RSS Feeds

The President : I call Congress to order. May I remind delegation leaders that the ballot for the General Council and the General Purposes Committee takes place this morning. Ballot papers should be collected from the scrutineers at the TUC Credentials Office which is situated outside the West Horseshoe. Ballot papers will only be provided in exchange for the official delegate form, so do not try any other means because you will not get them. Please note that the ballot closes at 12 noon today.

Congress I would now like to introduce you to our sororal delegate from the AFL-CIO, Linda Chavez Thompson, who will be addressing us tomorrow. Linda, you are very welcome. (Applause). Welcome also to Jerry Zelhoefer and Penny Schantz from the AFL-CIO. (Applause) We are also joined by the fraternal delegate from the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti. Ken will be addressing us later today.

You will also see on the platform a fairly familiar figure of slightly bigger stature than me, Bill Brett, Chair of the ILO Governing Body and a former member of the General Council. Welcome Bill. (Applause)

I would also like to welcome Jose Olivio Olivera of the ICFTU.

The Americas

The President: Colleagues, we now move on to Chapter 7 of the General Council's Report, International, and take the section on The Americas, on page 90. Probably one of our most important international campaigns in the last year has been in support of our colleagues in Colombia. In February a TUC delegation led by the Deputy General Secretary, Brendan Barber, visited Bogata and Cali. This is reported extensively in the General Council's Report.

To begin this debate in which we will hear from our guest, Hector Fajardo Abril, from the main National Centre, the CUT, I invite the Deputy General Secretary to lead in on behalf of the General Council. Thank you, Brendan.

Brendan Barber (Deputy General Secretary) leading in on the debate on Colombia said: I know that this will be a rather sombre debate because in no other country in the world do trades unionists face the levels of anti-trade union violence currently suffered by our Colombian colleagues. So far this year 117 trades unionists from the CUT National Centre alone have been murdered by the paramilitaries. Not one person has been arrested for any of these crimes, continuing the almost total impunity for crimes against the Colombian trade union movement.

On 15 August, just four weeks ago, four colleagues were killed in a single day. Felipe Mendoza was pulled out of his house in Tibu by paramilitaries and shot repeatedly in the head. He was a member of the USO Oil Workers' Union. Paramilitaries entered the local hospital in the town of Miranda and killed nurse Amparo Figueroa. She was a member of the ANTHOC health workers union. Paramilitaries murdered teacher Francisco Mendez on the road outside the city of Sincelejo. He was a member of the FECODE teachers union. Blanca Ludivia Hernandez, who worked in the public hospital in Cordoba, was found dead after paramilitaries had taken her away the previous week. Her body showed signs of torture. She was Vice President of the SINDES healthworkers' trade union.

Colleagues, I am sure that Hector Fajardo, General Secretary of the CUT, and our guest at Congress, who will speak next, will tell us more about the current situation under the newly elected Colombian Government, but first let me say just a little about the General Council's campaign in support of free trades unionism in Colombia and, on behalf of the General Council, express strong support too for the composite motion before Congress.

The campaign is described in detail in the General Council Report and in the Congress Guide there is also a diary of our mission to Colombia in February, which gives, I hope, a flavour of the whirlwind tour and the lessons we learned from it. The General Council have been resolute in their support for free trade unionism in Colombia and in the ILO the TUC has played a leading role in building international pressure for effective action to halt the horrific abuses trades unionists face there.

In addition, we actively supported the campaign by Sintraemcali, the municipal utilities workers union in Cali, to keep their company in public ownership, and we campaigned to ensure a peaceful resolution to a dispute and a work-in that could have ended violently. During the occupation we were actually able to establish direct contact on two occasions with our colleagues by video link, and able to deliver the TUC's message of solidarity in that way.

The TUC delegation in February was deeply moved by the reception we received from those workers at a works assembly in the company headquarters. We have developed close and regular contacts with the Colombian trade union movement, and in particular with the CUT. Together with the other national centres they have formed a small committee, which Hector chairs, to be our partner in the development of a TUC respite scheme to be operated with the invaluable support of the ILO. The purpose of the scheme is really quite simple: to save lives, by offering a safe haven to colleagues most in danger of assassination. As soon as the details of this scheme have been finalised, they will be circulated to all unions with an appeal for active involvement and support.

So, colleagues, the General Council fully support the composite motion and hope Congress will endorse it unanimously. The TUC team in February learned so much during the five days we were in Colombia, but two things above all stuck out for me: first, it is impossible to overstate the immense courage of our trade union colleagues, continuing to battle for our values of decency and justice in the face of unimaginable dangers each and every day; and, second, how important our solidarity work is to fellow trades unionists in peril.

It was clear that our colleagues in Cali had drawn real great strength and determination from knowing that they were not alone in their struggle. Our support had made a real difference. It was humbling to realise how so little in the form of messages and contact could mean so much in lifting spirits and morale. If we can together deliver our planned respite scheme that will be an even more tangible form of solidarity.

Congress, there will be no easy wishing away of the enormous problems of Colombia, but we can make a contribution and, believe me, our sisters and brothers there depend on our support. I move the report.

Address by Hector Fajardo Abril, General Secretary, CUT, Colombia

The President: Colleagues, I should now like to introduce you to Hector Fajardo Abril, General Secretary of the CUT. He is accompanied by his interpreter, Andre Palacio. Hector is not the first Colombian trades unionist to be a guest of Congress but he is the first General Secretary of a Colombian national trade union centre to address us. He has a lifetime of experience in the Colombian trade union movement; he comes from the education sector in which he was Treasurer of the Teachers Union. He has been a member of the CUT Executive since its foundation; he has been head of both the Press and Human Rights Departments. In the past he was Deputy General Secretary of the Inter-American Regional Organisation of the ICFTU. He is a good friend of the TUC, a strong advocate for Colombian and international trades unionists, a tireless advocate for peace and a most welcome guest.

Hector, it is now my pleasure to invite you to address Congress. The floor is yours if you would like to go to the rostrum.

Hector Fajardo Abril (General Secretary, CUT Colombia): (Interpretation): Dear President of the Congress, dear delegates, dear international guests, brothers and sisters, I begin this speech by expressing my sincere acknowledgement to the TUC and to its General Council, as well as to its General Secretary, for inviting me to take part in your Congress. But above all I should like to thank you for the active solidarity given to the Colombian trade unions, and primarily the CUT, in the critical situation we are facing: a situation caused by the pervasive wave of criminal attacks against the Colombian trade union Movement.

Colombian workers are mourning losses which have been perpetrated by sectors of the Government, the paramilitary groups, and in some cases by the guerrillas. In Colombia, trades unionists are killed, threatened, displaced and jailed for the simple reason that they are trades unionists. That is the only reason to explain the murders of more than 3000 workers - women and men - over the last 15 years. This year alone, 117 workers have been killed.

Today, I do not want to talk about what the world already knows. I want to tell you about what is happening in Colombia in other fields as well. Only 32 days ago, a man came to power who has clearly demonstrated his authoritarian tendencies and his distinct lack of desire for dialogue.

In this short time he has begun an unprecedented anti-worker offensive. He has submitted to Parliament a package of draft legislation aimed at 'flexibilising' the labour market and reducing labour costs; at drastically reducing workers' incomes; at hindering the chances for Colombians to enjoy a reasonable pension at the end of their working lives that would allow them a decent standard of living during their old age.

As you know, over the year Colombia has lived through a long armed conflict that has become even worse because of the influence of the narcotics traffickers as a source of finance for these illegal activities. That influence has also led to a loss of any sense of political, ethical or social direction on the part of the guerrillas, and to the evil activities of right-wing paramilitary groups.

Similarly, the existence of foreign programmes, such as Plan Colombia, which is supported by the government of the American President, George Bush, have promoted the incursion of American foreign policy on terrorism and drug-trafficking into the Colombian conflict. However, let me be clear, I have no intention of defending these illegal activities. I only want to draw attention to interference that will result only in the deepening and worsening of the conflict -- prolonging it and increasing the cost to human life and the wasting of economic resources.

Colombia demands and needs peace. I want, in the name of my people, to ask the international community -- particularly the international trade union movement, to continue providing support so that we can win this goal quickly and promote genuine reconciliation for all Colombians.

The new government is responding to this situation of political violence with measures which are intended to violate the individual and collective freedoms of our citizens. The establishment, by the Uribe Government, of a network of one million informants may carry the risk that those people will become involved in this conflict.

The outlook is not good and behind it lies a complex and difficult social and economic situation. Colombia is a country with the highest unemployment rate in the continent, 20 per cent. Fifty-two per cent of the working population is under-employed, roughly 5.2 million people. Fifty-two per cent of the national income is concentrated in the wealthiest 20 per cent of households. Sixty per cent of the population live below the poverty line. Out of a population of 40 million people, 20 per cent live in absolute poverty. Three million children have no chance to go to school.

Today Colombia is experiencing the worst economic crisis of her history. Economic growth has not risen above an average of one per cent for the last five years. The budget deficit accounts for four per cent of GDP. Recently, the country has been told by the Minister of Finance that IMF agreements negotiated by the former government may not be fulfilled.

This critical environment has put the trade union movement on alert, and massive mobilisation and widespread strikes will soon take place. We are confident that the trades unions of the world will continue their vigilance over the evolving situation in Colombia and will therefore provide us with their support and commitment to ensure that our socialist struggle cannot be suppressed and that our struggle will not be used as a pretext to continue the wave of crime against the trades unions.

I want to highlight the solidarity of the British workers and express our thanks for the visit of a high-level TUC delegation to Colombia in February. The delegation was able to visit Cali and to witness at first hand the struggle of the trade union in the city's public utilities company - Sintraemcali - to defend it against privatisation.

Similarly, I want to stress the role played by the TUC delegation at the ILO in campaigning for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry - a campaign which is encouraging and raising the combative spirit of the Colombian trade union movement.

A special mention must be made of the respite scheme proposed by the TUC to assist trades unionists under threat and in imminent danger by offering a period of temporary refuge in Britain.

Finally, I want to thank you all for the solidarity you have provided. That solidarity places on us an obligation to make an unbreakable commitment: to keep the Colombian trade union movement alive, active and combative. They may kill us, but we promise that other sisters and brothers will take our place.

Once again, many many thanks. (standing ovation)

The President: Hector, I think it makes us feel a bit humble in the face of the challenge that you have to cope with. We salute your bravery and the courage of your sisters and brothers in the Colombian trade union movement. You remind us that in the fight for peace and justice trades unionists in Colombia are in the front line. Please take back with you our support, our total support and solidarity, with your struggle. Thank you very much, Hector.

Colombia

Andy Reed (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) moved composite resolution 18. He said: I speak with ASLEF's experience on the situation in Colombia. Our General Secretary was fortunate to be part of the TUC delegation that visited Colombia earlier this year. He saw with his own eyes the awful situation that currently exists in Colombia and the blatant attacks on Colombian trades unionists and their families. At the time of the visit the official figures showed that 17O trades unionists had been assassinated in 2001, taking the total number assassinated in the last 20 years to over 3,500 - 3,500 trades unionists who died because they were elected negotiators, because they believed, as we do, that collective bargaining is a right, a human right, a right enshrined in ILO conventions.

The trade unionists in Colombia are people who believe and defend their rights to play a role in terms of negotiating wages and conditions for their members. Trades unionists in Colombia are opposed to the neo-liberal privatisation model pursued by the Colombian Government in the same way as we opposed Thatcher and the more extreme policies of privatisation. The only difference is the price that they pay for opposition. Colombians are people, like you, who have opposed the worst aspects of capitalism. They are like many trades unions and trades unionists in this country who have fought against privatisation of our essential services - water, electricity and oil - so they are no different. Only the end result is different. For us as trades unions and trades unionists we face de-recognition, industrial action and possibly the sack. For our Colombian sisters and brothers the result is much harsher. To be blunt, the real difference between you and that of the Colombian trades unionist is that they face the assassin's bullet.

The public sector in Colombia is up for grabs and the price is uneven. The choice is between justice for trades unions versus torture and death from the paramilitaries. The paramilitaries who carry out these atrocities, assassinations and assassination attempts operate with impunity. They have the arrogance to publish hit lists and then attempt to carry them out. The alarming facts are that less than one quarter per cent of the paramilitaries that are charged with assassination attempts are convicted.

It is for this reason, and this reason only, that a number of like minded trades unions formed Justice for Colombia, an organisation that relates to the problems of the trade unions and the trades unionists in Colombia, an organisation that is determined to assist our sisters and brothers in Colombia by raising the issues that are important to them within the labour and trade union movement in this country, to raise the issue at the highest level within government circles in this country. Surely if you belong to a trade union you agree and support its principles: an injury to one is an injury to all.

It is for that reason that the General Council chose to work with Justice for Colombia in January of this year when Sintraemcali, a public service trade union, occupied Emcali, a regional state owned corporation that threatened to sell off their assets and reduce the services to the local community. That occupation was successful to the extent that the utility remained in public hands and the workers' jobs remain intact. The occupation was a tribute to international solidarity, a tribute to the international role that the TUC can play when called upon.

But we must do more, much more, and I urge all affiliates to support the composite and accept the report from the General Council on the question of Colombia, particularly the point that refers to the respite scheme - a scheme designed to give maximum assistance to Colombian trades unionists in terms of bringing those in most danger of assassination to this country. Comrades, we must create a safe haven for trades unionists that is based on a true partnership between Colombian workers and trades unionists in this country, between the TUC and the Colombian national centres.

