TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

The President: Will delegates please take their seats and would Congress come to order? Thank you, colleagues. I once again thank Mundo Afrika who have been playing for us this afternoon. Thank you. (Applause) I do have a special request of the media. I know you are not here this afternoon to take photographs of myself, I understand that completely, but if once you have finished photographing a particular person who is sat not too far from my left-hand side could you refrain from bobbing up and down because the delegates are here to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say. (Applause) And when you are chatting amongst yourselves down there it is being heard on stage. Thanks very much. I know that you will try and refrain from getting in front of people.

Congress, as you can see we have now been joined by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, and the Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In a moment I will invite Gordon to address Congress after which he will be taking questions with Yvette. First, however, we come to that part of our agenda where we recognise the immense contribution made by the lay activists in our unions, they are the bedrock of our movement. As I am sure you know the lay representatives awards are our appreciation of their work. There are no individual winners as such but each year we do choose a number of outstanding representatives to accept the awards on behalf of all their fellow reps. In a moment we will meet this year's representatives. The Prime Minister will present the awards to each of our reps but first we will see a short film which tells you something about their achievements. (Short video shown to Congress)

Lay Rep Awards

The President: Congress it is now time to meet our award winners.

Organising Rep Award

Michael Hunt is a GMB member who set up a union branch at the NPower call centre in Thornby, Stockton-on-Tees. His tremendous recruitment efforts have seen membership leap from 50 to 1,000 in just 18 months. (Presentation amid applause)

Women's Gold Badge

Yvonne Washbourne is a PCS member who works for Jobcentre Plus. Yvonne has worked tirelessly for her union over many years, not just in the workplace but also in the Midlands TUC and its LGBT Committee. She is also a health and safety rep and a diversity champion in her workplace. (Presentation amid applause)

Health and Safety Rep Award

Geoff Smith teaches at Malbank School and Sixth Form College in Nantwich, Cheshire. He is the school's safety rep and also the rep for his union, the NASUWT in the region. Geoff has raised the profile of safety issues within the school producing a DVD and other materials for use in the classroom. He has established a biennial safety conference in partnership with UNISON, the NUT, and Cheshire County Council. (Presentation amid applause)

Learning Rep Award

Nicola Njie is a UNISON learning rep and works in an e.on call centre in Leicester. Nicola is passionate about members being able to progress through their careers and she was pivotal in negotiating a learning agreement with e.on. Nicola has been organising union learning events across the East Midlands. Over the last 12 months Nicola has recruited more than 500 members for UNISON.(Presentation amid applause)

Congress Award for Youth

Helen Flannagan is a PCS member and works for Job Centre Plus in Wigan. Helen has spent a great deal of time and energy successfully encouraging young people to get involved in union work. Helen set up a hardship fund during the PCS pay dispute of 2007. She held a young members event which helped recruit over 60 new young members to the union.(Presentation amid applause)

The President: Congress, that completes the Lay Rep Awards.

Address by Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP, Prime Minister

The President: Congress, it is now my great pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to address Congress. Gordon, we know you value the contribution and the work of the trade unions and the TUC. This is the fifth occasion on which you have addressed Congress, the first three times as Chancellor and then two years ago as Prime Minister.

The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP: Thank you very much. Let me first of all thank your General Secretary, Brendan Barber, for all he does; let me thank Sheila for the wonderful chairmanship of this meeting, and if I ever need someone to protect me from the press in the future I will call on you. Also let me thank all members of the General Council, and all delegates who are here today. I also want to congratulate all the award winners for their service to our movement. Helen, Nicola, Michael, Geoff, and Yvonne, all of them are heroes and I am proud to stand with them to thank them today.

In this great Liverpool conference centre surrounded by massive new cultural and economic developments I want to thank the entire people of Liverpool who by working together all played their part in what is a massive regeneration of their city. Once Liverpool was laid low by some of the worst ever unemployment in Europe. Now, it is a city, even in difficult times, being regenerated because of the commitment, the collective action, and the community spirit of all Liverpudlians, and it could not have happened without all the people of Liverpool working together.

This is the 40th anniversary of a men going to the moon and when John F. Kennedy, the then President of the United States visited the NASA Space Centre to talk to people who were the workers there. He asked everybody what they did as he went round. One said, 'I am a technician.' Another said, 'I am a research scientist.' Another said, 'I am an engineer.' Then he met a cleaner and asked what she was doing and she said, 'Sir, I am helping putting a man on the moon.' It was not just the astronaut or the President who took the world to the moon, it was all the workers there together.

When I went to Vauxhall today I heard everybody say they were working together to make the best car they had ever made, the new Astra. When I visited schools in the last few days I have met classroom assistants and cleaners, and janitors, and teachers, who tell me they are working to make their schools the best in the land. When I visited a hospital a few days ago they told me that their aim was to give the best healthcare in the world.

So it is with our country; what we do, what we achieve, we will achieve by working together. For me progress is more than one person advancing, it is all of us advancing together. Even in the most difficult of times Britain will work best when we all work together.

It is hard to believe that we meet in Liverpool today in his home city without the presence of our great friend, a giant of our labour movement, Jack Jones. Whenever there was an injustice that had to be fought, Jack was there. When Spain cried out in the 1930s Jack was there. When low pay demeaned people's dignity, Jack was there. When pensioners demanded greater security Jack was there. And let us pledge in honour of his achievement that we will always pursue dignity and security for all elderly people in retirement. (Applause) When discrimination and racism threatened people, Jack was also always there. Let one of our memorials to him be that we will fight to defeat all racist parties and all racist politics. (Applause)

It was because Jack Jones's ideals were forged in the harsh and bitter experience of the 1930s that Jack was always there for people who needed him. The 1930s were, as Jack saw, a time when recession became depression because of the inaction of governments and the failure of the world to come together. If I had been addressing you a few years ago that would have been a matter I could have talked about of historical interest, a reflection of the crisis of a distant age. Today these lessons, that when people need help you do not walk away, are profoundly relevant because the fears of depression have been precisely the worries that workers and homeowners, and savers and businesses, have faced in the last 12 months. As in the 1920s and the 1930s banks that should have been stewards of people's money became speculators with people's money, but unlike the 1930s, having learned the lessons Jack learned we have not stood aside and left people on their own. The lesson from the 1930s is that when banks collapse and markets fail governments cannot stand aside. They must ensure that the savings of people, their mortgages, their credit, are all protected, and that they must intervene to save jobs.

Many of you will remember it was exactly a year ago last year that a financial crisis was rolling across the Atlantic towards us, a crisis so great that if we did not act there was every possibility of a great new depression. A year ago the 160-year history of Lehman Brothers Bank came to an end. It was a bank that had survived the Great Depression and it had survived two world wars but it could not survive this global storm, and 25,000 people lost their jobs overnight. But that was only the beginning. Lehmans was so entangled with the rest of the financial system that we saw what was the equivalent of a power cut right across the banking system of the world, and we saw trust collapsing.

It was clear that we were facing a crisis of such speed and such scope that left unchecked there was every chance that the whole system would freeze up with people on high streets across the country unable to get the money they needed from the hole in the wall, families' life savings being swallowed up, and companies unable to process their payrolls. The reports, I have to tell you, that I was looking at were as stark as they were serious: we were facing a situation that could have been worse than 1929.

I knew then it was going to have to be us, the government, that were going to have to step in directly and ensure that whatever happened to the banks we did not put at risk the savings of the British people, the mortgages households depended upon, the credit that businesses need to maintain jobs, and try to save thousands of jobs themselves. It was here in Britain that we took the first steps to recovery.

We had to make a choice, whether to trust the banks when they said they simply had a cash flow problem, or whether there were structural failures that had to be addressed. Then we had another big choice, to leave the markets to sort it out or to intervene with radical and unprecedented action, and we made our choice by taking majority shares in two of the biggest banks in the world, restructuring the banking system to prevent savers losing out and putting in place the biggest insurance policy that Britain has ever had. Fortunately, this is what other countries also started to do.

Then we had another big choice, did we let the recession run its course, as happened in the recession of the 1980s and 1990s, or to intervene to support the economy with fiscal action? Our Conservative opponents said not to intervene, just to let the recession run its course but we made the decision to offer financial support to businesses and to help homeowners and the unemployed.

I will tell you why we did so, because for me every redundancy is a personal tragedy; every mortgage repossession is a hope destroyed; every business collapse is someone's dream in ruins, and where we can act we will never walk by on the other side. (Applause)

As a result of taking action I can tell you that more than 200,000 businesses employing hundreds of thousands of your members have been able to keep people in work. That was not the choice of our opponents. It was our choice and I believe it is the choice of the British people. Twenty-two million people have benefited from tax and other changes that have boosted their real income at a critical time; not the choice of our opponents, it was our choice and I believe it is the choice of the British people. Up to 500,000 jobs which would not have been saved without the action that we have taken have been saved. That was not the choice of our opponents, it was our choice and I believe the choice of the British people.

By changing the way that the courts are dealing with repossessions and by guaranteeing help to homeowners in difficulty, we have helped 300,000 families with advice with their mortgages and helped thousands to stay in the homes they have worked so hard for and were in fear of losing. At no time in our history have we, the British people, come together to do so much to support our homeowners, our businesses, our unemployed, our young people, and this did not happen by default, it happened because of our decisions.

Then we had a choice about international cooperation with Europe and the rest of the world. We had a choice to let loose global forces, as happened in the 1930s, let them wash all over us, or unlike the 1930s to work out a strategy together to deal with the problems around the world. We had a choice, we could have gone our own way, pursued national strategies in isolation, resisted European Union and G20 cooperation -- these were the great mistakes of the 1930s -- or to work intensively to ensure that policies are coordinated and that the results of what we do are magnified and multiplied by what we all do together. So, to work with other countries, to have a coordinated attack on the recession, to have joint reductions in interest rates and the fiscal stimulus together were our choices, not the choices of our opponents, the choices we made and I believe these are the choices of the British people.

In each of these decisions the Government would have made the wrong choices if we had followed the advice of our opponents and critics. We know that the better path which we have taken, and the one our opponents urged that we should not do, could be worth up to $5 trillion of investment in economies round the world, it could make the difference in output and growth of four per cent, and millions are in work who would otherwise have lost their jobs. We faced the Conservative position down, we have been shown to do the right thing by British families and the British people, and we have worked better because we are working together.

I tell you, we still have other big choices to make where we also need to work together. The recovery is not automatic. The road to recovery is still fragile. It has been hard won by making the right choices and could be quickly wrecked by making the wrong choices. People's livelihoods and savings are still hanging in the balance, and so today I want to say to the British people, do not allow anyone to put the recovery at risk. There is a fundamental difference between the parties as to how to come through this recession and avoid it being deeper, longer, and more damaging. We still have these big choices to make. The choice is whether we continue to act to help families and businesses or whether we listen to the Conservatives and withdraw support from families and businesses today, cut public services now, and refuse to invest in Britain's future.

So, again, the country has a decision to make about whether we continue the support that I believe is necessary for this recovery or we cut away the support now. It is a choice that says something about what we believe, not as political parties only but as people and as communities.

If I were to take the advice of our Conservative opponents who are putting forward this advice even today, I would have to stop the school leavers guarantee that is giving 55,000 young people a chance of further education or work experience. To tell school leavers, after their chances have been destroyed by the failures of the banks, 'I am sorry, there is nothing we can do,' and to abandon them to unemployment is to retreat into the Conservative mistakes of the 1980s which led to a generation scarred for ever. (Applause) To do so, as you know, would be callous and cold-hearted, and it is the wrong choice for young people and it is the wrong choice for Britain.

If I were to take the advice of our Conservative opponents we would today be withdrawing the support now available to thousands of homeowners, and do nothing to prevent repossessions rising to the rates of the 1990s. But to tell a new generation of homeowners who have saved up to buy their first home, and now face difficulties because of the recession, 'We are going to do nothing for you now the times are toughest,' is unfair, it is irresponsible, it is the wrong choice for homeowners, and it would be the wrong choice for Britain. (Applause) To tell the small business owner, 'Wait and see if the strongest will survive, and there is nothing government can do to help,' is also the wrong choice for business and it is the wrong choice of Britain.

This is not the moment to cut apprenticeships. This is the time for government to support them. We will provide 21,000 additional apprenticeships in the public sector this year. This is not the moment to withdraw public support for house-building but to step it up, and I can tell you that we have put aside £1.5bn to build 20,000 more affordable homes during the next two years, including for the first time in many years new, modern, council houses. (Applause)

This is not the moment to abandon the help that has kept over 200,000 businesses afloat. This is the time to continue it. So I can say that businesses who need deferral of payments will continue to receive them during the coming few months. We do this because it is right to help people but it is also right for the economy. The more jobs and homes we lose now, the higher unemployment rises, the lower growth is as a result, and the more difficult it will be to secure our recovery, bring our debt down, and keep people in their jobs and homes. Growth is the best antidote to debt.

