential points. There is a need to move towards harmonisation and simplification of legislation. As the way it stands today, some strands are more powerful than others, especially in relation to discrimination regarding goods and services.

The new six strands represent particularly discriminated groups which must work together but also need to be distinctly different to enable them to work with their respective groups and individual problems. The trade union Movement demands representation amongst the Commissioners to enable us to feed our knowledge into the Commission and to allow us direct access to our members’ needs.

Conference, we are due to go back to our unions and get on the lobby trial to see if we can influence the direction of this equality legislation. The Government have not listened. It is too important an issue that affects the majority of us as we get older. Remember, age discrimination will affect us all. Please do not give up on the fight that we have in front of us. The single Equality Commission needs to be fully supported, fully funded, fully staffed and fully understood before the removal of the current provisions. This needs not be a quick fix. This needs to be right.

Lesley Mansell (Amicus) : Congress, the White Paper is substantial. It contains 90 pages but the content is flimsy. The Government argues that important benefits are a cost-cutting approach, with single access points, it will tackle discrimination on multiple grounds and an improvement of delivery to public services. All this will come from a single commission. It is all very laudable. The Amicus response shows a number of flaws. We need a level playingfield. The duty to promote is a positive move, but all organisations should be vicariously liable in all strands of equality, not just on race.

This duty is the exception to current legislation, which itself is complex, piecemeal, expensive and mainly harmless. We have an Alice Through the Looking Glass reality on equal pay, which took 34 years of running largely to stay in the same place, yet to discriminate on pay is illegal.

Without a single Act we set a foundation for hierarchical oppression where any gains could be subsumed as lawyers argued away from diversity and towards large sums of compensation. The potential for the weaker regulations is to keep the issue of sexuality, religion and belief invisible. The forces of homophobia are too entrenched to be dealt with in the way suggested, i.e., by producing a few leaflets.

The multiple oppression argument is positive. The White Paper fails to recognise that equalities work is about changes in management. It would be a real agenda for change if we had a single Diversity Act which encompasses class action. That would make a difference.

As to the Government’s argument against a single Commission - I must quote the argument - it would be 'a failure to benefit from the economies and scales and synergies arising from a single organisation, including the promotion of good practice on equality and diversity to employers and service providers'. So it would not be realised. I think this means a cost-cutting exercise. The Government cannot afford to stop discrimination, like it cannot afford jobs for civil servants. It cannot afford to save manufacturing industry. It cannot afford a National Health Service, but it can afford a war in Iraq.

I urge you to put your collective weight behind the TUC, campaigning to bring in effective legislation to eradicate discrimination to mainstream equality and diversity for resources and funding to develop a positive mechanism to drive this matter through.

· The Motion was CARRIED.

* Motion 12 was CARRIED.

Parents, carers and work/life balance

John Hannett (USDAY) moved Composite Motion 4.

(Insert Composite Motion 4 ‑ Parents, carers and work/life balance)

He said: I welcome the opportunity to move this composite; a composite that deals with perhaps one of the most important issues confronting millions of working people today, and not just them, but the success of British business and the future of the economy as a whole. I am talking about parents and carers and their working hours.

The facts speak for themselves. Across the UK, there are more than 12 million parents of dependent children. Parents accounted for almost 40 per cent of the entire workforce. There are also at least seven million carers. It is a fact that at some point in our lives we each spend time caring for children or for parents or for relatives or friends. That is the reality. In truth, most of us will probably need someone to care for us in turn.

This agenda, the work/life balance, the family‑friendly agenda, is vital for working people and their families. There is no question that the Government have already made some real progress by increasing maternity pay and leave, introducing paternity leave, adoption leave and pay and implementing the right to request flexible working.

However, we also need to press the Government to build on those strong foundations if our members are really goin