I urge Congress to support the composite. Congress, you can make a difference; through your actions we can actually save lives. President, I move Composite 18 with great pleasure.

Vicky Knight (Fire Brigades' Union) seconding Composite Motion 18 said: I join with my ASLEF colleague in commending to you the solidarity work carried out by the General Council and the TUC International Office on Colombia. It has been both creative and effective. It is also reassuring that after a struggle, with the TUC, we have our Colombian comrade speaking from the platform here today, and I look forward to ensuring that that link can and must never be broken.

As we have heard, repression in Colombia continues. According to the ICFTU annual survey of violations of trade union rights, not only were 185 trade union activists murdered in 2001 but nearly 2000 other trade union activists have received death threats in the last four years. Thirty-seven trade union activists were kidnapped and four bomb attacks were made on trade union headquarters. Remember the Colombian trade union movement is relatively small in membership and that 185 deaths in Colombia is equivalent to 2000 plus in Britain.

The ICFTU's report makes sombre reading. Take just two days in July 2001. I quote from the report. July 7, Jose Rodriguez, a member of the CUT's Executive Committee, received several death threats by telephone at his union's headquarters. July 8, Isabel Perez Goosman, of the Union of Registration Workers, was shot twice in the head and killed by two unidentified assailants who broke into her office. The next day Hugo Cabasis a member of the Narino teacher' union was killed by paramilitaries in Narino. At the time, the whole of the Executive Committee of the union of Children's Home Workers of Colombia received a communal death threat, at the middle of a meeting held at Baranchila.

For many years now the ILO Governing Body has been scathingly critical of the Colombian Government's failure to bring justice to the perpetrators of the violence against trades unionists. Of course, the right wing government blames the killings, kidnappings and the death threats on the guerrilla movement involved in a virtual civil war, but there is evidence that much of the brutality is carried out with the government's knowledge by state sponsored paramilitaries and by employers using thugs to break strikes and discourage trade union activities.

Within the ILO Workers Group it was argued strongly that a Commission of Inquiry be set up to put real pressure on the authorities to assist the Colombian people in their quest for democratic and human rights, but this demand - which is supported by the Colombian unions - has been blocked by the employers and a number of government representatives on the ILO.

Comrades, the struggle in Colombia is likely to become even more difficult for this valiant trade union movement following the election of the Uribe Government since the newly elected President is a self-confessed supporter of Margaret Thatcher. Our solidarity is needed now more than ever. Get involved in Justice for Colombia. Tell your members what is going on. Like FBU women did this year, bring speakers over from Colombia and tell people what is happening. Ask your MPs to raise the issue in Parliament and with the Foreign Office. The brave trades unionists of Colombia deserve nothing less. Help them keep the spirit of trades unionism, freedom and democracy alive and by so doing we will strengthen trades unionism everywhere. I second.

Lorene Fabian (Amicus) speaking to Composite 18 on Colombia said: Colombia remains the most dangerous place in the world to operate in for trades unionists. That is a fact, an undisputed fact. The speaker from Colombia, and the mover and seconder of the motion have made that abundantly clear. The role for us is to react to the situation and to work out how to help.

In the first instance, Conference needs to recognise the work that has already been done and the role that the General Council played during the occupation by Sintraemcali, the Colombian public service trade union in opposition to the privatisation of public utilities. Support from the TUC was immediate in that situation. When the call came from Colombian workers for British workers to picket the Colombian embassy in London, a number of organisations reacted in a positive way and John Monks led a delegation of general secretaries to meet the Colombian Ambassador demanding assurances that those trades unionists leading the occupation remained safe and free from violent attack from the paramilitaries.

Justice for Colombia worked with others to provide a peaceful picket. The outcome for workers was game, set and match, but we have to do more to support the trade unionists in Colombia, trades unionists who face the assassin's bullet every day of their working lives. All those workers want is to earn decent wages to send their children to decent schools and live in decent homes. So their fight is for social justice and against privatisation as stated by ASLEF.

It is for that very reason that a number of trades unionists formed Justice for Colombia and it is for that reason only that Amicus MSF agreed at its 2001 Conference to affiliate to Justice for Colombia. At our Conference this year, our NEC and General Secretary gave up some of our precious Conference time to listen to a Colombian trade union leader whose speech was as heart rending as the speech we heard earlier today from our Colombian guest. The outcome of that session was absolutely clear. We had to increase our involvement with Justice for Colombia both at regional and branch level, and I can assure you, Conference, that the call that went out for donations within Amicus MSF was met with resounding success, which makes me proud of my union.

Many, many times before this body and its affiliate unions have assisted workers all over the world to break free from oppression. We have a proud record. Let us get those resources to ensure the respite scheme is successful. We intend to do our best in Amicus and I know you will. Please support the motion an affiliate to Justice for Colombia.

Alison Shepherd (Unison) speaking in support of Composite 18 said: It is a very great privilege to do this as it was a very great privilege for me to visit Colombia in October and February. It may be a dangerous country but you learn things that change your perspective on life. For us the relationship began as one of simple solidarity from one public service union in the UK to a public service union, Sintraemcali, in the second city of Colombia. We found we had the same objectives: we believed in public service, services for people and services not for profit.

Brendan and our other speakers have talked about the reference in the Congress Guide, please read the report, and please read Simon's diary of that time. Hector has spoken very convincingly of the value we have in international solidarity. There can be no greater demonstration to me than when I went back to Cali in February, after the support we had given during the Emcali dispute, we were met by a group of workers with an impromptu meeting. It meant so much, we had done in a sense so little but it had been so important.

In the UK we just do not realise how lucky we are. We really do have the freedom to organise, despite whatever our employers chuck at us, but we do not get killed for doing the things that we do every day as trades unionists: going to meetings, visiting members, getting in negotiations, going from one place to another. It really make a big difference. We are all interested in leadership struggles. We have been enthraled all through the summer with various things going on. We all know about things that happen in our local workplaces. It is very important who sits on what Committee and who leads what, but in Colombia to put yourself up to lead a union puts your life at risk, it puts your family's life at risk. Simon in the guide talked about the miners union leader who stepped up to replace someone who had just been assassinated, who had replaced someone else six months earlier. How would we measure up with this?

We have a responsibility in the British trade union Movement; we have a responsibility to try and bring peace and a stable government to a beautiful country and it is not the first country to be scrapped over. It is very dangerous for many people to participate in the normal democratic process, but all the trades unionists we met worked with local communities to build strength from the ground upwards. Trades unionists operate in very difficult territory. They are at risk from territorial struggles between the guerillas and the paramilitaries, and US foreign policy and other foreign policy do not help. It should be supporting local communities.

We have seen the things we can do, respite schemes and whatever, but there is so much else we can do: get involved in urgent action networks, work with the human rights and solidarity groups. They need our help every day. Thank you very much. Go back and do something. Thank you.

* Composite Motion 16 was CARRIED

Adress by Julie Mellor

The President: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Julie Mellor, Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission. After becoming Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Julie launched the Valuing Women campaign for Equal Pay. She also set up an independent Equal Pay Task Force whose widely acclaimed report 'Just Pay' was published in February 2001. As well as chairing the EOC Julie is a trustee of Youth At Risk, a board member of the Employers Forum on Disability and a member of the National Consumer Council.

Julie, I understand that you have a personal history with us as a former NALGO rep, so we note that with pleasure. Julie, the trade union movement has always valued our close relationship with the Equal Opportunities Commission. You are very welcome here today and I invite you to address Congress.

Julie Mellor: Congress, in the 1950s and 1960s it was simple: there were women's rates and men's rates for doing exactly the same job openly advertised. Trades unions campaigned for a law to bring about equal pay and that led to the 1970 Equal Pay Act. Unfortunately, as you all know, the Equal Pay Act has not brought about equal pay. Women working full time in this country earn on average £123 less per week than men. Many earn considerably less than that. More than half of all women in this country have a disposable income of less than £100 a week. That is compared to under a quarter of men. Only 27 per cent of women in unskilled jobs are members of occupational pension schemes; only fifteen per cent of people who work part-time are in occupational pension schemes, according to a research report launched by the TUC last week.

If you take any of the lowest paid jobs - cleaning, catering, home care workers, shop assistants - you will find sectors dominated by women, many of whom juggle two or three of these jobs at a time because one alone would not be enough to live on. These women are bread winners, scraping together a living for themselves and their families.

Their work may not be glamorous and it does not often hit the headlines. They do not have access to the corridors of power, despite cleaning them, but their work is essential to the smooth running of society and they deserve proper financial recompense for the vital role they play. It is the women in these jobs that I want to concentrate on today.

Some women are still paid less than men for doing the same work, like Dawn Ruff, a cleaner whose case the Equal Opportunities Commission supported this year. She found she was paid 60p less per hour than male cleaners. She won her case; she was awarded compensation and back pay, and so it was worth her taking her claim.

At the EOC we continue our campaign to persuade employers to do pay reviews because that is the only way they will identify and tackle the discrimination in payment systems, such as that suffered by Dawn Ruff, which we know goes on in workplaces up and down the country.

I am also delighted that so many trade union members are learning how to carry out equal pay audits, in partnership with their employers through the TUC project funded by the government's Trade Union Learning Fund, and many more of you will know the facts and figures on equal pay thanks to highly imaginative and high profile campaigns to close the pay gap run by unions across England, Scotland and Wales. But the problem is that our equal pay laws do not work for many low paid women. It would not be possible for them to take an equal pay claim, even if they knew how, because there are not any men doing the jobs they do. It is simply that the jobs they do are low paid because women do them.

What I am saying is not new. What has changed for many cleaners, caterers, shop assistants and others working in the service sector is the hours they are expected to work. Twenty years ago the majority of people working unsocial hours were men employed in manufacturing industries. In these days of the 24 hour culture someone has to work to satisfy consumer demand for services and care for others around the clock, and that someone more often than not is a woman but she is not paid extra for doing it.

New research that the Equal Opportunities Commission will publish later this month will show that women are much less likely than men to be paid any kind of premium for working in the evening or at night.

Far from getting time and a half, the unsocial hours are just part of the job. Women end up doing these jobs because they can fit the hours around child care arrangements, but they should not be penalised. They deserve proper recompense for the effort they put in, and the sacrifices they have to make, so how do we get proper rewards for the vital role that women play? In 2002, three-quarters of working women are still in just five occupational groups: associates and professionals, like nurses; administration and secretarial; personal services like caring for children or older people; sales and customer service; and non-skilled manual work. The vast majority of jobs in these sectors pay less than in sectors where men predominate. That means that in order to close the pay gap we are going to have to put more value on the work that women do. That means tackling low pay in these sectors where women predominate.

If we are serious about women's poverty - and I applaud the motion from the TUC Women's Conference to Congress on this issue - we have to make the low pay of women in the service sector a priority.

So how do we go about it? Pay and grading structures tend to be based on long established tradition or market forces and either route discriminates against women, the first because we have not been in the labour market in large enough numbers or long enough to establish parity; and the second because the market itself is characterised by a gender pay gap. If we want to establish fairness for all, a fair rate for women as well as for men, then we have to begin to look again at the value of work being done. As we know, the current equal pay laws do not let us do that because the law requires women to compare the value of their work with that of men with the same employer, and for many low paid women there are no such comparators in the same employment.

I do not have answers and I do not even have a magic wand, but I did have a very illuminating visit to Australia this summer. In New South Wales they take a much less technical approach than we do in the UK and it enables them to look at the jobs done by women, re-assess them, properly value them, regardless of whether there is a man doing a job of equal value in the same employment. Last year they compared librarians with a whole range of jobs in society - from geo-scientists to hairdressers - to establish the proper value for a librarian's job.

Can we learn anything from the Australian experience? I am keen to explore that with trades unionists to make our equal pay legislation more effective so that we can properly value the low paid work women do.

Mention of the legislation brings me to the final point I want to make this morning. The Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act are intended as a deterrent, the idea being that people will think twice about doing things that are against the law. Of course, they rely on individuals to take legal action to prove that they have been discriminated against. For those laws to be effective, people have to know what their rights are, know what to do when things go wrong and have sufficient confidence to pursue the matter. Many of those in the lowest paid jobs I have been talking about do not have that knowledge or that confidence. Too many people live with discrimination day in, day out because they do not see an alternative.

The latest phase of our Valuing Women campaign, launched at the weekend, is aimed at people in low paid jobs, often in small workplaces where there is no union recognition. The message is a simple one: discrimination at work is out-dated, it is wrong and you do not have to put up with it. Through this campaign we will be advertising the EOC's help line as a confidential source of advice, but it could equally well be a trade union one. I know that many unions, and the TUC itself, campaign to raise awareness of employment rights. If you think you can use these materials then please get in touch with the EOC's Communications Department or log on to our website and send us an e-mail. This advert makes it quite clear that paying women less than men is discrimination. We may not have women's rates and men's rates any more but as long as the jobs done by hundreds and thousands of women remain at the bottom of the pay heap we will still have a gender pay gap. It is time to re-assess the value of work done by women, by cleaners and caterers, by home care workers and shop assistants. This country would grind to a halt without them. It is time to pay them a decent wage for the vital role they play. Thank you.

The President: Thank you, Julie. I thought that was a very practical and illuminating exposition that you gave us, with a lot of useful things that can be done in the fight to end the pay gap, and in the fight for justice and equality in pay for women. I am sure there will be a lot of people logging on and seeking out the information that you have given us this morning. Thank you once again.