I say to you today, do not let anyone derail the recovery and threaten thousands of jobs by calling on councils to stop building the houses our people need. I say to workers and businesses across the country, do not risk the recovery by abandoning what we know can work, a modern industrial policy, a laser focus on unemployment, and worldwide support for coordinated action.

Just this morning I met the head of the International Labour Organisation to discuss the best way of protecting jobs. In two days' time I will be working for British jobs at the European Union summit, stressing the need to implement the stimulus packages all over Europe and not stop them prematurely. Next week I will go to the G20 in Pittsburgh and I will put the case for a new global compact for growth, jobs, and stability for now and for the future.

In April, when the G20 met in London, we obtained an agreement about what we had to do together to move the economy forward. Now we need agreement about what we can do together to maintain this road out of recession and sustain growth over many years. I will be asking all countries to contribute to world growth to the benefit of jobs in all our countries. I will demand that banks beyond Britain do what we are trying to do to isolate banks' impaired assets and show that they have to be removed. I will be demanding internationally that we look at setting limits on city bonuses. I will be standing up for what you believe, that there should be no escape from paying your fair share, and that is why I will argue we should implement a blacklist on uncooperative tax havens round the world. (Applause)

So, be clear, my priorities for the coming weeks and months will be ensuring that jobs are retained, the recovery moves forward, new jobs are created, and that we offer people our vision of a fairer, more responsible, more democratic, and of course a greener Britain. I want an industrial policy to signal the creation of 1.5 million new jobs for the future; jobs in green industries, making the low-carbon cars that Britain is leading Europe in developing, jobs in the new digital services and, let us be clear, jobs in advanced manufacturing which will be central to the long-term future of this country. (Applause)

I believe that the fight for jobs and fairness must include agency workers and so I am saying to you today that when Parliament returns our new legislative programme will include equal treatment for agency workers and that in the coming few months the law will, for the first time be on the statute book, in the United Kingdom. (Applause)

When the recovery comes, I want workers on low and modest incomes to benefit from rising prosperity. I want to see their skills rewarded with decent pay. I want them to have more chances to get on at work and get on in life. When people gain new skills, employers should make sure they use them so that the company can benefit, and workers can go up the pay ladder. I can tell you we will continue to raise the minimum wage every year. (Applause)

Because we know also the pressures many people face as they balance the demands of work with the needs of family life, we know that since 1997 we have increased paid maternity leave from 18 weeks to nine months and we retain our ambition to extend it further. This is not only good for mothers but helps children get the best start in life. But fathers have responsibilities too. No Tory government has ever given a single day of paternity leave. This Labour Government gave men the right to two weeks paternity leave and I can say now from April 2011 we will give fathers the right to take up to three months additional paid paternity leave during the second six months of a child's life, if the mother has decided to return to work. We believe in giving couples more freedom, dads more rights, and children more time with the two people that they love most of all. (Applause)

I want to talk to you today also about the future of our public services. People need to know in these difficult times that the NHS, our schools, our vital frontline public services, will not only be there for them but day by day, week by week, we will always improve the quality of services that we offer. Take the National Health Service, let us remember that here in Britain as a result of the decisions of a Labour Government there are not millions of people uninsured as there are in other countries. Here in Britain you do not have to check your wallet before they check your pulse. Here in Britain health is a universal right and delivered on the basis of your need and not your ability to pay. (Applause)

We are now transforming the Health Service for a new generation. Thanks to the work that you do we are offering personal guarantees to patients about waiting times, that from the time they go to the doctor to the time they have their operation that they will wait no more than 18 weeks. While the Conservatives have pledged to abandon these guarantees, we are trying every day to ensure that the vast majority of patients get treatment even earlier and that we will continue to do. We have given guarantees to everyone worried about cancer that they will not wait and worry because of delays in the Health Service. While the Tories want to deny the right we are creating of no more than a two-week wait to cancer patients to see their consultant, every year we will make it easier and quicker for cancer patients to be treated with speed, and this we will continue to do. We have given guarantees about GP services, that there will be weekend and evening opening to suit you the patient to go at the time that is convenient for you. While the Conservatives want to leave GPs to do exactly what they want, we will ensure that this new right to evening opening and to weekends is extended to even more communities in this country.

We will match those guarantees. I am grateful to all the staff of the Health Service for their work in its delivery. We will match those guarantees with the guarantee that every young person will also have the right to education not to 16 as before but to age 18. Previously, the only way to get personal tuition for children who could not read or write was to pay. Now we are extending the right of young people with learning needs as well as those with talents to get the personal attention in school that they need, not through private tuition but through free individual tuition in our schools and in our communities.

We will give a guarantee that every year each and every neighbourhood will have more extensive neighbourhood policing on the beat that communities need to feel safe and secure.

We will do all these things, and more, because we believe that decent education, health and services should be available not just to some who can pay but to all our people as a basic right. We can only make these improvements, as you know, within a framework of sustainable finances and to pay for these improvements and to achieve our budget deficit reduction plan to cut our deficit in half over the next four years, we have to take action. Like other countries, Germany and the United States of America, we will have debt levels around 80 per cent of our national income and as the recovery happens we will plan to bring that debt down. That is why to continue to fund our public services and to cut the deficit we have announced that we will raise National Insurance from April 2011 by 0.5 per cent. That is why at the same time we will remove unfair tax relief on higher income earners and that is why we will also raise the top rate of tax to 50 pence for those on the very highest incomes. (Applause).

I am here because I must tell you the tough truth about the hard choices that we have to make. My motivation is always to do the right thing by the British people, investing more during the recession and others are now following our lead. We have made the right choice to support people where banks have failed to do so. We are doing the right thing now to make sure that for the future as we move into a full recovery we will invest and grow within public finances that are sustainable. We will be cutting costs where we can, ensuring efficiency where it is needed, agreeing realistic public sector pay settlements throughout, selling off unproductive assets we do not need to pay for the services we do need.

Labour will cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets, and when our plans are published in the coming months people will see that Labour will not support cuts in the vital frontline services upon which people depend. (Applause) The choice is between Labour, which will not put the recovery at risk, who will protect and improve our public services on the front line first, and make the right choices for low and middle-income families in the country, as against a Conservative Party that would reduce public services now at the very time they are needed most, make across-the-board public spending cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest few, and make different choices about public services because they have different values. These would be the wrong choices at the wrong time for the wrong reasons because they have the wrong priorities for Britain.

We will at all times be guided by our values of fairness and responsibility. We will not cut public services to pay for huge cuts in Inheritance Tax for the richest few estates in this country. In contrast, we believe there must be a fair distribution of the risks and rewards. Today I can tell you that we will be saving up to £500m over the next three years by reforming Whitehall early exit scheme payouts for early retirement. It is a scheme that offers as much as six times annual pay and these high costs prevent us giving other people jobs. This is not the best way to spend public money, and I am calling on other public authorities to make similar reviews of these terms.

I know what some people will ask. With all these constraints in the world economy, with all these pressures that arise from the global recession, with all these difficulties that we have to confront as a government and as a people as a result of what has been happening round the world, can we still ensure that year by year we are advancing towards a fairer and more responsible society?

I remind you that when we came in, in 1997, we faced huge constraints to get the debt down but we chose the right priorities. We immediately created a minimum wage, we created SureStart for children, we improved schools immediately, we ended the neglect of the NHS, we created the New Deal that has helped two million people, and we did it because we chose the right priorities, each of us working towards realising the talents of all. I believe that the first thing we have to ensure on the road to that fairer society is to ensure a generation of young people have the best chance of jobs.

Remember in the 1980s how we marched for jobs, we rallied for jobs and we petitioned for jobs, but because we were not in power we could not create jobs without a government committed to full employment. So I ask the people who remember these days to campaign with us as we say we will not allow a new generation of young people to become a lost generation. We will not let this happen: never, never, again. Never again should the potential of young people be lost before their adult lives begin. Never again should their talent be wasted. So for the first time we will legislate to put the apprenticeship programme on a statutory basis and ensure that an apprentice place is available for every suitably qualified young person and thanks to Labour the minimum apprentice wage will also rise. (Applause)

I can also announce today that up to 7,000 jobs will be created as a result of our Future Jobs programme. It is the next stage as we move forward to create for young people 100,000 jobs. In total, we will spend £5bn on creating jobs.

Now, friends, as I conclude let me pay tribute also to our armed forces who have risked their lives this summer, as they do every year, to ensure global security. Let us remember their heroism is unsurpassed and our gratitude to them is boundless. (Applause)

I want to say another thing because I know that so many of your members were the backbone of the Make Poverty History movement. Many are anxious about the recession and what it means for global solidarity and global justice. So, let me reassure you today. There are those who would use the financial crisis as an excuse to break their promises to the world's poorest. We will not. We will keep our promises. Let us remember that our beliefs, our conviction and our determination to fight for them have resulted in an astonishing path-breaking and life-changing set of advances: 500 million children are being vaccinated against disease, 40 million children around the world are now in education where they were not, and millions of people are being treated for Aids and are living as a result of new vaccines and medicines. There are millions more with free healthcare.

Friends, these achievements teach us to believe that nothing is impossible. We should never believe a blind fate governs us all. We should never believe that justice is beyond our reach, and this is a moment that calls for the progressive policies that we fight and believe in. Only a government that believes there can be such a thing as market failure can meet the challenges of this new global age. Only a government that believes the economy exists to serve the people and not people to serve the economy can meet the requirements of today. Only a government that understands climate change needs collective solutions can meet our needs. Only progressive policies can answer the huge challenges we face.

So let us have confidence. Let us have confidence that our values of fairness and responsibility are indeed the values of the British people. Let us have confidence that we can reflect these values in our policies for building Britain's future and let us have confidence that by working together and implementing the values we believe in we can together lead our country forward. Thank you very much. (Applause)

The President: Gordon, we know and realise that we are living through very difficult economic times but we all recognise the lead that you have given in addressing the global financial crisis. Thank you very much, Gordon, for those inspiring but also challenging words. Congress, Brendan will now facilitate a question and answer session.

Brendan Barber: Congress, it is good that Gordon and Yvette have the opportunity to answer questions from colleagues. In the normal way we asked unions to indicate in advance so we can try and organise the questions around some of the key issues that I know are of concern to unions. The first group of questions relates to public services and Eleanor Smith from UNISON, then Christine Blower from the NUT, Malcolm Sage from the GMB, and Janice Godrich, PCS, each with a different aspect of issues relating to public services, now have the opportunity to put a question. Eleanor, perhaps we will begin with you, please?

Eleanor Smith (UNISON): During the past decade our members have been working hard to turn the welcomed new investment in the new NHS schools into falling waiting lists and raising people's achievements but these achievements have been put at risk by the financial crisis and result in pressure for spending cuts. It was heartening to hear you say, though, that you will continue to invest in the recession. However, do you agree that a fairer way to rebuild our public finance would be to raise additional taxation from those who are best able to pay by, for example, a tax on bonuses over £10,000, which 73per cent of the voters support or, as suggested by Aidan Turner of the Financial Services Authority, levying a transaction tax on the financial sector.

Brendan Barber: Thank you very much, Eleanor. NUT, Christine Blower, on a different aspect of public services.

Christine Blower (National Union of Teachers): Thank you very much, Brendan. Prime Minister, the National Union of Teachers welcomes the commitment from the Government to increase funding per pupil in state schools to that in the independent sector. Can you confirm today that this remains an absolutely firm commitment given the importance of education at all levels to ensure that the knowledge and skills are available to keep the UK well positioned when we begin to emerge from the recession?

Brendan Barber: Christine, thanks: Malcolm from the GMB.

Malcolm Sage (GMB): Prime Minister, you have called on the trade unions to fight for our public services like never before but we need a categorical assurance that you will not follow David Cameron's limbo routine of continually lowering the bar on public services. Even the Tories recognise the social, health and educational benefits of universal free school meals for under-11s, but they will not commit to funding them. So will you make a manifesto commitment to bring in this popular vote-winning policy?

Brendan Barber: Thanks, Malcolm. PCS, Janice.