Equal Rights

Maureen Rooney (General Council): In leading in on Chapter 2 of the General Council's Report, she said: Thank you, President, and good morning, Congress. I am pleased to introduce a debate on women's equality and I am particularly pleased to follow, as you said, President, a tremendously impressive and inspiring speech by Julie. Congress has shown its appreciation of your speech, Julie, but can I add mine and that of the Women's Committee. I thank you and all Commissioners for their hard work and support for our shared equality priorities.

Congress, there has been no higher priority for us during the past year than equal pay. Last year's Congress carried the excellent equal pay motion from our 2001 Women's Conference and much activity followed that decision, but the pay gap remains stubbornly at 18 per cent and, indeed, higher, particularly for part-time women.

The roots of equal pay are hidden, buried in pay structures. That is why we need every employer to do equal pay audits. These audits need to be done in partnership with unions. Together we can find the discrimination and get rid of it. One highlight of the TUC's year has been the government-funded project we have run to train equal pay reps in workplaces all over the country. You have that report. I urge you to read it but also to make use of it.

We now have a small army of reps who understand equal pay and know how to do pay audits. Equal pay audits are not brain surgery, we can all learn to do them. Many of you have been already involved. Your unions have been partners. Your reps have overseen the project at national level. We have been supported in that work by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Let me just add my thanks to the Equal Rights Department at the TUC, headed by Kay Cadbury, but the special work that Mary Myles and her team have done I know will bring that pay gap within our reach.

The TUC have designed new courses, new course materials, we have briefed tutors from colleges, trained 300 reps, and let us not forget full-time officers have been refreshed in their work on equality, and 40 full-time officers have also been trained. Congress, just when we are getting over the death of Barbara Castle, let us not forget the hard work that she pioneered when she was in government.

We had a national level equal pay conference and at that conference Barbara Roche, who is a member of our government, and many many experts who were there and testified to the positive contribution that the TUC and their affiliates have actually done in the work of equal pay.

On equal pay it may well be now or never. It is a make or break moment because we have a government who are committed to closing the pay gap. Some employers are beginning to look at equal pay audits but we need to act together and, indeed, we need to seize this moment. Our reps must be trained. Let us increase the number of pay audits and make a real difference. The TUC courses are continuing and I know some affiliates are doing in-house training. If we do not get this right now, we may live to regret it. Okay, we still have the law. Julie said it is imperfect but the Equal Pay Act will be used by trade unionists against bad employers who refuse to seek out discrimination in pay structures. We will carry on taking cases to court but it could be so much different. At the same time, we will campaign for better laws, including compulsory pay audits.

Congress, pay discrimination is one of the many causes of women's poverty. We have all seen the headlines where highly paid women with mountains of money winning equal pay cases, but that is not what it is all about. Pay and equality hits hardest at the rough end of the labour market, where women are low paid in part-time work doing under-valued jobs. Our members need our support.

This year's Women's Conference has sent you an important motion on ending women's poverty, which we will debate soon. The General Council warmly support the motion and welcome it. They also support the motion on work-life balance. Long hours, inflexible work practices, these put an intolerable strain on working people, all working people, but it is hardest for working parents, especially mothers.

We know that in the United Kingdom, men in work work the longest hours in Europe. We have now alarming evidence that women's working hours are also getting longer. This is as much a barrier to women's equality as equal pay, in fact it is one cause of unequal pay. You cannot combine long hours with parenthood. You cannot see your family responsibilities if your hours are inflexible and, indeed, unpredictable. Something has to give and often it is a woman's place in the labour market and it affects her income throughout her life.

Delegates, you are about to debate these important motions that go to the heart of women's equality. President, I shall delay you no further. I welcome this opportunity. Thank you for your attention, Congress. Listen, support, and act on the motions. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Single Equality Commission

Judy McKnight (Napo - The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff) moved composite motion 3. She said: At the end of last year, the Government published a consultation document "towards equality and diversity". This consultation document outlined proposals for implementing the European Union's Employment and Race Directives, welcome and long overdue directives which require some improvements to the range of our equality legislation, and specifically require legislation to prohibit discrimination in work and training on the new grounds of sexual orientation, religion and age.

The consultation document also flagged up the possibility of, in the longer term at least, a single equality commission. The Government has indicated that they will be consulting more formally on that proposal next year. Rightly or wrongly, there is an assumption around that the Government are determined to move to a single equality commission but, clearly, many issues arise in terms of what would be needed to make such a commission effective, and the many inherent dangers in moving to a single body.

The TUC's response to the Government's consultation paper, along with those from the existing equality commissions, the Commission for Race Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission, and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, have all recognised that a single equality commission, if it is going to represent a step forward and not a step backwards in the provision of advice, guidance and enforcement, must ensure certain minimum requirements in its establishment.

This motion sets out six minimum points that we should be demanding. First of all, the introduction of a single equality act; secondly, measures to ensure a protected and sufficient budget; thirdly, independence and a seat for trade unions on the board of any new body; fourthly, a separate mandate from a Human Rights Commission; fifthly, a structure allowing an equal voice on each equality strand with no hierarchy between the strands and, finally, ensuring that arrangements are in place which ensure no dilution in the range of functions carried out by the existing commissions.

If I can just, briefly, say a bit more about the first of those two points. I think all of us who have been involved in equality legislation will also know the importance of trying to use this opportunity to try and simplify and improve the accessibility of the current legislation. Currently, there are four principal Acts dealing with discrimination but in total 30 pieces of legislation, 11 Codes of Practice, 12 EC Directives and Resolutions, and around 38 Statutory Instruments. This is precisely because equality law to date has developed in a piecemeal way and further statutory regulations, as the Government is planning in order to introduce these European directives, will only increase the complexity of current legislation. It will not provide the necessary legal framework to ensure a successful single equality body. We must demand primary legislation and that would also ensure proper parliamentary debate.

Our demands also talk about budgets and protected budgets. Perhaps we are being unjustly cynical in thinking that the Treasury may spot the opportunity of a single body in order to make some efficiency savings. If we are being cynical, it is from long experience and certainly knowing that to date none of the current commissions have ever been properly and adequately funded for the vital job they have to do.

It is also worth us looking at the lessons to be learnt from Northern Ireland where a single equality commission was originally set up with a separate disability unit with 21 staff. In April of this year, the Disability Unit was merged with the rest of the Commission and instead of 21 staff working on disability issues, there are now five staff.

Congress, support the motion and let us unite around a very clear set of demands. Please support the motion. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Denise McGuire (Connect) in seconding the composite motion said:

Chair, at this point I would like to crave your indulgence and take a moment to say a big thank you from Connect to Sir Tony. He has been a very good friend to our union for many years and we really appreciate that. Thank you, Tony.

Unions are at the sharp end in giving practical advice on equality issues in the workplace. We need primary legislation, not regulations. We need specialists, people with expertise and experience in each of the equality strands. We do not want a generic approach or a bureaucratic convenience. In highlighting our concerns, it is also important to mention potential benefits.

Although an expertise in one equality strand does not make you an expert across the agenda, there are sone issues where we can share best practice and make a real and tangible difference to people's lives. For example, we all understand the realities of performance pay. Women, minority ethnic people, those with disabilities, older workers, their performance is often similar to that of their colleagues but it translates into lower pay increases. We can also cite cases of discrimination in starting salaries and in pay on promotion. Our pay surveys give us that evidence.

Last year, we convinced a major employer to stump up a million pounds to address pay imbalances. Pay imbalances, Congress, is a very polite way of saying that people had been underpaid for years. We had another half million this year but there is still a long long way to go. It would be good to believe that union evidence alone would be sufficient to win the day but the reality is that employers are more likely to respond positively to best practice endorsed by the equality commissions.

The EOC guidance on pay audits has been invaluable to us. We really do need that sort of specialist advice spread across the whole of the equality spectrum. It is right that we demand the tools we need to end discrimination and exploitation. Congress, the discussion on a single equality commission will continue and unions must have a strong and clear voice in that debate. There are potential benefits but we need primary legislation, adequate resources, specialists, and union involvement. I second. (Applause)

Jonathan Baume (FDA) speaking in support of the motion said: The FDA supports, in principle, the setting up of a single equality body. Over the past 25 to 30 years the UK has come a long way but, as Julie Mellor explained this morning so graphically, there remains an enormous agenda. I think the Commission for Racial Equality would have offered a similar perspective. We should not under-estimate the progress that has been made. Much of that is down to the lead the EOC and CRE have set. The Disability Rights Commission is relatively new but nonetheless has made a very good start.

We also know there are very many cases of discrimination that cannot be neatly pigeon-holed. The FDA represents staff in all three Equality Commissions and there is ever-increasing dialogue and joint working between them. The position will become even more complicated as new legislation on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion, and age, come into force.

We believe that it makes sense in the context of the new legislation to move towards a single equality body but we share very strongly the views that have already been expressed by Napo and Connect that this must not be done on the cheap and, even more importantly, by not in any way reducing the effectiveness and responsibilities. We believe that a single equality commission could be a lever for greater power and authority but we support the six criteria in this motion against which any government proposal must be judged. As has already been said, these are criteria that can unite Congress, whether you are broadly sympathetic or still pretty suspicious about the concept of a single equality commission.

Establishing such a commission will inevitably take time; not least, we do need to establish the legal framework and that does need considerably more debate. In the interim the Government must explain how it intends to police the new legislation outlawing discrimination because of sexuality, religion, and age. It will not be good enough for any of our members who complain of such discrimination to be told that their case must be put on hold until a single commission is established. We have not had that explanation from the Government and it is time that we did.

Of course, it is not just a matter of supporting individuals. We do that ourselves, as well. It is also all the other work that the existing commissions carry out, the support and the guidance. We should see a single equality commission as an opportunity, not a threat, but it will only be an opportunity, if it is built on the platform of those minimum criteria that this motion sets out. There will be a real threat if the Government's much heralded improvements in equality legislation wither on the vine because no mechanisms are established that actually make that legislation meaningful for individuals throughout the UK. Support the motion. (Applause)

Rose White (Graphical, Paper and Media Union) speaking in support of the composite motion said: Although we would really prefer to see separate commissions for each of the different areas of equality, we recognise that it is likely that the Government will move towards one commission. There are pros and cons to both situations. The separation of the Commission can make it difficult to deal with discrimination. For instance, joining the Commissions together raises the possibility that the Government will see this as an opportunity to cut costs, particularly at a time when three new areas of discrimination laws are coming into force.

Realistically, it was always unlikely that the Government would consider three new commissions to cover religion or belief, sexual orientation, and age. If we are to accept a single commission, it is imperative that we ensure adequate funding, not just to cover the existing discrimination but to enhance funding to ensure the new legislation can be properly enforced.

What is not addressed in the motion is the need to promote equality. The Race Relations Amendments Act provides for the promotion of race equality by public bodies. This is likely to be extended to cover other areas of discrimination. The GPMU believes we must strive to extend that commitment to cover the private sector too. It would be an opportunity missed if we obtained a single equality act followed by a single commission and then allowed a two-tier system of equality rights to exist. What possible reason can there be for accepting that the public sector should be more equal than the private? It is, after all, the private sector where most small companies exist and are among the worst offenders when it comes to ignoring their responsibility not to discriminate.

Congress, as a union that organises many small companies, we have dealt with inequality of all kinds in these companies and know how big the problem is. Despite our reservations about a single commission, we must use any moves in this direction as a platform to gain comprehensive and compatible equality laws that cover all workers. Please support the motion. (Applause)

Pauline Abrams (Public and Commercial Services Union) speaking in support of the composite said: Congress, PCS is a main trade union for those who work in the Equal Opportunities Commission, the DRC and the Commission for Racial Equality. We recognise the Government's longer-term objective to move towards a single equality commission. However, we remain to be convinced that a single equality commission will provide the advice, the guidance, the information and the enforcement that we currently receive in the individual commissions.

Our members who work in the area of these three commissions have cross-cutting equality discussions and expertise embedded in these three distinct areas. There are a number of issues that we feel need to be resolved in addition to the immense legislative alignment that is required. The current inconsistencies in legislation, which may be resolved by a single equality act, will serve to harmonise the existing equality legislation and provisions for the new strands of sexual orientation, religion, belief, and age. In addition to the European Race and Employment Directives, this must be introduced by primary legislation to help ensure consistency across the grounds on which discrimination is made unlawful.

At present, some government departments have lead responsibility on equality issues which can, in some circumstances, lead to inconsistent policy-making and inconsistency in equality legislation. For workers in these areas duplication and confusion create unnecessary extra work which may be resolved in a single equality commission, if created after proper consultation and assurances for users and our members who actually work in these areas. The level of funding from different government departments differ from commission to commission. This also needs to be resolved.

However, Congress, as the motion alludes to, any unified structure must be created in a way to ensure consistency and sufficient funding for all areas, so that our members can do their job and for the continued objective of support, advice, guidance and enforcement powers for people of colour, gender, disability, and now, in addition, sexual equality, religion, and age.

Congress, a lot more work is needed and we hope this will be pursued before a single equality commission becomes reality. There needs to be security for those who use the service and for those who actually implement it. There needs to be a better service, not a worse service. There needs to be protection in all areas and not feelings of rejection. This needs to be resolved, better resolutions in the case of discrimination. We hope all of these will be the primary objective when they look at actually trying to implement the Single Equality Commission. With this, Congress, PCS offer support. (Applause)

Tim Lucas (National Union of Teachers) speaking in support of the composite motion said: President, Congress, the NUT believes the Government's announcement that it favours a single equality commission makes it all the more remarkable that they do not seem to be minded to include the provision of goods and services when they implement the European Directive when it comes to sexual orientation, but restrict what they do to employment issues. How can a single commission logically treat different strands unequally with some benefiting from coverage on all aspects of life while others are recognised only when it comes to employment?

In addition, Congress, there are real concerns that there will be no extra money added to what the three existing commissions get now, and probably less if a single equality commission is set up. Even if funding is not cut, the new strands should lead to the employment of additional staff with the necessary expertise and experience, and certainly not at the expense of existing staff who might otherwise be at risk of redundancy.

Congress, that would be clearly unacceptable. President, borrowing from your speech, we have a half-full glass on offer. While we can appreciate and thank the Government for that, we need to encourage them to fill it right up to the brim. Congress, please pass the composite unanimously. (Applause)

Gareth Davies (ISTC The Community Union) speaking in support of the composite said: I moved the resolution to the Labour Party Conference in 1997, which led to the establishment of the Disability Rights Task Force on which my colleague, Joe Mann, served, and later to the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission.

I first heard the idea of a single equality commission at the end of 1997 and it seemed to me to be completely round the twist, at the time. However, the European Anti-Discrimination Directive of 2000 began to give it some more credence and, as you have already heard, the Government did a consultation at the end of 2001 and the beginning of this year. The announcement, which was interpreted as an intention to establish a single equalities commission, was made on 15th May.

I raised this question with Barbara Roche on 16th July and she assured me that there would be no single equalities commission if they could not carry interested parties with it. I also argued at the RNIB board on 13th June that the idea of a single equality commission was probably irresistible because of six personnel departments, six finance departments, all that duplication. That was the position that prevailed from the RNIB.

We are arguing for conditions to be attached to the single equality commission, no diminution of resources, no diminution of expertise. Please support. (Applause)

The President: There is no right of reply so I am going to move straight to the vote.

* Composite motion 3 was CARRIED

Protocol 12

Gerard Kelly (NATFHE - University & College Lecturers' Union) moved motion 11. He said: When the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into British law in 2000, there were high hopes in some quarters that this would be a big advance in terms of equality and non discrimination. In fact, it has caused barely a ripple and is not likely to unless we sign up to Protocol 12.

The European Convention on Human Rights arose in a reaction to Nazi Germany and was primarily concerned with the protection of political rights rather than social or individual ones. It was adopted in 1950 by the newly created Council of Europe which now has 43 member states. The ECHR has a number of articles which might potentially be helpful in achieving equality. Thus, for example, article 3, protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, might be used in extreme cases of racism or sexism. Article 8, the right to privacy, family life, home and correspondence, might be used to provide some protection for lesbians and gay men. Article 9, the right to freedom of conscience and religion, provides some protection around religious discrimination.

The reason why so little has been gained from the existence of these articles is the formulation of Article 14, i.e. "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political and other opinion, national, social origin, association with national minority, property, birth or other status."

The great strength of this formulation is that it is open-ended and not exhaustive. Other status can be and has been interpreted to include sexuality, disability, marital status, legitimacy, professional status, and others. The great weakness of it is that it is not free-standing. It is limited to the rights and freedoms set out in the other articles of the ECHR and can only be involved in conjunction with one of those rights. If another article is proved to be breached, the court does not then go on to consider whether Article 14 has been breached also. If no other article has been breached, then the court rules that Article 14 is inapplicable. There is thus very little case law coming from Strasbourg around this and none at all from our domestic courts here in the United Kingdom. There has been nothing of significance from those courts.

The Council, therefore, decided to draw up a protocol to strengthen the open-ended approach to Article 14. The Protocol was agreed, Protocol 12, and open for signature in November 2000. So far, 27 member states have signed and two have ratified, Cyprus and Georgia, I believe. In order for it to enter into force, ten member states have to ratify this. This is to be expected to be done and achieved by late 2003.

The United Kingdom, however, has refused to sign. Why? The Government have said it does want Article 14 to be free-standing but it has concerns around Protocol 12. All of these concerns seem to me, and to my union, nonsensical, trivial, and can easily be rebutted. What is worse for us as trade unionists is the message that their failure to sign sends out. It tells people that this country does not believe in equality and a place that does not believe in equality will have festering pits of discrimination.

We all know what this means. There will not be a person in this hall who has forgotten the murders of Stephen Lawrence, Damilola Taylor, the bombings in Brick Lane, Brixton and Soho, all because of bigotry and the belief that some people are more equal than others; the innocent people killed in Palestine and Israel, and probably in a few days or weeks Iraq as well, all because people believe that some are better than others. Remember, Tony Blair, not in my name about Iraq. (Applause)

Adoption of Protocol 12 will signal a broad political acceptance of the fact that non discrimination is a basic human right and could be the cornerstone on which the edifice of a comprehensive equality review could be built. I move.

Jackie Lewis (Unison) seconding the motion said: Unison welcomes NATFHE bringing the question of the UK Government's ratification of Protocol 12 to Congress this year. Protocol 12 is a rather difficult issue, perhaps, to run a popular campaign around. People tend to glaze over when you start talking in initials and numbers, but it is an important issue.

Some progress on equality is being made in the European Union through the Article 13 Directives which people are perhaps generally aware of, but protocol 12 is potentially far more significant. It introduces, as the mover says, a free-standing right of equality, something which is missing from the Convention. Potentially, it applies to all 43 Council of Europe member states. Once ten of these countries have both signed and ratified Protocol 12, it will take effect in those countries. So far, 27 have signed and another two have signed and ratified it, but not the UK Government.

The Government say that it supports Protocol 12, in principle, but it has no plans to sign or ratify it. Congress, is that not a bit like someone who owes you money saying, "Here, in principle, is your money" and giving you a cheque that they have no plans to sign? As this motion says, we must campaign to get the Government to sign up to Protocol 12; indeed, a Congress resolution a few years ago called on the Government to do just that.

Unison welcomes the initiatives that have been taken, such as the TUC Justice Conference in April this year and ASLEF 'ratify Protocol 12' postcard campaign. But we need to do more to raise awareness of the potential of the Protocol, do more to expose the weakness of the UK Government's arguments against ratification, and the arguments are weak. If countries like Italy, Greece, and Germany, can sign up, why not the UK? If countries like Ukraine, Latvia, and Maldova, can sign up, why cannot the UK?

I would suggest the main reason the Government feels it can get away with this is that people do not know about it. We have to change that. We need to make Protocol 12 sexy. As I said earlier, people tend to switch off when you talk about initials and numbers but once they understand what Protocol 12 means, then they want to support the campaign. A good example of that was at the London Pride Festival this year where Unison members, alongside our sisters and brothers in ASLEF, got hundreds of people to fill in one of the ASLEF postcards. We need to do more of that kind of thing.

The principle of equality is a fundamental and essential human right. Protocol 12 is an essential step towards making that right real. Please support the motion. (Applause)

The President: There are no further speakers indicating, there has been no opposition, so I intend to move to the vote.

* Motion 11 was CARRIED

Ending Women's Poverty

Diana Holland (Transport and General Workers' Union) moved composite Motion 4. She said: Conference, to inform you, I am the Chair of the 2002 TUC Women's Conference. This is the T&G motion to the TUC Women's Conference moved by Jane McKay on our behalf, and voted as the Conference's motion to this Congress.

The work of the TUC Women's Conference and Women's Committee has made real differences to the lives of working women, both in the workplace and in the community. Equal pay, fulltime rights for part-time workers, a national minimum wage, maternity and family-friendly rights, dignity in retirement, all these are trade union issues. However, too many women still live in poverty, too many women's lives are scarred by harassment, discrimination, and violence, and too many issues central to women's lives are still treated by policy-makers as fringe issues.

This motion calls for an end to that. Women who came to the rostrum at the TUC Women's Conference reminded us of how long we have waited. At the 1888 Congress, Clementine Black moved the motion calling for equal pay; that was 114 years ago. In 1970, Barbara Castle introduced the Equal Pay Act; that was 32 years ago. The UK is still ranked 12th out of 15 countries in Europe on equal pay. The gender pay gap for fulltime women workers is 18 per cent and more than double that for part-time workers. Pakistani and Bangladeshi women face a £34 a week pay gap with white women. The proportion of lone-parent families living in poverty has tripled since 1979.

Pensions have become the dominant issue for many trade union members but it is especially acute for many women trade union members. A woman member came to me and her first pension cheque was for 38 pence. Do not forget, single women pensioners are four times more likely to be living in poverty than single male pensioners. As Jack Jones said at the Pensioners Rally on Sunday: "We want an end to pensioners discrimination, treating women as some kind of second-rate servant to the man." We do not want our daughters and our granddaughters, and their daughters and granddaughters, to face this future. How many more generations of women and their families will suffer before we have equality and dignity in retirement.

Sisters and brothers, we know that to end women's poverty the trade union movement cannot do it alone. We need to negotiate with employers to close the gender pay gap, to end low pay and to tackle the issue of working hours and shift work, which Maureen Rooney raised in her statement on behalf of the General Council. We need to recognise that women are the majority of workers and users in public services and end the two-tier workforce in the public sector.

We need to persuade the Government of their responsibilities on pensions and benefits. We need to negotiate and legislate for paid maternity and family leave. This is a commitment to the next generation, too. A new baby's life should not begin under the blight of financial insecurity.

What about two very small changes which could make a big difference. When you go on maternity leave and your earnings fall below the lower earnings limit, no one tells you of your right to have the National Insurance credits made up. This should happen automatically. The pensions age addition for the over-80s set at 25 pence in 1971 is still at 25 pence in 2002, which we debated yesterday. What about raising the addition to a decent level?

Above all, for us as trade unions this motion means we must organise and represent working women. Women, women's lives and work, are part of the mainstream, 50:50. We have to demonstrate as a trade union movement that we are relevant, that we listen to women, that we recognise the diversity of women, and that we take action that makes a difference to all women's lives.

Finally, sisters and brothers, I mentioned Barbara Castle earlier. When she attended the T&G National Women's Committee last summer, her final question to us was: when are you going to put a date to ending women's poverty? This motion is a fitting memorial to her. Let us take up the challenge. I do not want my, or anyone else's, daughter to face the hurdles that have faced women of the past and women of the present. Let us make a date to end women's poverty and let us make that commitment now. Congress, I move. (Applause)

Roger Lyons (Amicus) seconding the composite said: Congress, sisters and brothers, the issue of women's pay is not just a women's issue but it is an industrial issue which belongs to all of us across the movement. Women are central in our workforces today; they make up half the workforce and without them the economy would collapse. It is wholly unacceptable that working women should not be paid a decent wage equal to men's pay for work of equal value.

In Amicus we are campaigning to achieve fair pay for women by demanding mandatory equal pay reviews as part of the TUC campaign. We want a statutory duty on all employers to review their pay systems, to root out and remove sex discrimination in pay. It is vital to understand just what this sex discrimination means for women in pay. It means the 18 per cent lower average for men doing equivalent work. That is like being paid only 10 months of every year worked. Sex discrimination in pay also means for part-time workers a massive drop in pay, only 45 per cent of what men earn. Whichever way you look at it, it is at least a quarter of a million pounds loss of pay in a woman's working lifetime, less money for women and their families, less money in their pensions, financial hardship. Sex discrimination in pay means that women are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs.

We lay the responsibility at the Government's door to introduce a duty on employers to review their pay systems annually, to root out and remove sex discrimination in pay, but we lay the blame, the root cause blame, at the CBI's door. They are staunchly opposing mandatory pay reviews. They have campaigned hard to stop the Government introducing such reviews. They want no change in the law. We believe that the CBI is ruining the best opportunity that women have had in 30 years, since the Equal Pay Act, to achieve equal pay. They want no change in the law, regardless of the fact that it will take at least another 40 years at the rate of current progress before we achieve equal pay.

The CBI have stated that the pay gap does not justify introducing these audits. They are consigning women to 70 years having their pay docked. They may be satisfied to let young girls like our daughters, our granddaughters, wait until they are middle-aged but we in the movement will not wait. On Sunday, November 24th, at 1 o'clock, our women members and their supporters are going with their daughters to the CBI conference in Manchester, to show how strongly we feel. These girls will not wait a lifetime. They do not want equal pay after another 40 years. They want it now.

Sisters and brothers here today, join us in Manchester on the 24th at the CBI conference, support the demonstration, tell the CBI we want an end to women's poverty. I second. (Applause)

Di Wood (Unifi) speaking in support of the composite said: It is scandalous that we still have a gender pay gap of 18 per cent 30 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act. The pay gap for part-time workers is even wider, at 41 per cent. But Congress may be surprised to learn that the pay gap in the finance sector is a staggering 44 per cent, the largest of any sector, despite the fact that women make up over 50 per cent of the finance sector workforce.

All women, both part-time and full-time, are disadvantaged by the pay gap leading to greater poverty for many women, not only during their working lives but also in retirement. As previous speakers have already stated, at the current rate of progress, equal pay will not be achieved until 2050.

Congress, women cannot and should not have to wait nearly another 50 years to achieve equal pay. In a democratic society it is our right to be paid an equal wage with men. Undervaluing the work that women do is not about social and cultural differences, it is about exploitation, and it must end.

Women also bear the brunt of the responsibility for caring for children and face great obstacles because of both the lack and cost of childcare. There are over 5 million children under eight in England but there are only 560,000 day nursery places and childminders, leaving many parents with no choice as formal childcare services are either too expensive or not available in the area where they live. This results in only 13 per cent of parents using formal childcare, others having to rely on relatives, partners, friends, and unregistered childminders. Women can be trapped in the low pay, no pay cycle and denied the benefits of good quality childcare because it is too expensive.