Janice Godrich (Public and Commercial Services Union): Prime Minister, you referred in your speech to cutting costs by ending early exit schemes in Whitehall. May I respectfully remind you that thousands of low-paid admin workers in job centres, courts and the defence industry, have accrued rights under those schemes so I really urge you to reconsider that proposal (Applause) My question, Prime Minister, is that you are reported in the media as having said the Tories will approach the general election with plans to abandon national pay bargaining in the public services but Labour will take a different approach. In the Civil Service national pay bargaining was removed in 1994 and we have serious pay inequality and unfairness throughout government departments and related bodies. Myself and our sister trade unions have been trying to persuade you through the Cabinet Office to restore national pay for 10 years now. Would you be able to confirm now that if re-elected you would talk to us and the other Civil Service unions about moving to national pay for the hundreds and thousands of the Government's own employees. Thank you.

Brendan Barber: Thank you very much, Janice. There are a number of issues concerning public services and future funding issues. Gordon?

The Prime Minister: First of all, on free school meals we are piloting this year in three areas free school meals for every child. We are doing it in Hackney, we are doing it in Hull, and we are doing it in the north-east. The early results are what you might expect, that it is not only raising the nutrition of children but it is also making a huge difference to the way that they behave and their educational achievements in the schools. So this is an issue that is right at the centre of the political agenda because of the success that we are seeing in these pilots, and we will look carefully at what we can do next. Let me also say, of course, there are still thousands of people for whom we guarantee free school meals and will continue to do so.

When it comes to schools, the question is raised about our ambitions for education. Can I just say that in 1997, if you take the average school pupil, we spent about £2,500 a year on that pupil, about £50 a week, but now the latest figure is that we are spending £6,300 on that pupil, so it is more than twice as much as we spent previously. It is a big rise of about 100 per cent in real terms so we are spending twice as much on the pupil in a secondary and primary school than was done 12 years ago, in real terms. Our ambition, of course, is to do the best by pupils in the future and we know that we have brought capital spending in our state schools to a higher level than in private schools and we will continue to look at how we can make progress for the future.

I was present last week when we opened 40 new schools in a day. We are opening 400 new or renovated schools this year and we are spending more on educational investment this year than at any time in the history of education, more than at any time in the last century, more than at any time in the history of schools. We will continue to invest. We have a huge programme of primary and secondary investment for the future.

Let me also say as regards measures of taxation that people are suggesting, I have looked at this question of a global financial tax and that is why we are meeting as a G20, because if we did it and nobody else did then you would simply see everything flowing to what would then become a huge tax haven. We already have a tax that is quite special to Britain, that is, we charge stamp duty on share transactions, so people in Britain pay on share transactions but they do not in other countries. We continue to look at means by which the world coming together can not only outlaw tax havens but also see what coordinated action we can take.

So far as the bonus is concerned, I am looking for new rules around the world that limit the share of bonuses. What I think you will see in the new taxation arrangements is that anybody who is earning above £150,000 will now pay 50 per cent on their tax whereas it used to be 40 per cent, so we are taking action there.

On national pay bargaining, let us look at the position we are in. We have signed three-year deals with a number of unions and a number of employee bodies, so in the teaching profession and in the Health Service, we have signed these three-year arrangements. We are not proposing to change that. In other areas it is the normal negotiations that will have to take place. I only say to all of you here that because we have kept inflation low and kept interest rates low, those people who are in work are seeing that the inflation and interest rates are not as high as they used to be, and I think that has to be borne in mind in every negotiation that people have.

I want to say also that we are a government dedicated to helping those on low and middle incomes, and so any changes that we make, whether it is in tax credits for mothers and for families, or in other arrangements, our aims are to help middle and lower income Britain. That is why I say it does not make sense at this time for other parties to recommend that we give tax handouts in Inheritance Tax to people who are already millionaires. That is both a mistake and it is wrong for the country. I will be happy to write to the Civil Service unions about their question on national pay bargaining.

Brendan Barber: Thank you, Gordon. We have in the hall a number of young workers and one of the big issues that you addressed in your speech, Gordon, was issues around apprenticeships and training opportunities for young people. Joanna Vicek, a UNISON member from Mersey Travel. Joanna, please, then Andrew Batley, a Unite member from BAE Systems. Joanna, please?

Joanna Vicek (UNISON): Gordon - I hope you do not mind if I call you Gordon - I have never had the opportunity to ask a Prime Minister a question before but I wanted to be familiar because I have a problem for you. I am an apprentice at Mersey Travel and at my workplace we have a good training scheme and are paid reasonably well. Under government legislation apprentices are guaranteed at least £95 a week, but while that is welcome it is not really very much and many apprentices are only getting that small amount. It is even worse for those who work in companies that do not have unions because there is nowhere they can turn to if they are being exploited and underpaid. So, Gordon, I am asking you, why can't all apprentices be paid at least the minimum wage? Thank you.

Brendan Barber: Thank you, Joanna. Andrew Batley, please?

Andrew Batley (Unite): Prime Minister, I am an apprentice at BAE Systems that produces high-quality engineering products so I am interested in the many new industries and occupations which will be very important for the future economy. These industries include bio-sciences, aerospace, computing and, of course, information technology. What are the Government doing to ensure that there will be more apprenticeships in these new industries as well as the more traditional apprenticeships. While I have got your attention, I do not think there are enough young women apprentices in these new industries, so what are you doing to get more girls in my workplace? Thank you. (Applause)

Brendan Barber: Andrew, thank you. That question seemed to attract a lot of support. Gemma Bewley, please?

Gemma Bewley: I am an apprentice working on an interview room project with a company called Creative Training and I gained my experience through the Knowsley Apprenticeship. So do you think that any other local authorities across the country would be able to invest in any other projects like that scheme?

Brendan Barber: Okay, thank you, Gemma. Three different issues around apprenticeships. Yvette, this may be something you would comment on?

The Prime Minister: I was going to say that these were far better questions from the apprentices than ever we get in the House of Commons, so I do applaud them. I visited Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port today and I met a group of apprentices who are absolutely determined to do their best by the country. Half of them were Liverpool supporters, half of them were Everton supporters, you will be pleased to know, Brendan.

I think on the issue of apprentices, let's just be clear about one thing. Apprenticeships were dying 10 years ago. There were only 70,000 in the country and people thought that the end of the apprenticeship was coming. There are now 220,000 apprentices in this country, three times as many, and as Yvette will talk about I think nearly half of the apprentices are now women. There has been a four times increase in the number of women apprentices over the last few years and, as I said in my speech, we want to give a minimum apprentice income/wage so that people feel that what they are doing in apprenticeships is valued. The future of apprenticeships not only depends on the private sector, it also depends on the public sector. If you go round the public sector there are very few apprentices in the Health Service, very few apprentices in local government, very few apprentices in schools or in education, and I think that is one of the ways over the next year, by agreeing to create 20,000 more apprentices, we can make progress. I want to say, as I said in my speech, to any young person, if you get the qualifications you will get into your apprenticeship and we will make sure that apprenticeship places are available for you.

Brendan Barber: Yvette, you might just comment on these issues?

Yvette Cooper: Yes. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this. Getting young people that first step on their career ladder, that first proper training that actually I think for too long young people were just denied, getting people into jobs but also getting them good training as well, the apprenticeships are one of the best ways of doing that. It is good to see apprentices coming from a range of different areas but we do need to do more to get more apprenticeships in all kinds of different fields. We are seeing more and more women apprentices, which I think is a great thing because it was too often traditionally seen as just for young men. Actually, there is a whole load of women doing all sorts of apprenticeships in different kinds of fields.

It is true, though, as I think Andrew said, that there is more that we can do in some sectors where we are not getting enough women coming forward and we need to do more right through schools. We are doing work with schools on encouraging girls to go into engineering and to go into all sorts of non-traditional sectors in order to encourage those opportunities. We see this as being part of the wider work to give that support for every young person because never again should we lose a generation to work. The extra sports jobs that Gordon announced today for young people are alongside the apprenticeships as well.

I think Gemma's question was on the Knowsley Apprenticeship and what can local councils do. There are loads that local councils can do. Knowsley, I think, is doing some great work to support apprenticeships. A lot of local councils are coming forward to support the Future Jobs Scheme. There are even, indeed, a lot of Labour councils and actually some Tory councils coming forward to support the Future Jobs Scheme. It is just a shame that at national level David Cameron and the Conservatives are opposing the billion pounds for the Future Jobs Fund because I think you have to put that investment into young people. They say we cannot afford to. The truth is we cannot afford not to or we will have another generation abandoned as we did in the 1980 and 1990s, and we cannot ever go back to that.

Brendan Barber: Thanks very much, Yvette. Congress, I know a number of unions put in other questions. Richard Green has a very important issue.

Richard Green (Community): Prime Minister, thanks for the time. In April 2010 the lowest age for early retirement will increase from 50 to 55. This will have a massive impact on people in my industry, the steel industry. They work shifts and do hard physical work and many have paid into a pension scheme for over 30 years. Steel workers, when faced with redundancy, have taken the opportunity to access their pension scheme at 50. This opportunity will be taken from them. Therefore, can the Government look again and ensure that people can retire whilst they can enjoy it, rather than when they are forced to retire through ill health? Thank you.

Brendan Barber: Thanks very much, Richard. Two other issues, Andy Jones from UCATT. This is an issue of interest to a lot of unions, I know. Andy.

Andy Jones (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians): Prime Minister, will you commit to restore compensation and a process to establish liability for victims of pleural plaques past and present?

(Applause)

Brendan Barber: Andy, thank you. Jeff Broome from USDAW?

Jeff Broome (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers): Prime Minister, the last 12 months have seen job losses following the collapse of some very high profile businesses. Our union, USDAW, has had to deal with nearly 30,000 workers losing their jobs when Woolworths collapsed. One problem that has been highlighted is the number of workers who qualify for no statutory redundancy pay because they have worked with their employer for less than two years. Prime Minister, is there not a strong case for the Labour Government to look at introducing rights to statutory redundancy pay from day one of a worker's employment?

Brendan Barber: Thanks, Jeff. Those are three important issues. I think those are the only ones that we really have lined up, so let's have those three. Gordon.

The Prime Minister: First of all, on the issue of pleural plaques, this is something that concerns me deeply. To see anybody, as I have with friends, die of asbestosis or mesothelioma is terrible and we should do everything we can to avoid it and to help those people who are affected.

After getting recommendations from a number of different medical groups, we are looking at what we can do on pleural plaques. We are also trying to make the UK a leader in this whole issue of dealing with asbestosis, and I want personally to make sure that compensation claims are paid out immediately for those people who are suffering from mesothelioma as what has happened over time is that companies have delayed and people who are sick never get the benefits they are due. You will see a statement on that coming out when Parliament returns to deal with all the issues - not just about pleural plaques but also about the disease of asbestosis.

Also, we are reviewing this whole issue of redundancy payments and we will be able to report on that later. I think that what we are offering now to people who are redundant, to make sure that they can get back to work quickly, is a better service than ever before thanks to our Jobcentre staff. I think it is important to recognise that even with the difficulties that we are facing, in the last few months an average of 300,000 people have moved into work and got jobs as a result of the efforts that have been made. However, we are looking at this issue of redundancy pay. Yvette will answer on pensions.

Yvette Cooper: Just to add this on pensions, this is partly around tax changes as well. We obviously invest a lot in tax relief on pensions as I think that is the right thing to do, but we also have an ageing population. People are living longer and healthier lives. It is right that people should be able to take earlier retirement for ill-health, but as part of a whole series of major changes and as part of the response to the Pensions Committee and a lot of the work that Jeannie Drake and the TUC were involved in as to how we respond to the aging population. We are also doing things like increasing the state retirement age over time as well making these changes to the minimum benefit age too.

The quid pro quo for that is that we also have to restore the link between pensions and earnings and make those important changes to increase support for pensions from everyone as well. The major change we are making to the pensions tax relief system is regarding those very highest earners who are earning over £150,000 because we found that they are getting the majority of the benefits. The vast majority of the pensions tax relief was actually going to a very small minority of people with the very highest pensions so I think that is a fair change to make. We do have to make changes to respond to an ageing population, but we also have to make sure that we do that in a way that is fair and particularly provides additional support for those on the lowest incomes.

Brendan Barber: Thank you very much, Yvette. We are going to squeeze three final questions in.

Jerry Bartlett (NASUWT): Prime Minister, thank you for reminding us about the dedication and courage of our armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere. Despite that, Iraq is moving only extremely slowly towards a stable and democratic society. A fundamental element of building a good civil society in Iraq must be the growth and security of a free trade union movement.

The TUC, and many of the affiliates to the TUC, have worked hard to support the growth of the fledgling union movement in Iraq in spite of legislation in that country and the government decrees which ban public sector trade unions as well as increasing difficulties in obtaining visas to allow our sisters and brothers from Iraq to visit us for solidarity, support and training. What can your government do to address these two issues? We want the adoption of a labour law in Iraq that enshrines international labour organisation standards and we want ease of visa access for our Iraqi trade union sisters and brothers to the United Kingdom.