The UK has the highest level of child poverty in Europe. Women and children are condemned to living in poverty leading to poor health, poor living conditions, and low educational achievement. Affordable childcare would allow these women to work and escape the poverty trap. Currently, most childcare services are provided by the private sector and the Labour Government has committed to spending £1.5 billion on childcare over the next three years. However, it is not sufficient to provide part-time early education for three and four-year olds. Yet again we are lagging behind Europe with most countries providing or seeking to provide three years fulltime early education. If women are to have real choices over their working lives, fulltime childcare, affordable childcare, is required for all.

Composite 4 calls on the TUC to campaign for a national target date for ending women's poverty. This should include a campaign for the Government's provision of affordable childcare for all. Please support. (Applause)

Hazel Conley (Association of University Teachers): President and Congress, on the face of it, I am one of the success stories of what widening participation in education can do to free women from poverty. I entered higher education after being made redundant from a job where my skills went unrecognised and unrewarded, whilst watching men whom I trained gain promotion.

My skills were recognised as a student in higher education, and after ten years of study, only possible, I must add, because I received a state grant, I have a first class honours degree, a masters degree and a Ph.D. That is not bad for a kid from a Salford bog-standard comprehensive school.

I decided to stay in higher education because it was here that my eyes were opened to the idea of social exclusion and discrimination and the importance of strong trade unionism. However, as an employee in higher education, I have been disappointed to find that I am still discriminated against. Despite my academic achievements, I was employed on a salary which would hardly have been any different had I remained in my first job. Worst of all, I was employed on a fixed term contract.

After ten years of study and gaining the highest academic qualification, I find myself without a permanent job. I am not unique. In 2001 50percent of women academics were employed on fixed term contracts compared with 38percent of men. This is structural discrimination which has a specific impact on women. The Association of University Teachers have collected many instances of women who, even after many years of employment on fixed term contract, find they do not qualify for maternity rights. Quite often they find that their contract is not renewed following maternity leave. These are basic rights which a disproportionate amount of women on fixed term contracts are excluded from. I urge you to support composite motion 4.

Julie Robinson (Unison) supporting the composite motion, said: President and delegates, it gives me no pleasure having to speak in support of this composite, thirty years after the introduction of legislation outlawing sex discrimination. We want to focus on the points about tackling pay discrimination because, in our view, this is absolutely essential to the goal of ending women's poverty.

Statistics show that the pay gap between men and women persists throughout the labour market. Research shows that the gender pay gap for new graduates is 15percent. For full time workers that pay gap is 18percent and for part-time women workers the gap is 60percent and growing. Throughout a working lifetime, that pay gap costs women about a quarter-of-a-million pounds, having a direct impact on their incomes during maternity leave and retirement.

When the Minister for Women, Barbara Roche, was asked to support a campaign for a high level review of policy on women's pensions, part of her response was that those unable to contribute themselves can benefit from the rules which allow a family member or a friend to contribute to their pensions. So, girls, we know what we can do. We can kill two birds with one stone. Get two begging bowls around our well paid male friends and relatives, and they can top up our low incomes and pensions.

In Carlisle, Unison has just won a major equal pay victory for over 1,400 health workers. The case involved members from across the health care team - nurses, cleaners, catering staff and clerical workers. The case exposed the systematic discrimination against women which is built into the current pay scales for health workers. This win will strengthen our position in current national negotiations to develop a new pay and grading scheme for the Health Service based on equal value principles.

Unison is pleased to be participating in the TUC's Equal Pay Pilot Project. The project is funded by the Government through the Union Learning Fund. The project originally had funding for one year and in that time it has trained 300 reps. We are pleased to hear that it will be funded for a further year so more courses will be organised throughout the country. Check out the TUC website for more details and information.

On the general issue of equality, how many delegations here reflect the women members within their trade unions? If you check your Congress Guides you will soon spot the unequal delegations. I think you will find that out of 60 unions, 41 are not proportional to their women members. That is only men to women, I might add, not black workers, lesbian and gay workers and disabled workers. (Applause)

In fact, to prove a point just look behind me. It is quite noticeable that quite a few of the men are missing, which I find quite disgusting on a debate about equality. (Applause)

The President: Julie, I am sorry, but this man is going to ask you to wind-up because the red light is on.

Julie Robinson: Two more sentences.

The President: You had better make them quick.

Julie Robinson: That should mean proportional delegations here as well. Support the motion; support equality, and make sure you get your own house in order.

The President : I think we got that message. I will move to the vote as there was no opposition.

* Composite Motion 4 was CARRIED.

Work/Life Balance

Ged Nichols (Accord) moved composite motion 5. He said: I am one of the males who was missing from my seat on the platform just now as I was sitting with my delegation preparing our contribution to composite no. 5.

The name Accord is one that may be unfamiliar to some of you. We are getting used to it ourselves, slowly. We were previously the Union of Halifax Staff. We changed our name following a merger between the Halifax and the Bank of Scotland to create HBOS, which is probably a name that you are equally unfamiliar with. Our name was changed at a delegate conference earlier this year which had the work/life balance as its theme. While our names have changed, regrettably the prospect of a decent work/life balance remains as elusive as ever for far too many of our members. We, of course, welcome the commitments given and the progress made, particularly the efforts of the TUC, and Minister Alan Johnstone's proposals in relations to new rights for work parents.

However, the work/life balance is a true equality issue, which transgresses gender and that means we should continue to press for a better work/life balance for all employees whether parents or not.

Recent studies indicate that there are real gains to be made in commercial performance by employers with family friendly policies. We need to build pressure to ensure that the less on lightened employers take a top-down commitment to this issue. We have a great opportunity because the 23rd September begins the Work/Life Balance Week. I ask all unions to support it.

Further, we ask Congress to instruct the General Council to campaign to ensure that the new Employment Act will be strong enough to ensure that employers pay more than lipservice to the needs of their employees by supporting Composite 5. Thank you.

Sue Jarvis (FDA) in seconding the motion said: FDA senior civil service members are caught in the stranglehold of a long hours culture. Their contract requires them to work a minimum of 41 or 42 hours a week and, I quote, "such additional hours as may from time to time be reasonable and necessary for the efficient performance of their duties". The question of what is reasonable is rarely asked. What is necessary has grown enormously in recent years. Civil servants are faced with ever more intimidating delivery targets set by this Government.

The evidence of the effect of this work pressure is everywhere. Our recent survey of members in the senior Civil Service found that over 75percent worked over six hours a week more than the required hours, and over 35percent worked over 11 hours more. This is unpaid overtime, voluntary but often punishingly unavoidable in the current culture. The evidence of the toll on personal health and family life is inescapable. I know many colleagues who have worked themselves until they have become seriously ill, burnt out until their relationships have been destroyed by long hours and stress. What a waste and what a price to pay!

We look to the Government to take determined steps to address the working cultures which threaten work/life balance. This Government have been full of words on the subject. Patricia Hewitt has acknowledged the high cost of stress to British industry is £370 million per year. She has called on employers and employees to work together to find sensible work/life balance solutions.

I call upon the Government to put its own house in order and deliver change for its own civil servants. In our recent survey, 76percent of respondents thought their department had not taken sufficient steps to address the problem of long hours.

The new Employment Act seems unlikely to be strong enough to change the culture. It will give some extra rights to ask for flexible working conditions to parents of children under six, but those rights are heavily qualified, and the Act will give far fewer rights to men than to women. We must make sure that we do not resort to sterotype solutions, fighting only for parents or for mothers or for those with children of certain ages. Every working person has an equal right to a healthy work/life balance.

I will end with a point which is closer to home. As the working single parent of three school-aged children, I have to say that the greatest work/life balance stress of my year is caused by having to leave the children in the first full week of the school term in England and Wales to attend the TUC Conference. A week or two later would be much later for those with young families. Please support.

The President: Thank you, Sue. We changed it once in an endeavour to make things better. We, clearly, have not quite cracked it.

Jackie Darby (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) speaking in support of the composite motion said: Sisters and Brothers, before I begin, as a member of the TSSA delegation, I found it objectionable to be portrayed as an apologist for the regime of Saddam Hussein yesterday in Roger Lyons' speech.

The President: Sister, I do not want to replay yesterday's debates today. I am not particularly having a go at you, but I just do not want it to carry on throughout the morning.

Jackie Darby: Work/Life balance and family friendly policies are not just a matter of a shorter working week or fewer hours. Workers need the freedom to arrange their lives to fit their personal circumstances. This does not mean the insecurity of moving in and out of employment which is flexibility for the employer rather than the employee. There is an insidious phrase in the contracts at my workplace, and that is "in the interests of the business". Essentially, this means that you must do whatever hours on whatever day the employer demands. This is exploitation of what we have heard earlier today. We need strong legislation to protect workers from it. Please support this important composite.

* Composite Motion 5 was CARRIED.

Environment and energy

David Simpson (Prospect) moved composite motion 13. He said: Congress, the TUC already supports a balanced energy policy for the UK. This motion seeks to build on that in the light of the current debate on climate change and the emerging debate on security of electricity supply.

Many unions, including Prospect, have responded to the PIU Energy Review and the Government's consultation which arose out of that. The White Paper is now promised for the year end.

Whilst the UK will not achieve its climate change objectives through energy policy alone, energy policy has a key part to play, so it is essential that the TUC has a clear and reasoned position from which to lobby the Government.

Taking each of the five points set out in the composite in turn, the first is research and development. There is a need for more R&D in a number of fields, in particularly those types of renewable energy which have not been commercially exploited to date. We also believe that the programme of clean coal R&D, which was abandoned on privatisation, should be re-started and that support should be continued for international research, carbon storage and sequestration.

Next, the skills base. Since privatisation of the energy industries recruitment has plummeted. There is now a serious age imbalance as companies live off their existing assets, including staff, without making adequate provision for the future. In turn, the supply of graduates in technical disciplines, such as electrical engineering, has almost dried up. This is a cause for serious concern.

The Government's independent adviser has recommended improvement in the pay, career prospects and work experience of science, engineering, technology and research staff, but to translate this into action by the private sector energy companies will require intervention, perhaps by amending regulatory terms of reference.

Thirdly, the potential of local generation poses problems for transmission and distribution systems which were designed for central generation. Imaginative solutions, both technical and economic, are required if the largescale use of renewable energy is to be achieved.

Consider one large scale example. The northern isles, Orkney and Shetland, are rich in sources of renewable energy - wind, waves and especially tidal streams. There is, however, no adequate transmission system in place to take power to the load centres of Scotland and England. Meanwhile, the National Grid would like to build an undersea connection from northern England to Norway. An alternative via the northern isles would allow exploitation of these large scale renewables, but with investment decisions left in the hands of individual private companies there is little likelihood of such a mutually beneficial scheme coming to pass.

On nuclear, the PIU report acknowledges that it offers a zero carbon source of electricity which is of a much greater scale than any other currently available option. The Trade and Industry Select Committee agrees and makes the very pertinent point that to keep the nuclear option open requires a positive commitment now. It is probably worth adding here that this on-going requirement for nuclear generation transcends British Energy's current financial difficulties.

The knowledge and experience lost from the nuclear industry in recent years must be rebuilt. Nuclear R&D must also be continued in the fields of safe radioactive waste management and also to take forward the potential of fission.

Economic instruments also have a crucial role to play. The UK's success in meeting the Kyoto targets to date is a fortuitious by-product of changes in the generation mix, and we know that this trend will not continue. To correctly account for emissions, it is essential that the cost of pollution is built in. The current climate change levy fails to address this issue properly, since it taxes energy, not carbon. Carbon valuation is the way forward and if the Government are serious about their emission commitments, they must have the courage to implement its introduction.

Last but not least, the Government must provide clear leadership on energy and environmental policy and a much more joined-up approach. Ignoring transport, for example, because it is the responsibility of another department, is a case in point.

The forthcoming White Paper provides an opportunity to get it right but this will only happen if deeper mental lines of demarcation are overcome.

Conference, the need for a proper energy policy has never been greater. Thank you.

Patrick Carragher (BACM-TEAM) seconding the composite motion said: Delegates, last year I came to the rostrum with a similar motion and I said that it would be churlish not to acknowledge some of the assistance that the coal industry had received from the Government. But, looking back over the past 12 months, we have seen the closure of Langannarck Colliery, Prince of Wales Colliery, the announcement of the closure of the four collieries in the Selby complex, and there are doubts over the future of Clipstone in Nottinghamshire, and there are doubts about other collieries.

So whilst we had the PIU report last year and whilst we have the White Paper consultation going on at the minute, from the coal industry it looks as though we are fiddling while Rome burns. We need a future for the coal industry in this country. In relation to the Selby closure, the real issue is where is the replacement capacity going to come from. That capacity is situated at Thorne in South Yorkshire, and that is not going to be developed by the private sector because no one is going to develop that unless they know they will have a market for their product.

The central point that I would like to convey to delegates this morning is that in large part the Government, since 1997, have determined that they are going to run to a greater or lesser extent with the deregulated market policy for energy they inherited from the Conservative government. The point that I want to make is that if that is the Government's policy it will not meet the Government's stated objectives of diverse fuel supplies and a good competitive range of fuel input.

So there is an urgent need for the Government to review the position, and Europe has shown us the way. Europe has given the Government a regime that they can pro-actively work to. I would stress that the Government must address these issues early if we are going to secure the future for the British mining industry.