Brendan Barber: Thanks, Jerry. That is a very important issue.

Richard Clifton (Unite): Prime Minister, this question is very relevant considering your visit to the Ellesmere Port Vauxhall plant today. What I want to know is given the government support for manufacturing, will you give the same commitment to secure the jobs of over 5,000 of my fellow Vauxhall UK workers just as the German and Belgian governments are doing in proposing to invest in their GM plants?

Lesley McClean (Communication Workers Union): Prime Minister, as a postal worker, I will now have to work five years longer than I planned before I can claim my deferred wages which is my pension. It will be lower because the Royal Mail has imposed a career average scheme. My colleagues, who joined Royal Mail after April 2008, will receive an inferior pension from the new defined scheme. Royal Mail spent 13 years not contributing into the pension scheme. This is now billions of pounds in deficit and growing by the day. Even Lord Mandelson acknowledged that the pension deficit is huge and a growing burden on the Royal Mail. As the government owns Royal Mail, can the Prime Minister tell me and my colleagues how, and when, he intends to address the problems of the Royal Mail pension scheme?

Brendan Barber: There are three very different issues: Iraq and trade union rights, pensions and the Royal Mail.

The Prime Minister: Let me first of all thank trade unionists here for the support for the development of free trade unions in Iraq. It has been British trade unionists working with people who want to be trade unionists andtrade union leaders in Iraq that has made the first advances in creating a trade union movement which is strong and representative there.

I will look at this question of visas, but let me just say that we do want the Iraq government to adopt labour laws. We do want the Iraq government to ensure that there is fair treatment to people and I continue to press the Prime Minister of Iraq on these and other issues, so that Iraq can be not just a democracy in name with large numbers of people voting at elections and at local elections, as has happened, but can ensure that there are freedoms and rights which there never were before for the ordinary citizens and workers of Iraq.

I want also to say this on the Royal Mail. We have a problem as a country because what we want to do is to ensure that the universal obligation for mail remains in place. As you know, in America they are reducing it and in other countries it is an issue. We want to be able to finance local post offices as a service to the public. We want to ensure a viable Royal Mail in a situation where there is huge competition from all the new technologies. If people are texting and emailing and not sending letters, that is an issue we have to deal with. I want also to give some security to the pension fund of the Royal Mail.

We have been trying to move forward on these things while at the same time getting new investment into the Royal Mail for the future. These are the discussions that we have had over the last few months. I know that there are debates going on between the unions and the employer. I want to see a future for the mail service, but also for the post offices and the Royal Mail service of this country. It will only be achieved by discussion about what is the best way forward.

I visited Vauxhall today and I was able to say to people - and this is the reason I went there - that we have faith in the future of the car industry in this country. I wanted to say to Vauxhall workers that we have faith in the future of the new model, the Astra. I wanted to say that we have and will continue to support the development of the car industry at Ellesmere Port and at Luton. I also wanted to say that we want Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port to win the new low carbon electric car which is going to be the Vauxhall competitor for the whole of the hybrid car industry. We said today that we are prepared to support with finance the Magna operation across Europe. We are in negotiations with the Germans and other governments so that we can make our support available to Vauxhall workers in this country.

The reason I went to Vauxhall today was to say what I am saying to you now. When people are in difficulty, we will stand beside them and help them through these difficulties. When we get the questions that we have had this afternoon, it is right for people to say, 'Here in my own area we have an issue that has to be dealt with. Here in my own industry there is a problem that you have to look at.' I appreciate all that, but let me also say that what we have to think about too in the next few years is how the whole of the country advances together. We have to think how, by taking action together, we can solve the challenges that we face ahead. I tell you that people have found in the last year that they do not want markets to rule their lives; they want to be able to make decisions themselves. People have found in the last year that they do not want to break away from the rest of the orld as they need international cooperation to work.

People are finding, as I have been saying this afternoon, that even though we have great challenges ahead, we can make big advances over the next few years towards building a fairer and more responsible Britain. I want you to be part of that discussion and that debate so that we can move forward together. Thank you all very much. (Applause)

Brendan Barber: Gordon, many thanks indeed. These are, as you say, hugely challenging times. You have a fantastically big job to do and you need all the support we can give as you go, for example, to Pittsburgh next week to that G20. Gordon, over this next period, you will be spelling out a compelling vision. That is what you are about and that is certainly what we are about because we know how high the stakes are at this next General Election. Gordon, it has been great to have you with us.

The Prime Minister: Thank you very much. (Applause)

Reforming the financial and banking systems

The President: I call paragraph Composite Motion 9, reforming the financial and banking systems. The General Council support the composite motion.

Congress, I realise that it is traditional for the hall to empty after we have had such an important speaker, but debates have to go on so if you are going to leave, can you do it in a very quiet and orderly manner. Thank you. (Applause)

Paul Talbot (Unite) moved Composite Motion 9. He said: As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, in nine days' time, the heads of state and leaders are meeting in Pittsburgh for the next session of the G20. We want a strong message to go from this Congress on behalf of the trade union movement, not just from here in Britain but across the globe, that there can be no return to the practices that have led to the unprecedented financial crisis in the markets.

For those who have already lost their jobs, their homes and their pension rights, the effect of the crisis has been all too obvious. In the last 12 months, in the financial sector alone, over 30,000 jobs have disappeared, never to return we suspect. More important than that, the banks realise that more than any other sector, they cannot be allowed to fail. That has encouraged the irresponsibility in the way in which they have conducted themselves in recent times. They know that no matter how risky the bet or how long the odds,' the house' must always pay up at the end of the day and they will get their money. At the root of this madness, spurred on, has been the compensation culture that has been allowed to develop to the point where obscene bonuses have been paid to those at the top of those organisations.

Even today, despite all that has occurred, those at the top of those financial institutions continue to act as though nothing has happened and, reverting to their old habits, persist in rewarding themselves multi-million pound bonuses. These are the very same people who, without the guarantees and loans which were mobilised by the British taxpayer, would not be having a job today. This has cost us in total in excess of £1.5 trillion over the past 12 months. Some of that money we may get back and some we may not - it depends how things work out. We do not dispute, as Gordon said, that the government did the right thing in stepping in to protect the public from the potential financial meltdown, but the banks must also realise that they have a heavy financial and moral responsibility to this nation. As others have said before me, they should be prepared to make a substantial contribution to the public finances to avoid the need for any further public spending cuts.

We say this to our Government and to all those who are attending the Pittsburgh summit: act now and act together to put an end to the practices that have caused so much misery across the globe. The new rules for the financial system must be built around a clear set of principles: firstly, an end to guaranteed bonuses, and, secondly, compensation packages which are tied to the long-term success of the enterprise. Success is measured not just in terms of shareholder value. Success is built upon solid foundations - respect for employees, job security, decent pay and conditions and secure pensions. We want a cap on the amount of bonuses that can be paid.

Bonuses themselves, however, are not the only issue. There must be a commitment to improve governance, supervision, transparency and an end to the speculative practices that have characterised and caused the current crisis. There must be an end to irresponsible lending taken in pursuit of short-term gain. Yes, as the Prime Minister also said, we must address the issue of tax havens.

In the UK, we want to see a greater public interest representation in the major financial institutions and at the Financial Services Authority. We welcome the initiative that Gordon has shown earlier this month by sending a strong message to the leaders of other European nations that these systemic faults must be addressed in Pittsburgh at the end of next week. We welcome the commitment that has been given to laying the groundwork for a new model of global cooperation. We also want them to look at the principles of mutuality. Think back to the time when a banking system was based on principles which were characterised by organisations like the Co-op and the building societies. Let us have some of that back in our high streets as well.

Above all, there must be recognition across the board that the era of voluntary regulation is over and that in today's complex environment, the principles that we now espouse must be backed up by sanctions for those who either do not wish to, or do not care to, play by the rules. In short, colleagues, what we are calling for is a return to a financial system which is based on values and a renewed sense of responsibility. Madam Chair, I move. Thank you. (Applause)

Marilyn Morris (Accord) seconded Composite Motion 9. She said: We are the union standing up for secure jobs, fair reward and dignity at work in the Lloyds Banking Group speaking in support of Composite Motion 9. As a banker for over 20 years - a banker and not a fat cat, not a recipient of obscene bonuses but one of the loyal, hardworking and low-paid women who are the backbone of the British banking system - one year ago this week, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt leading to the world that our members worked in being turned upside down and bringing about the recession, the consequences with which we are all living. Who would have thought that household names like the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland would be brought to their knees and would have to be rescued by the welcome intervention of our Government and a takeover by Lloyds TSB.

Much has been said this week about the bank bail-outs. These were not made in the interests of the banks themselves, but in the interests of stability in the finance sector and to protect the economy. The bail-outs were not hand-outs. They were investments and the expectation is that every penny of taxpayers' money will be repaid although not before thousands of jobs have been lost, lives and careers shattered, pension funds attacked, terms and conditions of employment assaulted and competition reduced. We have already learned that some bankers believe that the worst is over. The multi-million pound bonuses for those who either run organisations or stake our future in casino capitalism are returning and it is becoming 'business as usual'.

Have the lessons really be learned? Can we avoid a future repetition of last year's events? President Obama said last night that there must be better regulation and that this is the time for action. We believe that he is completely right. Congress, we ask you to support the view that the Government via UKSI (the body set up to manage taxpayers' stakes in the banks) must play the role of an active investor if it is to protect the interests of UK domestic and business bank customers. In particular, the Government must ensure that there is no return to the short-term return decision-making culture which did so much to precipitate the banking crisis. Therefore, Congress, we ask the General Council to support a call for the Government to use the taxpayers' shareholdings in the banks to protect the interests of customers, shareholders, employees and the nation as a whole. I support Composite Motion 9 and ask you for your support. Thank you. (Applause)

Steve Kemp (GMB) supported Composite Motion 9.

He said: What a difference a year makes! Was it just one year ago that we were being told by the Government that the financial services industry was the backbone of the UK economy? Was it just a year since that we were told that calling for changes in the way that bonuses and pay were structured in the City was left-wing rhetoric without any basis in reality? Was it just a year since that many politicians still believed that any attempt to regulate or control the excesses of the City would drive the bankers and their businesses away to foreign shores? Yet here we are, 12 months later, after the economies of this country and many others have virtually been brought to their knees either by the actions of these self-same unregulated institutions or the inaction of light-touch regulation authorities, with those same politicians, driven by taxpayer fury, now clamouring for solutions along the lines the GMB and other unions have been calling for the last two years.

Congress, this is no time to be complacent. Now is the time for us to press hardest for real change in the regulatory framework to ensure that banks put aside capital to draw on in times of significant risk rather than turning to us, the taxpayers. There should be real changes to the way in which the richest are taxed so that they can make an equal contribution to our society and proper contributions to insurance and compensation schemes by banks.

We are finding ourselves with surprising allies, with the likes of Adair Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, who is questioning the social good of the swollen institutions he regulates, calling for a tax in financial transactions. When even the Daily Mail, for goodness sake, supports the idea of a High Pay Commission to regulate excessive pay and reward, we know that we are on a winner. The fact that we have so many unusual allies in our call for real change and proper regulation of this sector explains how serious this issue is.

Congress, we must continue to campaign strongly for meaningful solutions so that the financial system does not go back to the 'business as usual' attitude, already evidenced by the contempt that failed and bailed-out bankers are showing in their return to huge bonuses. Finally, let us never forget that the misery heaped on people and trade unionists throughout the world during this recession with lost jobs and lost houses was the fault of the financial sector. I will leave you with this: no one can blame the trade unions for the mess we are in at the minute. Support Composite Motion 9.

Dave Bean (Public and Commercial Services Union) spoke in support of Composite Motion 9. He said: Congress, under this Government, there will be no reckoning. There will be no firm restraint, no punishment and no corrective action to prevent a repetition of the financial crisis. There will be no cap on pay and bonuses, no pruning of banks deemed too big to fail, no separation of retail and investment banking and no measure to restrict the speed or scale of the financial markets. Their dam is built of paper and it is already beginning to leak.

Confident that no meaningful restraint will be imposed, the banks have already decided that bonuses are back big-time. This year the City of London will reward itself for the destruction of other people's livelihoods with payouts of around £4 billion. Absolutely nothing has been learnt because our Government do not have the courage to teach them a lesson. The only firm response to the crisis so far is to give our hard-earned money to the very people who have caused it.