Dougie Rooney (Amicus): Chair, colleagues all. There is no more important issue facing this issue than securing and ensuring that we have an efficient, effective and safe energy policy and energy resource in this nation. We will have no manufacturing base or service sector unless we have an effective economy. Such an energy policy is important component of that economy, and it is inextricably linked to the energy resource of the nation. It is important that we ensure that we have an effective energy policy in this country and that it works for the people, not for profit.

We have been faced in the past few years with privatisation, and the private sector is where we have to live, although I will comment on the British Energy position briefly in a moment. We have to have a balanced energy policy which involves all the components, namely, coal, renewables and nuclear, in order to ensure that we cannot be dependent on any particular resource. We have to have a diverse resource that is available to us as a nation.

It is essential that we look at and address this issue and ensure that we have effective regulation that does not stifle investment and does not give away money to the shareholders but gives all the stakeholders, including the employees and the customers, a fair crack of the whip, to be blunt about it. We need to ensure that we can produce electricity and energy for our manufacturing base that is efficient and at low cost. It must also be transmitted and distributed by a workforce that is treated well, at the highest standards and which operates in a safe manner.

At the moment confusion exists in the industry for a number of reasons. There is a need to take on board within the Energy Review a complete re-think of our present regulatory regime and to address a number of issues which are making that somewhat of a stranglehold on the industry.

In the past few days the situation in British Energy has been publicised. Let me say that they have eight excellent power stations backed-up by two head offices with world experts. They need to get their act together. The Government were right to intervene but the company needs to secure with its financial backers a secure way forward in financial terms for the company.

Let me be clear that the trade unions will not accept a situation where the company goes into voluntary insolvency. We will oppose that and we will ask the Government to look at restructuring the company in order to bring it back into public ownership if needs be. I conclude at that point.

Ian Parker (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers) speaking in support of the composite said:

In 1989 NACODS was fortunate enough to secure the services of the then Labour Party Shadow Energy Minister to give a keynote speech at our conference. This was in response to the energy debate that was taking place in Parliament. Much of what he said then still rings true today. He spoke about the issue of coal and said it was not simply an issue for the coal industry, but an issue which concerned the whole future of the country's energy policy. He was of the opinion that there was a need to secure the coal industry against a free for all policy on imports. He felt it was important to protect the country's natural resources in the coming decades and also to set the long-term interests of this country against the short-term interests of the market.

He said that the Tories were using the argument of the greenhouse effect as a stick to beat the coal industry so that they could close mines and meet their environmental constraints. He said, in conclusion, that if people forgot the importance of guarding the nation's own natural resources, then every lesson of energy policy that the country had been taught would be lost. The Shadow Energy Minister to whom I refer was no other than the

Rt Hon Tony Blair MP. Those were fine words from a fine gentleman.

However, a decade or so on, with a Labour Government in their second term, we still do not have a joined-up energy policy. Mines are closing, not under the auspices of the Tories but under the supervision of a Labour Government. The God given boundaries of coal that Tony spoke about are being lost for ever as we become more dependent on imports of coal, natural gas and oil.

Whilst we sit on an island of coal, by 2012 three-quarters of our energy needs will be generated from gas, through pipelines which stretch from the Caspian Sea region to the Middle East. As to the security of supply - forget about it! How do you police thousands of miles of pipelines? As to cheap supplies of gas, do not forget that in the 1970s and 1980s, when we had cheap supplies of oil, these were quadrupled in price overnight because the Middle East operated a cartel.

We must also not forget the Californian crisis when their over-dependence on gas lead to the lights going out. Already this year, we have seen interruptions in gas being supplied through Continental pipelines, so this must be a warning to us all. We must stop the senseless closure of more deep mine coalmines in the UK at the expense of cheap coal imports.

I end on this note. Tony, you valued the support and friendship of NACODS and the coal industry when we helped

Labour to an election victory. Do not let us down. More importantly, do not let the UK down by leaving the energy requirements to the vagaries of the free market. I ask Congress to support.

* Composite Motion 13 was CARRIED.

Regulation

Billy Hayes (Communication Workers Union) moved motion 58.

He said: Chair, Conference, the current system of regulation is in need of reform. During the past two decades the UK has evolved a so-called 'independent regulation' whereby a regulator appointed by the Government, with powers granted by Parliament, effectively determines who provides which services and on what terms. As a union representing almost 300,000 workers employed the telecoms, postal and financial services industries, we have extensive experience of regulation, an acute awareness of the faults and shortcomings of the current regulatory regime and the damaging consequences it has had on the public and our members.

It is our firm belief, supported by many politicians and consumers that the independent regulation has become too autonomous and too independent of both government and Parliament. Set up with the intention of controlling the privatised utilities and curbing the excesses of the private sector, these large and often remote and frequently unaccountable bodies have instead promoted competition, above all else, and paid scant regard to the impact of their decisions on employment and important social and environmental concerns.

That is why the CWU has long campaigned for reform of the utility regulation. We want to see the extension of the powers beyond the narrow goal of promoting competition that takes into account the interests of those employed in these industries and promotes wider social and environmental objectives; provides for increased openness and far greater accountability. Whilst recognising the ongoing developments, relating to the established and proposed new regulatory authority OFCOM, the CWU believes that the time has come to charge the current systems of regulation, which has largely remained unchanged since they were first set up.

First, we believe that this review should look at the regulator's remit. A fair regulatory system must take into account the interests of the employees. Regulators should have a duty to consider the implication of their decisions on those employed in their industries. The regulated utilities in the UK employ over three-quarters of a million workers directly and many more thousands indirectly. These staff have a clear stake in their industries and the decision that the regulators may make will have a direct bearing on their working lives.

However, Conference, regulators have an unhealthy fixation with promoting competition above all else and give artificial competition assistance to the newly privatised competitors. This often has a devastating impact in the form of mass redundancies, for example, in the Post Office, and huge social cost in terms of social security and the impact on communities.

If the Government really believe that employees are key stakeholders in their industries, and they have said it often enough, then they should take steps to make stakeholding a reality in the utilities and force the regulators to consider the impact of their decisions on the employment levels, health and safety, staff training and the development of service provision.

It also provides that the regulation should take place in a social and environmental context. At the moment these regulators have a series of primary and secondary duties that are often contradictory. In relation to OFTEL, for example, this has led to a lack of focus on some key social policies, such as the development of broadband in the UK. We will shortly be discussing broadband, but let me tell you one simple fact in terms of the OFTEL. We, in the UK, are way, way behind in the development of broadband. We are way behind even countries like Korea.

A similar situation exists with postal regulation. POSTCOM's plans to privatise the postal service threatens to undermine the universal service obligation. That is why we believe, Conference, that Parliament, not only in establishing these regulators, should also look towards making the regulators accountable to Parliament, to ensure these regulated companies honour their obligations to the workforce and the people.

We are calling for a review in our motion to Congress because we believe there needs to be a wide-ranging debate on the whole question of regulation in the UK. We have lived with regulation in its various forms since the 1980s. Now is the time, if we believe in stakeholding, if we believe in accountability, if we believe in transparency, to have that debate. It should not just be about competition. It should be about all the stakeholders, and as a representative of working people in this country, we are a key stakeholder and that is why we urge you to support our motion. Thank you.

Malcolm Sage (GMB) seconding the motion, said:

Since the mid-80s the use of regulators to control the sold-off and deregulated industries, the energy industry in the UK has been a constant source of problems. The regulators have not always worked in the interests of the consumer, let alone the employees. They have no responsibility or accountability to Parliament and they do not take into consideration what is in the best interest of the UK as a whole. Their only consideration has been competition, and competition at all costs. They have been allowed to follow their own version of the free market, very often an artificial market created by them. We believe that the regulator should be accountable to Parliament. It should operate in the interests of the UK and the community at large, not just for the consumers and individuals. Policy on regulations must be consistent across the industries.

The main thrust of the regulator is competition. To this end it has introduced false market conditions to prevent co-operation between suppliers. This approach has tended to be the price-lead which may not always be in the consumers' or the nation's interest. The regulator has not taken into consideration the wider needs of the nation and the consumer as a whole.

The GMB believes that it should be the duty of the regulator to set targets for standards of service to all operators which must include safety. From our experience of regulators in the UK, this is not the case. The GMB has consistently argued since privatisation that the regulators must cover wider issues than just competition, which should include the national interest as a whole, consumer issues, energy conservation, environmental issues, investment in the industry and networks, safety in the industry with the HSE and training and qualifications of staff. Thank you.

* Motion 58 was CARRIED.

Broadband Technology

Jeannie Drake (Communication Workers' Union) moved motion 61 as ammended. She said: Congress, the telecommunications system of any nation is now the key infrastructure issue affecting the modernisation of its economy and its ability to compete in a global marketplace. This is one of the reasons why the US is the pre-eminent economic power and why all the economies which are striving to become world leaders are investing in their communication infrastructures.

Just now the key question for this key infrastructure is broadband. So what is broadband? In a word - a technology which gives speed, a connection to the web that is always on, delivers interaction, greater quality and higher capacity.

Sixty-five per cent of the UK population is now covered by broadband technology, either BT's ADSL wired network service or a cable company modem service. On access we are comparable to most of Europe, but four-fifths of the country geographically is still outside the range. That is a major challenge for rural and remote urban areas. We need alternative access technologies such as radio and satellite. But even with 65percent coverage take-up is still far too low. Less than 5percent of homes have a broadband connection.

So why is broadband so important? Broadband means jobs. As a nation, a high technical infrastructure will enable us to locate worthwhile jobs anywhere in the country since the information superhighway does not require special access to power, to physical resources or need road or rail links. It means jobs for a sector devastated by corporate debt and corruption. Broadband means competitiveness. It can give a small manufacturer a window on the world to offer products on a website and secure e-commerce facilities for transactions 24 hours a day.

A report by Gartner Dataquest showed a correlation between broadband penetration and GDP giving huge payoffs. Broadband means empowerment, information from global sources every minute of every day, access to government services 24 hours a day, increasing the knowledge and skills of our schoolchildren. Broadband means social inclusion and social and economic engagement. But we need the General Council to engage the Government.

The Government are a facilitator, a procurer and a regulator. As a facilitator, the Government need to publicise the benefits of broadband and deliver public sector applications and content. The Government's £30 million fund for regional initiatives is tiny compared with that of other governments. Recent figures showed Britain as twentieth in a league table of countries ranked by broadband take-up. South Korea is top, Canada second, the US third and the UK is bottom.

As a procurer, the Government need to use their purchasing power. The public sector spends about £1.7 billion on communications each year. Aggregation of public sector procurement of broadband services would be a major stimulant. The Government's target for 20percent of schools to have broadband connection by 2006 is so slow. We need broadband connection over every school, college, library and hospital now.

As the ultimate regulator, the Government needs to ensure that the actions of OFTEL and, in future, OFCOM promote the provision and take-up of broadband. One of the regulator's strategic objectives must be delivering the universal provision of broadband. The right of universal access must become one of universal broadband access. The Government's model of network competition has not delivered broadband Britain.

We believe that key aspects of policy on government funding and ownership need to be re-visited if it is to achieve its stated public policy objective of making the UK the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005.

The CWU's 'demand broadband' campaign is our contribution to promoting jobs, the UK economy, accelerating social inclusion and narrowing the digital divide. Congress, we cannot do it on our own. We need your support and we need the General Council's impact. Thank you.

Adrian Askew (Connect) seconding the motion said: Congress, in Connect we have enthusiastically taken up the opportunity to work with our sister union, the CWU, in supporting the 'demand broadband' campaign. Congress, let us be clear. This is not a narrow sectional interest - just the communications unions trying to protect the jobs of their members, however important that may be. No. This campaign is about the prosperity and competitiveness of the UK and the responsibility we all have to make sure that the country does not slip into a two class information society.

Broadband is key to the development of communications and allowing access to new opportunities and possibilities. This technology sits at the very heart of our trade union agenda, expanding choice and flexibility for a better working life, better for the environment and better for employment.

As an example, in education there is an accelerating trend towards web-based learning. Significant parts of school and office curricula are now supported by research capabilities delivered over the telecoms networks, to say nothing of the opportunities available to students of any age through distance learning. But why should fast and easy access to these resources be limited to those lucky enough to be able to afford them? Broadband highspeed access must never be available just to those who are deemed to be the economic elite, usually businesses, frequently based in the urban centres.

The way forward must be affordable, reliable highspeed access, and that is precisely what the 'demand broadband' campaign is all about. However, it is essential that the roll-out of broadband is based on the social and economic imperatives of the UK and not deflected by any sterile arguments about the structure of the communications industry.

Some commentators in this national debate about broadband have called for the break-up of BT, suggesting that this would help the roll-out of broadband. Congress, this is nonsense, and we have told them so. Breaking up BT would be a huge, costly and unnecessary distraction for the UK. It would damage the interests of consumers and destroy the momentum that is now building for broadband Britain. We must not impose the Railtrack debacle on our communications networks.

The development of this new technology brings great potential and opportunity. It affects us all.

Congress, we ask you to support Motion 61 and the amendment. Thank you.

* Motion 61 as amended was CARRIED.

Communications Bill

Harry Landis (Equity) moved Composite Motion 14.

He said: Congress, do you remember the days when television was worth watching? When did you last see a play that was not only entertaining but also uplifting and informative? It is a long time since 'Cathy Come Home', a play that touched the conscience of the nation about the plight of the homeless. Then there were the plays of Jim Allen. There was one about the 1926 General Strike; The Lump, about the building trade; The Boys From the Black Stuff; Pennies from Heaven .... I could go on.