Congress, it need not be so. There is no shortage of ideas for sorting out the crisis. Proposals include a High Pay Commission, public representation on boards, a windfall tax on bonuses and a ban on bonuses at any bank backed by taxpayer guarantees. I am pleased to report that PCS has been very active on the tax front. At a tax justice Parliamentary reception in November, MPs from all the major political parties came to hear from PCS how a properly-resourced HMRC department is essential for a fair tax system, not being hindered by tax dodging which is costing the Exchequer some £100 billion per year.In February, PCS members from HMRC lobbied over 100 MPs about local office closures in their department. The mass lobby was followed by a rally with speakers from the TUC, PCS and MPs from the Parliamentary group.

Part of our argument has been that when the economy has a shortfall of billions and when just one HMRC employee brings in over £600,000 in tax revenue every year, it is nonsense to continue to close tax offices and cut jobs. We have also hosted a Parliamentary rally on tax havens ahead of the G20 summit in London and we have also put forward early day motions to Parliament on tax havens and a moratorium on job cuts in HMRC.

There have been moves in the right direction. The Government are currently consulting on a code of practice on taxation for banks aimed at reducing tax avoidance in that sector. In August, HMRC announced the signing of tax agreements between the government of Liechtenstein and the UK. However, in conclusion, moderate as those moves might be, most of the proposals put forward so far have been dismissed out of hand by a government scared of the financial system. The Government maintain that if regulations are too stiff, British bankers will leave the country. It is true that they have been threatening to depart in droves. My answer to those bankers is simple: just clear off now and leave!

Congress, support this composite and demand that the Government support ordinary people who are suffering in this crisis and not the greedy fat cat bankers who actually caused it.

* Composite Motion 9 was CARRIED

Save our steel

The President: I call Motion 20, Save our Steel. The General Council support the motion.

Michael Leahy (Community) moved Motion 20.

He said: This motion, brothers and sisters, is close to my heart. I have been involved in the steel industry for over 40 years. I have worked in and around communities that have felt the warmth of molten steel for generations. I have seen the good times and the bad times, but we have always lived to fight another day. This time, I fear we may not survive.

We have with us here today a delegation of representatives from Corus Teesside Cast Products at the back of the room. (Applause) Their works have been under threat since 8th May. That was the day when they found out that a multinational consortium had ripped up the contract that they had to take 80 per cent of Teesside's steel. That was the day that Corus started a 90 day consultation. Since that day, an entire community has been on tenterhooks as the fate of the plant now hangs in the balance.

Across the country, fellow steelworkers have been hit hard by the downturn. In Corus alone, 5,000 have been made redundant. Steelworkers are a fundamental part of working life. The blast furnaces glow right in the heart of the community. The steelworks on Teesside support thousands of jobs in and around Redcar and Middlesbrough. The port will die without their steel leaving its docks. Across the UK, steel reaches into every aspect of our lives from the tin of beans on the supermarket shelf to the ferry crossing the Mersey today. Millions of tons of steel pass up and down the length and breadth of Britain every year. In the automotive industry, in defence, in aerospace, in construction and in food and drink, quality steel produced to rigorous standards is readily available to our manufacturers and our builders from the steel plants dotted around the country.

Congress, I fear that the future of our steel industry is under serious threat. If steel disappears, I think it would only be a matter of time before what remains of manufacturing will follow. Steel is crucial to a successful economy. Steel is tangible. Steel has a price. Steel is not like the pieces of paper that the bankers traded which got us in this economic mess. Steel creates wealth, it creates jobs, it brings revenue to the Treasury and it builds our schools and hospitals.

This is why I am making an appeal today: SOS, Save our steel. This appeal is to the Government. They must do more, and they can do more, to save our steel industry. We have heard about the Government's new industrial activism. I say, 'Better late than never.' It is crucial that activism goes beyond the point of rhetoric. It must mean effective policies of investment to create a sustainable and green steel industry. At this time of crisis, the Government must act immediately. We welcome the bringing forward of infrastructure programmes and the car scrappage scheme, but that will not do enough on its own. Brothers and sisters in Europe have benefited from extensive short-time working schemes while steel workers have lost their jobs in the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, people at least have remained in employment ready to fight another day.

I am calling now, on behalf of Teesside and on behalf of the steel communities everywhere, and on behalf of manufacturing as a whole, to hear our SOS. Save our steel, save Teesside and pass the motion. (Applause)

Keith Hazlewood (GMB) seconded Motion 20. He said: Ever since, Sir Henry Bessemer, an English inventor, patented his process for turning molten pig iron into steel in 1856, steel has been recognised as one of the most important commodities in the world. In fact, in the UK, the government viewed it as so important that it has nationalised it twice. We do not hear that kind of talk from the Labour Government today, do we? All we hear is terms such as 'advanced manufacturing' and 'industrial activism'. Well, I believe that anybody who knows the UK steel industry would deem it advanced manufacturing and in need of some government industrial activism and we need it now.

Steel is a major component of the new Wembley and Olympic stadiums. It is a major component on the West Coast railway line and the Mini. It was also used on the space shuttle and in the new Airbus A380 aircraft. Of course, it also puts soup and beans on the supermarket shelves. Also, in these environmentally-conscious days, steel is 100 per cent recyclable and reusable. Not many products can claim to be that.

Corus was British Steel in my younger days and it is now part of the Indian conglomerate Tata Steel. It still employs some 40,000 people worldwide and over half of those are in the UK, many of them in more remote parts of the UK where there is little alternative employment. It has one of the best apprenticeship schemes in the UK and a good graduate training programme. I understand that the Government want to increase the number of apprentices. Unfortunately, due to the recession and downturn in the market this year, the company is losing some 5,000 jobs in the UK and has frozen its graduate intake although I am pleased to say that Corus will still be recruiting some apprentices.

Congress, we must recognise that steelmaking is crucial for UK manufacturing in the future. Without a UK-based steel industry, UK manufacturing will be without its main component. Corus UK plants are some of the most efficient and least damaging to the environment. Allowing these plants to close would lead to imports from less efficient plants in Europe, Brazil and China at a time when we want to reduce emissions and energy use in the world. This would have the opposite effect and increase emissions whilst losing high-tech industry and jobs in the UK. This might lead to a reduction in emissions in the UK, but would not protect the global environment.

Colleagues, we must support steel manufacturing in the UK. Please support Motion 20. (Applause)

The President: We have one supporting speaker, who is an apprentice who works for Corus in Yorkshire and would like to be able to address this debate. (Applause)

Luke Jackson (Unite): I am an apprentice at the Scunthorpe steel site. I am a first-time delegate and a first-time speaker. (Applause)

As has just been said, there are roughly 23,000 people in the UK employed by Corus and we have lost about 5,000 jobs. It is not just about the jobs in the steelworks itself; it is about the knock-on effect in the community which relies on employers like Corus. The Scunthorpe steelworks alone employs directly about 4,000 people, but indirectly it is estimated that 20,000 people rely on the steelworks being there. There are many towns and communities like this within the UK which depend on large manufacturers. We know that the decline in demand for manufacturing generally and the automotive industry particularly is affecting our industry. With the steel industry gone, the chance of other manufacturing companies relocating outside the UK is only going to increase.

Unite has welcomed the Government's commitment to every person who wants an apprenticeship being able to have one with the setting up of the NAS ('National Apprenticeship Service') but without the Government's support of UK steel and the manufacturing industry, people will be trained for jobs that are not there in the future. If manufacturing is allowed to decline further, with it goes the opportunity to train people with the specialist skills that the industry needs. Without that pool of specialist skills, the manufacturing industry will have to look elsewhere for them and so the spiral of UK manufacturing decline will increase.

My generation - many of your own sons and daughters - do rely on the UK steel and manufacturing industries so, for my future and my job, save our steel. Please support this motion. (Applause)

The President: That was an excellent contribution, colleague. There is no opposition once again so we will move to the vote.

* Motion 20 was CARRIED

Housing

The President: We will now call Composite Motion 13 on Housing. The General Council supports the composite motion.

Andy Wilson (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) moved Composite Motion 13. He said: I welcome the announcement made by Gordon before of 20,000 council houses, but unfortunately I think we need to put a few more zeros onto that figure because of the scale of the problem. There are 1,700,000 people registered on council waiting lists. There are 70,000 people who are homeless. Those are only the official figures. I am sure the people who lie on the streets of London, when I go to the Executive meetings at UCATT, are not registered on anybody's books.

The private house builders will not be building for these people. Local authorities have a history of solving that problem. There was large-scale house-building in the 1940s and the 1950s and that is what we should be going back to in order to address the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Standing here today, I cannot help but think that we have lost 11 years in which we could have constructed council housing. That has compounded the problem today. The banks were quite happy to finance the private sector. The mortgage rates continued to go up, the cost of houses continued to go up and everybody thought there was a party going on, but the party finished and the reality is that wages did not follow suit. There are a lot of problems that we need to solve. The housing situation initially would bring into being other industries. We have just been hearing about the steel industry. I was in Redcar with my colleagues a couple of months ago. The reality is that if we build the council houses that we require, they also require washing machines and other such commodities that other people manufacture. That is the scale of the problem that we have to deal with.

We have just had a young apprentice talking about the steel industry. It would be a crime if we build 20,000 houses plus and do not see the ratio of apprentices in the construction industry. For anyone procuring work in local authorities, whether that is housing or any other service, there should be a maxim that for every £1 million you get from a contract, you supply apprentices. We need to get the building workers back into work who the private house builders have laid off. You can look around your own communities and see houses built six bricks high or a dozen bricks high. They would have been lucky if they had got to the first floor. As the whole of the housing sector was built on credit, those same builders cannot afford to get the material to finish those houses. There might be an argument there for compulsory purchase. Local authorities have a track record. They have delivered and they will deliver in the future.

Rosie MacGregor (UNISON) seconded Composite Motion 13. She said: In UNISON, we see housing as an essential foundation of public services. Get it right and it becomes the key to a more effective provision of health, social care, education and care of the most vulnerable by eliminating the harmful impacts of housing need. Yet, as this composite makes clear, government policy has failed to deliver the bricks and mortar to provide a decent life for all.

UNISON has membership across all providers of social housing. I work as a town planner in local government negotiating with housing teams, with housing associations and with private sector house builders (some of the major house builders) in an attempt to achieve a minimum of 30 per cent of affordable housing for rent in an all-new housing development. Sadly, it is never enough and it is not simply that housing associations have failed to build at the same rate that councils used to. We would argue that it is because of a stubborn and long-held belief by governments that the market would, and should, deliver. Yes, the UK market has delivered. It has delivered an unsustainable boom that has priced ordinary working people like you and me out of the market resulting in record levels of personal debt. The bubble burst and led to a financial crisis which has brought the worst recession since the war.

What it has not delivered, even at the height of the boom, is the number of new homes that we so desperately needed. Nor has it delivered sufficient affordable housing to reduce homelessness, waiting lists or overcrowding in sub-standard homes. It is no wonder when successive government policies have reduced local authority housing and placed reliance on the private sector and housing associations. However, there has at least, it seems, been some sort of realisation that only a vastly expanded public housing programme can ensure that our housing needs are met as well as boosting the economy.

We welcome the review of the housing revenue accounts. We welcome the new-build programme just announced and indeed the new council homes being built by the Scottish government. Let us hope that it is not too little too late. We heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon. We heard what he said, but it may not be enough. The aim must be for a new housing programme as soon as possible of genuinely affordable new homes - one million and more - with councils, ALMOs and housing associations working together to provide us with the bricks and mortar to build a decent future. Support the composite.

Tam McFarlane (Fire Brigades' Union) spoke in support of Composite Motion 13. He said: Congress, in speaking in support of Composite Motion 13, I refer directly to paragraph 7 of the composite which calls for high quality fire protection systems within all social housing. On the face of it, this paragraph may appear to be a bit of a bolt-on to the resolution, but clearly when we refer to high quality housing we also need to be clear that safety is essential to that.

I want to give some context to this. No one could have failed to have seen on 3rd July of this year footage, much of it shot by bystanders with their mobile phones, a fire ripping through a multi-storey block of flats in Camberwell, London, and not been horrified. The result was six dead, 15 injured and 90 families left without a home. Of course, as terrible as this incident was, it could have been so much worse if it was not for the speed and professionalism of London's firefighters who led over 40 people to safety. In the aftermath questions and the media attention have focused on the adequacy of the fire safety arrangements within that block, especially when it quickly became known that there was only one staircase in the building despite a general expectation of an alternative fire exist.

The FBU firmly believes that all of these questions need to be answered fully and completely satisfactorily. We believe that the only mechanism to do that is through a public inquiry. We have called for that and we are glad to be joined in that call by Harriet Harman, although, frankly, we are going to continue to press until such an inquiry is actually announced. But we need to go further and we need to act now.