The commissioned one-off play appears to be dead. Ratings and advertising are the order of the day and quality is forgotten. Yes, occasionally we get a 'Shackleton' or 'Our Friends in the North', but drama today is mainly police series or soaps; but even programmes like those are at risk. Today we get gardening, cooking, reality shows and some poor sods getting their front room painted mauve and orange. (Laughter) It could get worse!

This motion is about the proposed Communication Bill which would allow, and I quote, "for greater flexibility for broadcasters". At the moment, the companies have to provide a certain amount of hours a week to news, current affairs, drama, children's programmes and sport, but under what they call the new 'light touch' regulation, news and current affairs would be left alone but the rest would now be lumped together as 'other'. The broadcasters would become self-governing. Whereas now the regulator makes an annual assessment of the broadcasters' performance over the year, this Bill would produce a system of self-assessment. This means that the broadcasters would produce their own report on how they think they did over the year and the new regulator, OFCOM, by now powerless, would only be allowed to comment on that assessment. This, of course, leaves the companies free to put out a watered down version of any standards and we will get more cheap rubbish like Wheel of Fortune and 'Changing Rooms'.

There is very little in the bill about regional programming. We have argued that the bill should provide a statutory minimum level of regional production, without which we believe future financial pressures could place undue pressure on the regulator to reduce these commitments to virtually nothing.

Another so-called relaxation states: "The existing prohibition in the non-European economic area will be removed." This concerns the rules of media ownership, which could allow American multinational corporations to own British broadcasters like ITV's Channel 3 or Channel 5. This Bill, as drafted, does not provide sufficient protection to prevent new owners using their backlog of used-up rubbish programmes on our screens rather than investing in domestic production. This would mean less employment for everyone in the industry, not to mention the cultural repercussions because television should reflect our society.

Lord Puttnam's joint committee report on the bill noted this concern and recommended that the new regulator should be given time to renew the situation and not allow the media ownership changes until the time is right. His committee's conclusions were overruled.

If we want this powerful medium to help young people understand the society they live in, if we want the way of life of the British people to be reflected on our screens, we must ask the Government to make sensible adjustments to this bill. (Applause)

The President: Conference, I was tempted to enter into the debate as an only recently former Governor of the BBC, but I had better not. Anita Halpin, you have the floor.

Anita Halpin (National Union of Journalists) seconding the motion said: Delegates, the situation is simple. The Communications Bill is bad news for us, the readers, the viewers and the listeners. It is bad because it will undermine standards, limit diversity, plurality across our multicultural society and, as a result, the quality of our cultural life and universal access to information will be much, much poorer.

Reading between the lines, the Bill's intention is quite clear. The Government want to liberalise the market. Why? "Because for too long the UK's media has been over-regulated and over-protected from competition". Those are not my words. I could have not written that. The Bill will remove 'unnecessary regulatory burdens' and 'cut red tape' and introduce a single, very unaccountable, regulatory body, OFCOM, and we have heard in an earlier debate the dangers of improperly managed regulatory bodies.

We know all too well the effects of liberalisation and deregulation are no holds barred across the public sector. Whether it is transport or the health service, education or the utilities, the result is always the same - quality and provisions plummet and dividends and golden handshakes rocket. Now it is the media's turn.

Let us be quite clear. New Labour has gone even further than the Tories dared in the relaxation of ownership rules. In particular, as Harry has reminded us, they seek to lift the restriction on non-EU ownership. But, as the owners of broadcasting own lots of other things, their tentacles spread across the whole of the media, everything will be affected: newspapers, books and magazines as well as radio, television and the internet. If you come to the NUJ seats, we will show you the map of the six media firms that rule the world.

So what can we do? The timetable is very tight. The first draft of the Communications Bill will be before Parliament in November or December of this year. It will be debated over the winter and into the early spring. So if we want to act, we have to act now. We have to write to our MPs, we have to ask the General Council to build a campaign to extend public service obligations within the media. Quite honestly, our media, our culture, our Play of the Month, even some of our quiz shows, would not be safe in their hands.

Please support the motion. If you want to know more, come to the fringe meeting this evening after Congress at the Claremont Hotel. Many of you will have picked up this leaflet up this morning (shows leaflet). All I want is your universal support, or even nem con.

Bernarde Roome (Communication Workers Union) supporting the motion said: In particular, comrades, I wish to address the issues within roman numerals vi, vii and viii.

The CWU prefers the public ownership of the telecommunications industry. With that being unlikely under the present government, it is important that there is firm control over both the role and the responsibilities of OFCOM.

During the past few decades, the UK has evolved a model of so-called independent regulation, whereby the regulator appointed by government, with powers granted by Parliament, effectively determines who can provide which service and on which terms. The current draft of the Communications Bill embraces this model in respect of OFCOM. The CWU's experience of such a regulatory model has been particularly within OFTEL, with whom we have interfaced for the last 18 years.

Initially, when BT was privatised, a myriad of companies were keen to get a piece of the action. Now there are only three companies left: BT, NTL and Telewest. In reality it is only two, because NTL and Telewest do not compete with each other. The only people who have really suffered with these companies coming in and out of the business depending on whether they believed it was profitable, depending on OFTEL's position at that time, are those workers who have been sacked, reinstated, sacked, casualised and then left on the scrap heap! We do not wish that to happen again and we do not wish a system of regulation which that would allow. We want a system of regulation that makes sure that people are put first.

We have seen already this year, in our own union, the POSTCOM proposals and the fact that, despite many MPs being opposed to the proposals, they have gone through. We need a change and we need a change quickly. We cannot carry on with a situation whereby we do not have any effect on our future.

Jeannie eloquently discussed and debated the reasons why we must go towards broadband. Broadband is important not just for us, but for our future. We cannot have the position we had over the last 18 years where the clamour for profit has divorced us from the real effects of taking this country forward technologically.

We need a trained workforce. We do not want a system whereby our workforce is casualised and then cannot meet the requirements when we decide to move. We do not want the workers in the telecommunications manufacturing industry not knowing whether they are going to have a job today or tomorrow depending on which way the regulator wants to turn. We want the workers in Marconi, Fujitsu, Selector and Global Marine to know that tomorrow they will have a job and the day after and the days after that. We can only have that with a proper regulation, a properly trained workforce and a proper focus on where we want to go.

Comrades, what we need is need regulation for progress; not regulation purely for profit. (Applause)

* Composite motion 14 was CARRIED.

Promoting Trade Unionism

The President: I now come to Chapter 10, Promoting Trade Unionism, at page 134 of the General Council's Report. It is at this point that I invite John Monks, the General Secretary, to give his Address to Congress. There is no more important task than promoting integration and growth and I know that is the theme that John is going to address. John, the floor is your.

John Monks (General Secretary) leading in on Chapter 10 of the General Council's Report said: Good morning, Congress.

If a teacher was going to write a report on how well we have promoted trade unionism over the past ten years, I think she would probably give us about 6 out of 10 and add, "Try harder next time." We have got achievements, that is for sure, and I have got little doubt about our top ones: One, fighting racism, building unity in fractured communities; much done, of course much still to do but I am proud of what we have done. I am also proud of our part in the election of, first, one Labour government with a record majority and then another. That has never been done before in our history. Of course, we do not take all the credit; we cannot. But would it have happened without our efforts, without your efforts? Of course it would not.

Just remember, ten years ago (some of you will remember it well), after that bitter 1992 election defeat, actually many asked whether Labour could ever win again. Now they are asking the same questions about the Tories. It is very good to see recycling at work.

Never forget just how much has changed with those election victories, and a lot has changed, and we should never fall into the trap of thinking it is the same old Tories, it is the same society. There was a bit of that in some of the rhetoric yesterday. I think of the dreary and depressing Tory years, where I never actually got to see John Major, the Prime Minister, when I was the incoming General Secretary at the time and I am very glad those days have passed.

We have had a chance to make progress; not just to hold on to what we have, and I think we have a good basis now for doing what our Congress slogan says - reaching out - promoting trade unionism.

New laws, not always going as far as we like, for sure, but progress none the less. There have been nine times as many new recognition agreements as there were in 1997 - nine times as many. (Applause)

The next achievement, and I think probably the most crucial of the lot, is high employment. I wish I could say full employment. It is full employment in some areas, but it is high employment generally. Again, just go back to about 1995. Remember what people said about full employment then? "It has gone forever. You will never see it again. The conditions of post war Britain and the post war West will never come back. We will never manage to get a high level of employment of that kind."

But it has been coming back, and full employment has been to everybody's benefit. Again, I did not hear it mentioned much in the debates yesterday.

There is a significant change in the landscape for trade unions in this country, because it is necessary for many reasons - social justice; economic efficiency; to generate the wealth to pay for public services. But never forget, too, that it makes labour scarce. It tilts the balance of power towards workers. Again, those of you with a bit of knowledge of history will remember these things, it was high unemployment, rather than the Tory laws or privatisation, which did most damage to us in the 1980s. Just as it was full employment which most fuelled our rising strength throughout the post war period.

Then there is the huge boost to public spending - the high point of the Government's second term. A defining moment we called it just when the Chancellor announced it in the Budget last April. The prospect now beckons of public services which at last - at last - begin to match the European standards. By the way, there are half a million extra public servants being employed. I am not talking about the private sector, who have been given a role in some of this; I am talking about public servants.

We know the Conservatives will not match that increase, they have said so, and we know they will not actually expand public services. They, in fact, would, if they get a chance, slash taxes on the better off, probably on corporate Britain as well, and move wholesale to private provisions of healthcare and education, with all the inequalities, all the exploitation and dislocation to staff that would certainly result.

Then there is another achievement: a more positive approach to Europe; where, with the unstinting support of the European TUC, a whole stream of new rights has come in since Labour ended that opt-out from the Social Chapter.

So we know about the unfinished business, we are talking about that all the time; but never, never fall into the trap of underestimating what has been done because, if you do, you are underestimating what you have done and you are downplaying trade union achievements; and that is no way to promote trade unionism and to reach out to the unorganised.

When we are dealing with government, do not, I believe, either, raise the call of 'betrayal' when a government says 'No', or will not go as far as we like. When that happens (and it does), we move on. We do not give up; we wait for our next chance. But we appreciate relationships where things do get done, and relationships like that are ones that you nurture, you protect and you do not treat carelessly.

Never forget that, when it has broken down in the past (and it has certainly done so), the result has been electoral catastrophe and bruising defeats for the working people of this country and their trade unions. Of course, as our agenda this week makes clear we do not live in some trade union utopia. We are not even where we should be and could be on the important issues on employment law, manufacturing, public services and pensions.

Frankly, we know there is nothing new about unions and labour governments having problems. One reason is an obvious one. With many of our members working in the public sector, the Government are, directly or indirectly, their employer and there are the inevitable and regular problems about pay and conditions, as in any work place.

We know, too, there are other factors as work. There is the mood. The New Labour rhetoric makes much of being business friendly; a tendency to play down pro-worker measures and play up the so-called 'British flexible labour market'. Flexible for employers, for sure, but harsh and cruel for many workers, especially low paid ones.

There is, too, the sometimes exaggerated respect for the role the private sector can play in the delivery of public services. I am not anti the private sector. The private sector is where most of our fellow citizens work and where we need to recruit; always remember that. Our primary job is always to get a fair deal for members in all sectors and not get bogged down in ideology. Clearly, that sector has a role in building hospitals, supplying equipment, providing some support services. It always has and always will. It should never be at the expense of the public service ethos and, more concretely, never, never by lowering the terms and conditions of employment of those who provide public services. We have been told it will not happen any longer, but the robust devices that are necessary to stop it are still not fully in place.

But my call today (and you will realise why I have picked today) is to build a new partnership with Labour, with other political forces that we can work with and with employers, to tackle the big problems we know we all face and we are not going to solve independently: productivity; performance; skills and pensions; the work/life balance, just to pick but five.

In Britain we work too long for too little, achieving less than our counterparts in many other advanced industrial countries. We are about 11th in the productivity league table.

We know we have got to improve public sector pay; we have got to raise the self-esteem of public sector workers, too often portrayed as being second-class in some way. The Audit Commission report the other day (if you have not seen it I commend it to you) painted a graphic picture of what is wrong in public services.

But we must also plan an overall strategy designed to boost pay and performance across the public services. Otherwise, we run the risk of a bruising game of leapfrog which would squander the chances of big improvements in service delivery.

We know, too, we have got to give better support UK manufacturing, which is losing 10,000 jobs per month at the moment partly because of the exchange rate and also partly because of the uncertain position of sterling against the euro. I am not one of those who believes that the euro is an issue that can be laid gently to rest in the long grass. An uncompetitive exchange rate and, what is more, a volatile one, is costing us jobs now, and will continue to do so, until we face up to our European destiny and play a full, and not half-hearted, part in the European Union. (Applause)

We know it is time to attain the best European standards of employment law and collective bargaining. We understand that bit of European integration. There are other things, too, that we need to understand better.

Congress, we are not going to promote trade unionism by turning every problem at work into a crisis; by portraying every manager as though they were always hell-bent on screwing the workforce; by saying no to many changes, or making change so hard to achieve that it feels like you are running through treacle. That way lies endless and self-defeating conflicts. We are not syndicalists; we have not practised syndicalism since 1926.

We will build trade unionism by being a bright, lively constructive force, keen to engage, pressing employers to do better, helping our members to do better, helping Britain to be better.

We will do it, too, by working in partnership with decent employers and, yes, there are many, and we will do it by working with the Government. That is not sweetheartism, it is realism. We know workers want to be respected, to be esteemed, helped to get on, to do a good job, and we have got to reflect that side of their life as well as solve their grievances and their problems.