In 2005, following a multiple fatality in yet another high rise block of flats, which took the lives of two of our members in Hertfortshire, the FBU lobbied for domestic sprinklers to be fitted in all high rise flats. Following positive research from America, we subsequently increased this lobby to call for the fitting of domestic sprinklers in all new housing stock and, indeed, the upgrade of existing stock. We have lobbied hard and we have lobbied consistently, but now here we are four years down the line continuing to raise this issue against a background of yet another multiple fire fatality and a massive and clear need for more local authority delivered social housing. Frankly, it is time we should say to this Government that sometimes the talking has to stop; sometimes the consultation has to be concluded and sometimes they just need to do the right thing. Please support the composite motion.

Ruth Jones (Chartered Society of Physiotherapists) spoke in support of Composite Motion 13. She said: President and Congress, so what are houses for? Of course, the simple answer is that they are for living in, but during the past two or three decades they have been seen as an investment opportunity, an opportunity to make more money than you could by working. Rising prices made houses too expensive to buy. Ah, but, no problem, irresponsible lending soon filled that gap, at least until recently. As a result of the current economic recession, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of people facing mortgage arrears and repossession of their homes.

Contrary to propaganda, being saddled with a mortgage is not the only route to happiness. Social housing and housing associations can provide decent homes for those who cannot afford to buy or for those for whom buying does not make sense. But here is where the problem lies. There is not enough affordable social housing available and the gap between the number of applications and the number of homes available is getting wider.

We all know that poor housing is a major cause of ill-health in the UK, and in particular the poor housing stock in the private sector which makes up at least 10 per cent of the total housing stock. We in the CSP see the result in ill-health created by poor housing which our disadvantaged patients are forced to live in. It is wide-spread and it extends from the cradle to the grave. I have visited premature babies sent home from a special care baby unit, sometimes still on continuous oxygen therapy, to a dingy one-bedroom flat with mould and damp throughout. That is not the best welcome into this world. I have also visited elderly people with chronic lung complaints whose condition is made worse by the fungal spores in the air and a central heating system that works occasionally and ineffectively. Do not forget the people who suffer sprains, strains or broken bones when trying to negotiate rickety stairs with worn and torn carpet in poorly lit stairwells.

How would you feel if you could not lock your front door securely as many of these vulnerable tenants cannot, so each time you returned home you wondered if you had been burgled yet again? What would that do to your mental health status or stress levels? What if you were already suffering from a mental health problem? That is why you are in the poor housing situation in the first place. Colleagues, the need is obvious. Please support the motion.

Jack Dromey (Unite) speaking in support of Composite Motion 13. He said: Congress, bad housing harms health. Like the mother who said, 'The kids were always ill because of the damp'. Bad housing holds back kids at school, like the father who said, 'They were always falling behind because there were six of us in two rooms.' And it breaks marriages apart, like the wife who said, 'I loved him, but we were always rowing because there were six of us in two rooms.' Lack of housing divides communities and fans racism because of the foul lie perpetrated by the brain dead boot boys of the BNP that it is migrants who take the homes. That is why millions desperately need affordable homes to rent or buy. There will be five million on housing waiting lists next year alone. That is why we fought together to take housing up to the top of the political agenda.

We welcome the pledge that was made in 2007 that there would be an £8 billion investment, three million new affordable homes, and now the urgent action being taken by Housing Minister, John Healey, with the Kick Start programme: 22,000 homes, 20,000 jobs and, at last, councils once again being able to engage in new build. That's right. It is to meet need. It is right to put unemployed building workers back to work. It is right because it creates jobs in the factories which produce bricks, glass and cement, and it is right because that will offer apprenticeships to the one in five 16-19 year olds who are out of work. We warmly welcome the announcement made yesterday by John, that if house builders want public money to build council homes, they will be obliged to provide apprenticeships. Conference, all of this is about building Britain out of recession.

As the motion says, these may be welcome steps but the Government needs much more ambition and to move further and faster at the next stages.

In conclusion, Congress, there are two visions in our country. There is our vision, on the one hand, of every one with a decent home at a price they can afford, a new generation of council homes, green homes, in mixed communities with decent facilities, council homes so good you could walk down any street in Britain and not be able to tell the difference between private and council. On the other hand, there is the Tory vision. Do you remember Dame Shirley Porter? Wait for it! The flagship Tory council on housing, Hammersmith & Fulham, has drawn up plans that involve the demolition of thousands of council homes ending security of tenure and hiking up rents to market levels. A two-bedroom council flat currently £85 a week would cost £380 a week. Why? Because council tenants are more likely to vote Labour. David Cameron has hailed Hammersmith as the future. We say that knocking down council homes, ending security of tenure and hiking up rents to gerrymander votes is the politics of the Westminster past. Unless he disowns his flagship council, David Cameron will be branded as Dame Shirley Porter in drag. Thank you.

Robin White (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) spoke in support of Composite Motion 13. He said: Madam Chair, General Council and brothers and sisters, I am standing here to speak against Composite Motion 13. Whilst the spirit of the motion is worthy, I find it contradictory in some terms, and as such I have to oppose it. The motion speaks, quite rightly, of the unmitigated failure of housing associations to provide the right accommodation for the working class people whom we represent. It also, as other speakers have said, welcomes the Government's move to build another 9,000 council houses within this country, and give the local authorities the ability to re-invest the rent from those houses. That is welcome.

It also speaks of the downturn in the contruction industry. That, to me, personally, is very welcome. My son has just finished a three year apprenticeship as a bricklayer, but he hasn't got a job. So three good points have been well made. Yet Composite 13 asks the General Council to campaign to ensure local authorities, with housing associations and ALMOs, deliver primary social housing. This is why I have to speak against it. I ask you to do the same.

Registered social landlords or housing associations are private companies. They borrow money from the markets. They borrow money at a higher rate than local authorities can borrow money. As a result, they charge higher rents and they impose higher service charges on the tenants who occupy their premises. The tenants have less security than an assured tenancy from a local authority. It is not a secure tenancy. Housing associations have the ability to evict people under the notorious 'ground 8' rule, where people cannot pay their rent and they have no way to pay their rent. Housing associations offer tenants less power. A council can be voted out. A housing association cannot.

Arm's length management organisations are, again, private companies driven by profits. Tenants are invited on board but they have no representation for tenants' interests. They are legally tied. The unions affiliate to Defend Council Housing. Most unions here affiliate to that body. Defend Council Housing opposes housing associations and ALMOs. The House of Commons Housing Group recommends that local authorities build and manage housing. Here the composite motion asks for involvement from housing associations and ALMOs. It is contradictory. If we support it, then we are supporting the use of ALMOs, housing associations and privateers, and I believe we do not need that. The General Council support it, I oppose it and I ask you to oppose it.

Andy Wilson (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians): Chair, I would have appreciated it if the delegate had actually spoke to us before the moving of the composite and we could have discussed the issues that they find hard to agree with. We have to remember that this composite came from a resolution and a number of amendments. That was the agreement we succeeded in achieving.

Local authorities have to be the driving force behind the future build. I have no problem reviewing those organisations that were formed through stock transfers and see if they are delivering, and is the business plan one for council housing repairs and maintenance and new build, or is it fancy alterations where they are going to get mortgages from? But that is not for today. I ask Congress to support the composite, appreciating that it covers a number of issues. I would sooner have had this discussion prior to the composite being heard.

* Composite Motion 13 was CARRIED

Digital Britain

The President: I call Composite Motion 18 - Digital Britain. The General Council supports the Composite Motion.

Andy Kerr (Communication Workers Union) moved Composite Motion 18 on Digital Britain. He said: The Government's Digital Britain final report, published this summer, is a timely and encouraging set of proposals aimed at maximising the benefits of the digital revolution and sustaining the UK's position as a leading digital economy and society. The Government's recognition of the need for universal access to high speed broadband as a pre-requisite for full participation in the economy and society is particularly welcome, as is the proposal for a universal service fund to provide access in areas where the market will not deliver. These developments represent good progress in the on-going trade union campaign, led by the CWU and Connect, which calls for the universal roll-out of super fast broadband to underpin economic recovery, to create employment and ensure British society is properly placed for a more dynamic, engaged and cohesive future.

High speed next generation broadband offers huge possibilities from improved access to e-healthcare and e-education to enabling remote working, thriving business and government innovation. By making these networks available on a universal basis, we can build a more connected and digitally literate society, which will improve social cohesion and support economic activity right across the country.

It is also encouraging that the Government proposes to enhance the role of Ofcom through placing on a new general duty to encourage investment and to conduct a review of high speed broadband coverage every two years. But whilst the Digital Britain report represents real progress, some of the proposals are not far-reaching enough. In particular, we are concerned that the proposals for the Universal Broadband Commitment, rather than a legally binding Universal Service Obligation, would continue to leave some sections of society open to exclusion from modern communication networks.

There is also a need to ensure that the funding of the next generation of broadband access more fairly. This means placing the proposed levy on communication providers rather than directly on consumers and sharing the cost with mobile companies and internet service providers. We also have much to gain from the building of modern digital networks.

The successful delivery of Digital Britain will greatly rely on quality skills and training, and that is why there needs to be a requirement on employers to provide workforce training on the telecommunications sector as there is in the broadcasting sector.

Conference, therefore calls on the General Council, as set out in the composite, to work with the Government and Ofcom to ensure that the current proposals are implement in a way that maximises the potential for economic growth, social inclusion and job creation. Secondly, if high speed broadband is to reach the final third of British homes and businesses by 2017, the decision to proceed must be made quickly.

There have been reported hints from the Government that a universal fund may not be legislated on until after the General Election, and the separation of the universal funding proposals into the Finance Bill also threatens to slow down progress. These things bring into sharper focus the need for us to do all we can to lobby for swift action on the part of the Government.

The further proposal of the universal broadband service commitment should be made strong and legally binding under the Universal Service Obligation to ensure the effective delivery of broadband access.

Fourthly, we must work together through the TUC to ensure that the proposals set out in the Digital Inclusion Agenda are made an integral part of the TUC's own working programme over the next 12 months.

Finally, Congress, we must also lobby the Government to keep the pressure on, not only to ensure swift passage into legislation but to bolster its policy of industrial activism, which it promotes in the Digital Britain report. Only by the public sector playing a central and active role in addressing the needs of the UK communications infrastructure can we guarantee universal access. Congress, I ask you to support this composite motion. Thank you.

Leslie Manasseh (Connect) seconded Composite Motion 18 on Digital Britain. He said: Congress, this last year has seen real progress in recognising both the importance of communications to the UK's economic future and in renewed efforts to extend the digital promise to all. The economic and social benefits of a truly digital Britain are now well within our grasp.

Like the CWU, we welcome the Government's Digital Britain report and the positive focus on social inclusion. We share the goal of delivering modern communications to all. Indeed, the recognition of the need for an active government role in rolling out fast broadband owes much to the trade union campaign around these vital issues. But this is not the time to let up. We need certainty that broadband will be universally delivered. We want the Government to act to create new jobs in a growing sector, particularly at a time of high unemployment. We call on the Government to seize the day and bring forward legislation in the Digital Economy Bill early next session.

We also welcome the proposals for an enhanced role for Ofcom in relation to regular reviews of the communications network and in attracting new investment. This is vital, Congress, as our ability to realise the digital promise, like so much else, cannot be left to the markets alone. However, like the CWU, we are concerned at signs that the Government may be backing away from plans to raise a levy from all fixed lines in the UK. It would serve no purpose at all to have an ambitious programme but insufficient funds to deliver it. So no back-tracking, please.

On a more positive note, the Government have indicated a willingness to engage more fully in a programme of industrial activism. Now, more than ever, we need a government that is actively engaged in creating new, low carbon, skilled jobs. The communications sector will be at the heart of this, both as a hi-tech sector in itself with much potential for growth but also as one which will facilitate growth and development across the whole economy. The communication sector can create much needed new jobs and opportunities but the Government have to be a more than interested bystander. Moreover, digital inclusion must become central to our vision of social inclusion. It is not a peripheral concern, a fashionable add-on or a luxury. Access to a modern communications infrastructure is essential to full participation in a modern society. It is fast becoming a democratic imperative. We have a real opportunity to bring the digital promise to everybody in the UK today but we must work together and the Government must act to ensure that that promise becomes a reality.

* Composite Motion 18 was CARRIED

Public service broadcasting and copyright piracy

Jeremy Dear (National Union of Journalists) moved Composite Motion 19. He said: Brother and sisters, during recent weeks you cannot have missed increasingly lurid headlines about the future of the BBC. As far as news stories go it was rather more dog bites man than man bites dog when James Murdoch, son of Rupert, said 'Action should be taken to cut the BBC down to size'. His comments were on the back of government proposals to cut public funding to the BBC and give part of the licence fee to commercial rivals come as no shock to us. If James Murdoch ran BUPA he would attack the NHS; if he ran a private school, he would savage state education. He does not. He runs a private media organisation and he is attacking the BBC, urging the Government to slash its funding, to force it to privatise Radio 1 and BBC Worldwide and to stop it delivering on-line news, free at the point of delivery, or 'state sponsored journalism', as he calls it. He is egged on in his attacks by those other commercial media owners and corporations who do not serve your interests but their narrow interests, profit and market share.

The argument goes like this. If the BBC is forced to abandon quality children's drama, music, current affairs and news programming across all platforms, the market will open up for their rivals. In reality, increasing commercialisation of the media has not delivered real choice for citizens but it has led to greater conformity, less choice and fewer jobs. But we are used to such attacks, attacks not just on individual stories, individual journalists or individual programmes, but on the very public service values that underpin the BBC. Across the media industry the BBC leads the way in children's, programmes, in music, in drama, in local, national and international news, in TV and radio, in on-line, in current affairs, in jobs and in training. It is a public service global success story actively supported by the public.

Independent polls show strong public support for the licence fee for the BBC to be in exclusive receipt of it and against plans to slice off part of the BBC's funding for commercial broadcasting. That should be the end of the story, but it is not. What is different about these attacks is not that they are being made but that they are being echoed by a Labour Government which, in proposing to slice 3½ per cent off the BBC licence fee and hand it over to commercial broadcasters, has joined the battle, not on the side of workers, not on the side of public service values and not on the side of licence fee payers. Let's put it into perspective. It is the equivalent of a Labour Government taking money from NHS hospitals and handing it over to private health contractors.

We are clear. There is a funding crisis with other public service broadcasters, for ITV and for Channel 4. They should be supported to protect excellent public servicing programming and to deliver quality local news. But contrary to the claims of government ministers that there is no alternative to top-slicing the BBC, to undermining the independence of the corporation, to calling into question the link between the BBC and the licence fee payer, to opening up the licence fee to be raided by future governments, there are other options, but they require a political commitment to defending the public service against commercial interest.

With the right commitment, we could levy, as other countries in Europe already do, those who profit from re-broadcasting public service content but pay nothing towards its creation. Or the Government could commit that the money raised through a spectrum tax could be re-invested in public service broadcasting, but that commitment has so far been lacking. You do not have to tell me about the frustration and anger that trade unionists feel with some of the decisions made by the BBC's management, from inviting Nick Griffin on to Question Time, to job cuts, to executive bonuses. It is an anger and frustration we share and reflect on a daily basis. But we are also quite clear that we stand unashamedly for public service values. We believe that the supply of independent information people need to be engaged citizens is too important to be left entirely to companies motivated primarily by profit. A strong BBC, funded by the exclusive receipt of the licence fee, is central to maintaining and strengthening the BBC and public service broadcasting. We, the six unions, with tens of thousands of members working across the media, call on the Government to stand with us and abandon top-slicing. I move.

Martin Spence (Broadcating, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) spoke in support of Composite Motion 19. He said: Congress, I am addressing, particularly, the paragraphs in the composite motion on internet piracy.

Composite 18 was about the digital economy and the need to role out broadband access, to drive forward jobs and prosperity and human rights in this country. What I want to talk about for a few minutes is one of the unfortunate consequences of that broadband access if it is not properly understood and properly regulated. The creative industries in this country are big business. They represent between 7 - 8 per cent of gross domestic product now, employing, by some counts, a million workers directly and 800,000 indirectly- in sectors such as transport and retail. These are big numbers. They involve many jobs, but these jobs are threatened by the massive scale of on-going internet piracy. That is the illegal downloading and the illegal peer-to-peer sharing of files, music, films and TV programmes. Congress, this is theft! It is theft in which, I have no doubt, some people in this room have participated or, if not you, your children, or if not your children, then your grandchildren. This type of theft is rife, it's widespread and it is widely seen as not a big issue and not a big problem, because it is a form of theft that takes place in private, in people's own homes, it's easy because broadband access makes it easy, so it is perceived widely but wrongly not to be a big problem.

Let me emphasise that it is a problem, because it takes hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue out of the creative and entertainment industries, and that directly threatens investment, as it would do in any industry and that loss of investment threatens the direct present and future employment of the members who I represent and members of many other trade unions as well. The fact that it is easy does not make it right.

What we have been arguing for for some time, and I am pleased to say with some success, is that the internet service providers must take some responsibility. Their business model depends upon rich, attractive content. That is what drives their businesses. Their customers, their subscribers, want access to great music, to great films, great TV programmes and great on-line content. They have a responsibility, therefore, to help create the conditions where that great content - music, films, TV programmes - can continue to be made, the investments can continue to be made and the jobs can continue to exist.

We have, therefore, made the argument that they must take technical measures when they know there are regular offenders to step in and do something. I am delighted to say that the Government are inclined now to agree with us. With the TUC's support we have made progress and we are asking you now to consolidate the great support we have had from the TUC to date. President, thank you, and apologies for running over.

Tony Burke (Unite) spoke in support of Composite Motion 19. He said: Congress, as has already been said, the unions in this industry support the Government's vision for digital Britain. However, as the motion says up to 800,000 people who work in the creative sector may be having as much as 20 per cent of their business revenue ripped off by internet pirates. This piracy threatens investments, it threatens our members' jobs and it threatens the economic growth and output in the creative and information industries.

As a consequence of this, Unite welcomes the importance the Government have placed on internet service providers to tackle the illegal distribution of content over their networks.

Congress, illegal downloading of digital material is widespread and growing. Illegal file sharing is not just limited to films and music, but it impacts on newspapers, on the magazine industry, on the book industry and on the premium information industries. We are committed to ensuring that the Government's commitment to legislate against piracy is reinforced and fully implemented. Our members believe that particular consideration must be given to the specific challenges faced by the publishing industry in the face of on-line copyright infringement, in particular the fact that publishers' content is often available in file sizes which are much smaller than those in the music and audio visual sectors. Because of this, it is vital that the Government acknowledge the importance of the printed media, magazines and books in shaping the policy environment for the report on digital Britain.

It is also important that any sanctions considered for illegal file sharing must include proposals to take into account the fact that band width capping and shaping will not deter the serial infringers from illegally sharing downloaded published content.

The Government are committed to reduce illegal file sharing by 2011, and we believe that the Government should strengthen all the measures it needs to address on-line copyright infringement. We just cannot leave it to commercial interests to do that. We need to be vigilant, robust and to have the arguments right. As Martin said, this is theft. It is theft of our members' work. It is a rip-off, so let's stand out this illegal file sharing, the rip-off merchants who are stealing our members' work, which is the intellectual property of our members. Thank you.

Christine Payne (Equity) spoke in support of Composite Motion 19. She said: Congress, Equity wholeheartedly supports this motion, and I think the NUJ and BECTU have put the arguments very clearly on the importance of public service broadcasting to provide quality programmes and news that we want and need and for which this country has a worldwide reputation. They also put the argument very well, as did Tony, previously, on the serious impact of copyright piracy, and particularly the impact that that is having on jobs in film, television, music and investment.

The real problem is that as those revenue streams dry up, so does the investment in new work because record companies and film companies rely on the sales of their programmes in order to generate new income in order to reinvest in new work. If they cannot invest in new work, then it means that the sort of programmes, films and music that give us that worldwide reputation will no longer be made. As consumers and workers, we all lose.

But, in particular, my members will especially lose because they also rely on additional revenue from the sales of the films, television programmes and music that they make. Every time a DVD is sold, my members are entitled to additional revenue. Therefore, as the illegal download is made my members are losing money. So for my members fewer sales mean less income when they are working but less new work for them to do.

The key to the solution of this problem is the ISPs. They are able to put in place the necessary processes to tackle theft - illegal file sharing. It is the ISPs who have the direct relationship with the customers and all the evidence suggests that where a system is put in place for dealing with the offenders then the rates of piracy fall. It is all very well having every home in this country connected to the internet, but what are you going to watch and listen to? The ISPs also need new television, film and music in order to encourage engagement with the internet. Therefore, they also have a responsibility to those who work in the production of that work. The rate at which jobs are being undermined by this issue is too urgent for the ISPs not to play their part and they must play it now. They have the opportunity. Digital Britain gives them that opportunity and they must take it. Thank you.

Jeremy Dear (National Union of Journalists): President, I wondered if Congress delegates were aware that there are postcards that people could sign that are available from the NUJ stall to oppose top-slicing?

* Composite Motion 19 was CARRIED

Performers' moral interests

Cathy Dyson (Musicians' Union) moved Motion 71.

She said: President and comrades, just to explain a little about moral rights and copyright before we start, I think it might be useful. Copyright is very important because it grants authors, composers and other creators legal protection for their artistic creations. It gives a bundle of exclusive rights which allows owners to control the use of their original works in a number of ways and also to be paid for them. It also provides moral rights which protect the author's reputation and integrity. Moral rights have two basic features; the right of paternity, that is the right to be mentioned in connection with the work, and the right of respect, that is to object to derogatory actions in relation to the work.

Moral rights do not provide the artist or creator with the power to protect those works if nothing derogatory has happened to them, and this is the essence of our motion.

There are two parts to this motion and both of them have implications for the moral rights and interests of the musicians. The first concerns the BNP and their tactics in the run-up to the European elections where they subsequently won two seats. On their website they were selling and continue to sell, alongside a raft of dubious and offensive merchandise, compilation CDs. These are grouped into various sections entitled 'Patriotic Music', 'Great White Music', 'Nostalgia' and so on. They include Nick Griffin's own collection of nationalist songs, various folk bands and music, including the Albion bands, Glen Miller, the Andrews Sisters, a raft of classical music and so on. Dame Vera Lynn, now 91, has threatened to take legal action against the BNP for using her performances to raise money for them (Applause) and what appears to be on their website an endorsement of their fascist beliefs, but to date the record still remains for sale on the website. This is because, under current law, musical performers or composers have little or no ability to prevent retailers selling their work once it is sold by a wholesaler to a particular distributor. As our national media organiser said in the press at the time, 'There is nothing as it stands to stop the BNP from acting in this way, and there is nothing that performers can do to prevent it.' Billy Bragg, for example - his work was actually on the BNP website - could find his track New England for sale on the BNP website raising money for something he has spent his entire musical life campaigning against. We would like to think that there should be a framework in this country sufficient to prevent something like this happening.

One of our members from Northern Ireland was horrified to find his band on the BNP compilation, and said, 'These BNP people are taking the proceeds from other people's work. We don't want any connection with such a party but we seem to be powerless to do anything about it.'

Both the MU and the Featured Artistes' Coalition have raised the profile of this issue with widespread national press coverage. However, the low level of moral rights accorded to musicians in the UK is a disgrace and should be addressed immediately by the Government which, apparently, values and stresses the importance of the cultural industries.

The second issue is almost more important than that one, and it is to do with the use of music in torture processes. As is now well documented, mainly by the charity Reprieve, which the MU wholeheartedly supports, the use of music in torture processes has been endemic during the recent Iraq war and in many of the ghost prisons that the US has operated throughout the world. Music has been used in torture light and no-touch torture practices by the US and UK military to psychological disorientate and break detainees without leaving any tell tale physical marks. Reports from a variety of sources, including US military and released detainees, describe prisoners as blindfolded and shackled in pitch black, cold, isolated containers or garages and made to wear headphones through which deafening music is played for 15 hours at a time. The people whose music has been played have responded against this behaviour. David Grey has responded to the use of his song Babylon being used as torture music. Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine has said, 'The fact that our music has been co-opted in this barbaric way is really disgusting. That particular kind of interrogation has rightly been cited as torture. If you are at all familiar with the ideological teachings of the band and its support for human rights, that is really hard to take.

So a campaign organised by MU and Reprieve called Zero DB to stop these practices. Please look at that on the website. The moral rights of musicians are of vital importance not just to their reputations and integrity as artistes, but also to changing the world and to ending some of the worst excesses of military and capitalist power. Empowering the artistes to exercise their moral rights and to control the uses of their music would make it much harder for the military or the BNP to appropriate music for their own bitter ends and restore faith in the positive, communal and uplifting effects of music on society. Please support this motion.

Natasha Gerson (Equity) seconded Motion 71. She said: Congress, the written broadcast of performed word is a very powerful tool which can and has been used by the media and by different organisations to influence our views on society and on various political and social situations. These words in performances can be used in a positive way to enable us to perceive wrong doings and injustices, and thus inspire us individually or collectively to begin to correct or to write them. They can also be used and distorted in a negative and dangerous way by oppressive regimes and organisations who may employ them to influence the public in ways which are unsupportable to all of us in the trade union movement. This cannot be tolerated. If we, as actors, writers, journalists, singers and musicians have no moral rights to protect our work, then we have no control over these serious forms of exploitation. This is a very bad situation.

As this motion also states, the media is expanding and exploding. The ways in which our work can be exploited are legion and growing every day. In some ways this is good. Equity together with our collecting society, BECs, has worked tirelessly to ensure that with the explosive expansion of media outlets we receive commensurately fair remuneration. Like everyone here, we want our rightful share of new sources of profit which would not exist without our original body of work. But when we complain that television credits roll too fast for our names to be read, it is not just so that our grannies and aunties can witness our moment of glory or that we will get more work out of it, it is because we take pride in the work we have done, some of which might just have a positive effect on some aspect of our society. No one wants to see their work hi-jacked by others and used in ways for which it was most definitely not intended. We can only control this if we are accorded proper moral rights wherever possible over how and by whom our work is used.

By supporting this motion you can help to ensure that in the future this will be the case. Thank you.

Dorothy Wright (University and College Union) supported Motion 71. She said: Congress, this is my first time at the TUC and my first time speaking here. (Applause)

UCU members have great sympathy with and full support for this motion. Our members also work to protect their intellectual rights and seek to prevent the moral abuse of their endeavours, especially as politicians and others at times seek to misrepresent or abbreviate to the point of meaninglessness their research or writings.

In addition to being a UCU member, I am a folk music enthusiast. I am sick of seeing British folk music that is neither racist nor fascist being misappropriated and misrepresented by the BNP. My first knowledge of trade unions as a child in the US came through folk music. Congress may like to note that folk musicians are themselves so angered by this that they have formed Folk Against Fascism to stand alongside the growing number of anti-fascist groups in this country. Musicians including Steve Knightley, Chris Wood, Martin Simpson and others are objecting to the misuse of folk music in supposed support of things they categorically do not support. They also seek to raise awareness of the dangers of the BNP.

The Sidmouth Folk Festival this past August saw a one thousand person strong rally against the BNP at a folk festival! They, the Folk Against Fascism, are in the process of organising some major events for the forthcoming year. I have been told that they are also putting labels on their CDs to protest about the BNP's use of their music. We are seeing an increase in the breadth of infiltration of the BNP into more areas of society as they seek to normalise their status. However, we are also seeing an increase in the number of specific resistance movements. It appears now, whether we like football, folk music or both, that we are united in our disgust of the BNP and the far right. The BBC should take note and not seek to aid in the normalisation in an organisation that has nothing normal about it. I hope the website reporting the BNP that we heard about from the NUJ yesterday will add to their site an up-to-date list of links to the growing number of anti-fascist movements. Gee Walker said on Monday that after an initial show of unity, after the murder of her son, Anthony, too many people went back to their comfort zones. In all aspects of work and leisure we need to make sure that there are no comfort zones of this sort. Please support this motion to lobby for better control for artists and others to protect their moral interests. (Applause)

* Motion 71 was CARRIED

Media Freedom

Donnacha Delong (National Union of Journalists) moved Motion 72. He said: Congress, a number of times today and yesterday we heard about some of the worst aspects of the media. We also heard yesterday how jobs cuts in the media are making it difficult for journalists to do their jobs particularly in terms of racism. But the media, at its best, functions as a watchdog. Some of the best examples of journalism are when they found out about abuses of power, they have communicated and publicised those to the public so we know what others are doing. But increasingly journalists are finding restrictions on their work, on the ground, preventing them doing exactly that.

I was at the G20 demonstration on 1st April this year. I was working as a journalist and I had my press card. At one point I was seeking to cover what was going on and seeking to get at a different side of the demonstration to where I had been. I went up to the police and asked if I could get through the lines to cover it. I was told that I wasn't allowed, that there had been a disturbance of the peace. I pointed out to them that it was exactly because of the disturbance of the peace that I wanted to get a different picture of it. I was told I was not allowed. It didn't matter whether I was journalist, a protester or anybody else. I simply was not allowed to go through the police lines. This was exactly one week after Parliament had said that the police were not entitled to restrict journalists from doing their job.

Later on that same day I was standing with a group of journalists in front of riot police lines. At this stage, the riot police had moved in and had been restricting the size of the demonstration area. We were standing around talking, there were some people lying on the floor in front of them, it was a sunny day and there was no problem. Suddenly, we heard somebody shout 'Run' because the police had decided, with no warning and no sign of violence in front of them, to charge. As I said, we were an obvious group of journalists and people with cameras. We all had to run carrying our cameras and our material with us out of the way of the police who had simply decided that they did not like us standing there. These are two examples of issues that many of our members and many other journalists found at that demonstration and on the next day. The next day, on 2nd April, a large group of journalists were threatened under the Public Order Act with arrest if they did not move on. If you remember the pictures that emerged from 2nd April,that is the day when we saw the pictures of a police officer smacking a woman for shouting at him. The point is that without journalists present people do not know what is going on. We cannot cover the abuses and we cannot let you know what is going on. Journalists have a very special role to play in these demonstrations and should be allowed to cover them. Unfortunately, what happened in April of this year is not new. It is a situation that we have become very accustomed to in the past number of years.

One of the journalists who has done the most to expose what the police have been doing in these demonstrations is Mark Fellay. Mark was injured at a demonstration in 2006 by being pushed backwards by police who simply did not want journalists being close enough to take pictures of the action. That is one aspect of the problems we are facing. The other aspect is when journalists actually succeed in doing their job, exposing issues and telling the public what the story is. I am talking about people like Suzanne Breen and Chiv Mallick. The police come to them and expect them to do the police's job for them, demand access to their sources, demand access to their information. Rather than investigating situations themselves, they simply wait until the journalists have found the story and ask for all of their material. Protection of sources is one of the most fundamental requirements of a free media. Unless we can protect our sources, we end up in a situation like Suzanne Breen did where she was, literally, in fear of her life if she had provided that information. But the authorities did not seem to care until a court told them they had to, that she was in danger of being killed if she did what they asked her to.

We have had some successes. Both in the Suzanne Breen cases and the Chiv Mallick case we found courts that were willing to tell the authorities that they were not allowed access to our sources. The police have, since the events of April in the light of the coverage they received after that and the exposés that were published, thankfully in the media but largely due to individuals because of the restrictions on the media, so camera phone footage showed some of the worst abuses of the police because the journalists were restricted, apologised for some of their actions and have modified their behaviour in recent climate camp instances. However, this is not the first time we have had apologies from the police. We have had apology after apology after apology, yet they have continued to do the same thing. There is no doubt, if the light of publicity goes away from the police, that they will move back. That is why it is so important for the entire trade union movement to put pressure on the police and authorities to recognise that as independent journalists we have a right to cover issues and we have a right to protect our sources. Please support.

Tony Lennon (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) seconded Motion 72. He said: Actually, if you notice, everyone has got a strapline to their unions these days. You are the union for something. Actually, we are the media and entertainment union. My suggestion that we should be called the 'union for very long names' did not go down too well.

I would like to follow on from the NUJ by explaining the background to an award winning picture which is on the front of our union magazine. If you go upstairs, you will see that this is one of many union journals that won a prize from the TUC, in this case, for that photograph. For those dealing in black and white, as they say, the photo is actually some Yorkshire Constabulary policemen doing a very deep search of a film crew who were working for ITV News in Kent. I would like to tell you the story behind the picture because I think it just gives another very clear example of the way that the police are trying to interfere with the important democratic process of gathering news.

Last autumn, in 2008, a climate camp was set up outside the Kingsnorth Power Station -- it was controversial at the time - with green protesters because there is likely to be an expansion of coal burning at the power station. Many journalists turned up, needless to say, because they wanted to interview the power company, the council and also, obviously, the protesters. The key to the group of journalists and technicians who went to the site was that they all had a thing called a press card. That is a guarantee of your bona fides as a journalist or technician who is earning a living working in the news gathering profession. They are not handed out like lollipops. If you have got a press card it is a guarantee that you are a genuine journalist, that you are not a protester in disguise, and there is a system by which the police can actually check that the card is valid, that you are the person on it, if there is any doubt at all. So they were all genuine journalists.

They turned up at the climate camp, where they had been allowed two hours to go in. They were fully searched on the way in and they were fully searched on the way out. On the way out a couple of stills photographers who protested about the search then had their cars completely searched just to teach them a lesson. The flimsy excuse given by the police was, 'You've got equipment which is capable of causing criminal damage.' I remind you that these are all bona fide genuine journalists. A group of stills photographers then went off to a McDonald's very close to the power station, which had free wi-fi. I am not accusing my colleagues in the hall of having an unhealthy diet. These days pictures tend to get sent back to base or to the agencies using laptops and wi-fi. So the people in front of me are not just cruising e-bay, I promise. The police appeared outside McDonald's and began filming this group of journalists through the window for no reason whatsoever but recording their faces. They knew their names already because they had been calling people they had never met by their Christian names. The lesson here is that the police at that particular incident stood in the way of journalists gathering information. It is important for us to have sensible debates about controversial issues like power. I would like you to support Motion 72 to make sure that the issue is kept alive and the police are reminded that they have got to let journalists and technicians do their jobs. Thank you.

* Motion 72 was CARRIED

Scrutineers' Report

The President: Delegates, I can now invite Paula Brown, the Chair of the Scrutineers, to give the results of the ballot for General Council.

Paula Brown (Chair of the Scrutineers): President and delegates, I present the Scrutineers' Report. Would delegates please turn to the back of your Agenda and I will give the results of the ballot for the General Council and the General Purposes Committee are as printed in the Agenda.

General Council

Section A (Unions with more than 200,000 members)

Unite (eight members)

Tony Burke

Gail Cartmail

Len McCluskey

Dougie Rooney

Derek Simpson

Pat Stuart

Tony Woodhouse

Tony Woodley

UNISON (seven members)

Bob Abberley

Jane Carolan

Gerry Gallagher

Dave Prentis

Alison Shepherd

Eleanor Smith

Liz Snape

GMB (four members)

Sheila Bearcroft

Allan Garley

Paul Kenny

Malcolm Sage

Communication Workers Union (two members)

Billy Hayes

Tony Kearns

NASUWT (two members)

Chris Keates

Jerry Bartlett

National Union of Teachers (two members)

Christine Blower

Dave Harvey

Public and Commercial Services Union (two members)

Janice Godrich

Mark Serwotka

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

(two members)

John Hannett

Fiona Wilson

Section B (Unions with between 100,000 and 200,000 members)

Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Mary Bousted

Prospect

Paul Noon

University and College Union

Sally Hunt

Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

Alan Ritchie

Section C (Unions with fewer than 100,000 members)

Eleven to be elected - * = elected

Name

Union

Votes

Jonathan Baume *

FDA

422,000

Brian Caton*

POA

405,000

Bob Crow

RMT

328,000

Jeremy Dear*

NUJ

470,000

Mark Dickinson*

Nautilus International

389,000

Gerry Doherty*

TSSA

538,000

Michael Leahy*

Community

353,000

Joe Marino

BFAWU

301,000

Robert F Monks

URTU

200,000

Ged Nichols*

Accord

459,000

Christine Payne*

Equity

401,000

Tim Poil*

NGSU

387,000

John Smith*

Musicians Union

508,000

Matt Wrack*

FBU

387,000

Section D (Women from unions with fewer than 200,000 members)four to be elected - no contest

Joanna Brown

Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists

Sue Ferns

Prospect

Lesley Mercer

Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

Julia Neal

Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Section E (Member representing black workers from unions with more than 200,000 members) no contest

Mohammed Taj - Unite

Section F (Member representing black workers from unions with fewer than 200,000 members)

Name

Union

Votes

Leslie Manasseh*

Connect

681,000

Colin Moses

POA

487,000

Section G (Member representing black women) no contest

Gloria Mills UNISON

Section H (Member representing disabled workers) no contest

Mark Fysh UNISON

Section I (Member representing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Workers) no contest

Maria Exall Communication Workers Union

Section J (Member representing young workers)

Name

union

votes

Richard Marshall

ATL

734,000

John Walsh*

Unite

5,265,000

General Purposes Committee (Five to be elected) no contest

Phil Davies GMB

Peter Hall RMT

Alastair Hunter UCU

Dilys Jouvent UNISON

Linda McCulloch Unite

That concludes the Scrutineers' Report.

The President: That concludes the business for today.

(Congress adjourned at 5.30 p.m.)



>   Contents Next section   >


This page http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-17255-f12.cfm
printed 24 May 2012 at 02:35 hrs by 38.107.179.231