We fight the bad employer by all means, and I was pleased in one way and sorry in another way that the Friction Dynamex workers had to come and see us yesterday. I was pleased because of the way they have conducted their dispute and desperately sorry that we have not been able to bring to it a successful conclusion. But I do not categorise every employer, in my rhetoric, as a Friction Dynamex type.

The TUC Partnership Institute is working with many of you and many employers too, public as well as private, who just want to do better, and we should take advantage of that, expand that work and take many more under our wing. So do not turn against partnership because, if you are always going to be an adversary, do not be surprised when others pick a fight.

There is a lot of good news around the trade union movement. I commend to you today our new website workSMART. Tony mentioned it in his Presidential Address. That is bringing trade unionism with spot on information and advice to everyone at work. That is part of our bridgehead to the workers in the new economy areas.

We have a new generation of organisers, often graduates of the TUC Organising Academy; people who are not, like me, from an engineering factory or from public services, like many others in my generation, but have actually worked in the shops, the hotels or the services which are the places now where most of our fellow citizens actually work.

We are doing a huge amount of work to encourage skills and learning, making unions make a little bit less about getting even and more about getting on.

We have enthusiastic engagement in European Works Councils and other aspects of the emerging European system of industrial relations, and we have a sense of solidarity and support for workers and movements much less well-placed than we are. We never forget them. With the British trade union movement around, they never walk alone.

But we need to be as lively and committed in our debates about reaching out as we are in our debates about our relations with Labour. We need to be committed in Europe and the fight for a framework of democracy and collective bargaining across Europe, a framework in which trade unionism can thrive and grow, not just in Europe but out across the world.

The hard truth is this. In Europe, almost alone in the world, trade unionism is secure and vibrant. I pay great attribute to the work of the AFL-CIO and American unions but certainly they are having to do great work against very, very tough odds. It is easier in the European Union context.

Trade unionism across much of the world is on the back foot, pushed there by globalisation, economic liberalism and anti-union policies.

To raise our game in this country, I appeal to you for wider perspectives, being more aware of how other trade union movements actually, for example, can strike a national bargain - a national bargain which includes pay, equality, the standard of the welfare state and of public services, and do so in a way that contributes to general prosperity, a generous society and also good products and good services that people actually want.

We must raise the quality and the level of our collective bargaining so that it embraces more than narrow sectionalism and provides a more mature basis for deals to narrow the gap between rich and poor. We must not be afraid of moving in the real corridors of power and not limit our roles to immediate shop floor and office floor concerns, important though they are.

Congress, British trade unionism lit the spark that originally ignited the flames of world trade unionism. To ignite a new wave of trade unionism, we have got to build this European trade union system and social model in a way that puts all trade unionism back on the attack across the world. And for that, we are going to need help, we are going to need partners; political partners who will work with us. We need to cultivate, in this country, that relationship with Labour and treat it with care, not be careless with it. We must learn from our history, not live in it, doomed to make the same mistakes. Congress, this way we organise the unorganised. This way, we will win the fight for equality. This way, trade unionism reaches out.

Congress, always promote positive trade unionism. Thank you very much. (Applause)

The President: Thank you very much, John, for a hard-hitting contribution that gave us that sense of perspective which, you are absolutely right, must inform our debate.

On-Line Activism

Leslie Manasseh (Connect) moved Motion 94. He said: President, the theme of this year's Congress, as we all know, is Reaching Out, and this motion is designed to give some practical effect to that theme, in particular to help reach out to groups of workers who might otherwise remain a little distant from our concerns and activities. It asks the General Council to adopt and adapt a successful model of on-line campaigning set up by the AFL-CIO in America, called the working families e-activists network.

It is perhaps not a very snappy title but it is a very simple and effective idea. It is based on an interactive website which both publicises union campaigns and gives individuals the chance to participate in those campaigns by sending faxes and e-mails and by joining information and support networks.

On the site currently there are a number of campaigns which aim to support workers in dispute, or to expose corporate abuses and demand corporate accountability and to focus on wider issues of social and economic justice. Once logged on, it takes about a minute to send a pre-scripted or customised fax or e-mail, either to groups of workers, to chief executives or employers or to elected politicians. You can also register very easily for information and support networks run, for the most part, by local unions.

It is a very successful initiative which, for example, generated 53,000 faxes to Enron in support of the workers' claims to severance pay following that particular corporate scandal.

We all know how important messages of support and lobbying can be in campaigns to secure or improve rights at work. I suspect that many, if not most, of those 53,000 voices would not have made themselves heard through more traditional routes.

So on-line campaigning can provide not only a way of strengthening more established methods, but reaches out, I believe, to the internet generation; for the most part, a young generation whom it is very difficult for us to engage, let alone mobilise, in some form of collective action. We know that although they are unlikely to come to meetings or read annual reports, they do use the web interactively. If we can plug into their world, then perhaps we can talk to them about ours.

And the good news is that it would be very simple for the TUC to set up a similar e-activists network. I have no doubt that the AFL-CIO would share its work on this project. It would also, I think, add a new and welcome dimension to the TUC's website, both its existing one and the proposed workSMART one; which, although very good and useful, tends to focus on giving out information rather than being a campaigning tool in itself. This would be a campaigning tool of low cost, of great simplicity, but potentially of high impact.

President, you said in your opening address that we must make ourselves relevant to the generation entering the world of work. The fact that we need to find ways of appealing to this generation of young workers and that we need to do it very quickly is something that I am sure everyone in this hall can agree with. A TUC on-line campaigning network might just be one of those ways, and I would ask you to support it. (Applause)

Kathryn Fry (Unifi) seconding the motion said: President, I am pleased to stand here and support this motion, not just because it promotes trade unionism but because it is an attempt to reach out to younger people.

Why do we need to reach out? Currently, 38percent of employees in their 40s are in unions, compared to only 19percent of 20 year-olds, and membership is falling from just under 40percent of the workforce in 1989 to just under 30percent in 2001. The average age of union members is also rising at age 47. We need also to start to appeal to the younger generation. We need to encourage them to be active within their unions also.

This motion recognises that IT literacy is a growing phenomenon, especially in the younger generations. Using the internet has become a recognised practice and is a very valuable tool. Unifi, my union, recognises this fact. We issue an on-line magazine, e-fusion, and offer on-line learning. Uni-active, our youth steering committee, contacts people through e-mail, text messaging and has developed a young person's website attached to the Unifi site. I am fully behind the idea of on-line activism. It is a natural progression from ours and other unions' inroads into using the internet.

Personally, I regularly use the internet to contact my friends, to find information, to shop and, more recently, to campaign. It is quick, it is easy and it is up to date.

I urge you to support this motion, which is a proactive approach in encouraging membership through activism. Thank you. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Kathryn. I presume that was a first time delegate. Well done. You kept to time, thank you.

* Motion 94 was CARRIED.

New Unionism

Tony Burke (General Council) in leading in on paragraph 10.4 of the General Council's Report said: Thank you Mr President, Tony Burke of the General Council launching the campaign Union Reps Winning Respect at Work. Congress, since its inception in 1996, the New Unionism Task Group has played a key role in helping unions focus on recruitment and organisation and there can be no doubt that real progress has been made in helping many unions make the shift towards an organising culture and, although some great work has been done, there is no room for complacency.

If we are serious about changing the culture of the trade union movement, we know that this is simply a process that cannot be driven from the top down. To make the shift towards an organising culture, everyone, from full-time officials to lay reps and members, needs to understand why organising is the key issue and, most importantly, we have to think about what we as activists can do to help make that change.

Congress, according to one survey carried out recently, only 13percent of union reps at the workplace saw organisation and recruitment as a priority. Now we need to work hard to move organisation and recruitment higher up the agenda of our work place reps and activists.

Congress, our local reps and stewards are the backbone of the trade union movement. They are the face of the union movement at the workplace. Day in, day out, they out, workplace reps and shop stewards are at the sharp end; representing our members often in difficult circumstances and under tremendous amounts of pressure. We need to think about how we encourage more of our members, in particular women, more young people and more workers from black and ethnic minorities to become union reps and stewards.

Mr President, recent surveys indicate that three in five workplaces have no union reps at all, and that figure is getting worse, not better. Some 26percent of all unionised work places have no local shop steward or union rep and those reps that we do have are coming under increasing pressure from employers and from the difficulties of the work/life balance. Over 80percent of reps in a recent survey in the south west said their role had become more difficult because of pressures of work and the changing nature of work. In another survey in the public sector, 40percent of the workplaces with a union rep only had one rep or one steward.

So, Congress, we have got much to do and that is why the General Council has agreed to launch a major campaign. That campaign, Union Reps Winning Respect at Work, will focus on how we can encourage more of our members to become union reps. It will focus on how we can train them better and support our existing reps and how we can encourage union reps and stewards and members to share responsibilities and to work in teams, not leaving it just to one or two people to do all the work.

I have given you some bad news but there is some good news. During the past few years, the TUC and unions have developed new roles such as union learning reps. New statutory rights due to come into force early next year will see the number of these champions of learning in the workplace exceed over 20,000 over the coming decade. The number of union reps undertaking TUC courses is at its highest point in 12 years, up five percent on last year. As a result, during this year we will be rolling out this campaign. The Organise 2002 event in London on November 23rd will be focused on how we can get more of our members to become union reps and looking at the problems that they face.

We have argued for a long time that if the trade union movement is to be revitalised and grow, the impetus for that growth will come from an increase in the number of trained union reps we have in every office, in every factory, in every workplace. The General Council believes that the launch of this campaign will begin that process and we ask you, as committed activists and officials, to support that campaign at local level, at branch and region level and nationally.

Congress, we already have a good base from which to grow. Outside of this Congress hall we have a volunteer army of over 200,000 workplace activists, so the General Council asks you all to go out and support this campaign. Go out from Congress and support our lay reps, support our stewards, support our safety reps and support our learning reps, because they are the heart, the soul and the backbone of our movement but we need many, many more of them if this union movement is to build and re-grow. Thank you very much. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Tony that is a very powerful and important message which I am sure Congress is going to take to heart.

Finance Bill 2002 - Film and Television Production

Natasha Gerson (Equity) moved Motion 66. She said: At the time of the present Government's first Budget, it seemed that they might have a fairly sensible approach where certain areas of the economy were concerned. For example, relinquishing the power to raise and lower interest rates to the Bank of England appeared to be an honest and smart move. As time has passed, however, and anxiety has set in, many minor economic statutory provisions and adjustments appear to have been conceived in a thoughtless and piecemeal manner, resembling those decisions of previous governments which resulted in the mess which is the present UK regulatory system. That sort of thoughtlessness is at the heart of this motion.

The revision of clause 112 of the Finance Act intends to restrict the sale and leaseback tax break scheme to films intended for theatrical release; in other words, to those intended for cinema showing rather than on terrestrial television.

According to PACT (The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television), if the saving which this clause is intended to make is to be accomplished quickly without a transitional period (and this is what the Budget stated), approximately £200 million worth of independent productions will be at risk from this change, mostly drama being produced by independent production companies for public service broadcasters.

This means also that many of those companies who have just signed contracts or are in the preproduction stage will be left with a huge debt prior to the completion of their projects. This proposed amendment is intended to suppress abuse of the tax break facility by producers of soap operas such as 'Coronation Street', etc. It does not also require the sacrifice of the last of what most of us over 35 remember as quality drama, a considerable economic asset to the United Kingdom.

Surely, a competent drafter of statute could easily isolate those who might take advantage of this privilege. As it stands, this provision, far from encouraging the small film companies, will actively discourage foreign investment and irrevocably damage the British film and television industry, resulting in a huge loss of jobs and revenue.

Though less important to us than healthcare, education and other public services, the quality of our entertainment is important to this country in educational and economic terms. Equity's primary concern is work for our members. That aside, what do we want when we turn on our televisions: 'The Forsyte Saga', 'Shackleton', 'Band of Brothers' or 'Big Brother'? Please support. Thank you. (Applause)

Tony Lennon (BECTU) seconding the motion said: They call Gordon Brown 'the Canny Chancellor' and you have just heard an example of how he has cannily managed to close off a tax benefit that was very good for film and television makers where our members work.

I have got to be honest about 'the Canny Chancellor'. He did have a point on this occasion. The money that was originally set aside as tax benefits for feature films did, as you have heard Natasha Gerson explain, end up being used for soap operas. The 'Billy Elliots' of the world were deserving; 'Coronation Street' was not, because that does not need tax benefits to continue broadcasting. Whereas, 'Billy Elliot' would not actually have been made without the tax benefit that is being closed.

However, the overall effect of this change is that the pool of money available for the British film industry is going to be smaller. So whether there was a bit of a loophole or not, and whether ITV were pushing their luck, the cut in finance is going to be bad news for everybody.

I think it is worth explaining just why these tax breaks are so important to the British film industry and you may then understand why we have brought this motion to Congress. It really all goes back to the United States. American studios absolutely dominate the world film industry, in a way that Microsoft has not even achieved. In the furthest corners of the world, there are people sitting now watching American-made movies. That is not all bad news. For one thing, they are very good movies. Actually, the output of Hollywood, which might seem artistically limited to some people, is pretty good quality. The reason it is good quality is that the American film industry itself is 100percent unionised. So as you sit gritting your teeth about more American hegemony in the cinema, you can take some comfort in knowing that you are watching a union product; but it is a union product made for an American audience and it is not made for you.

That poses the problem that the budget, which is generated in the United States itself, which is quite massive, actually defines the content of the movie, and they are not made for a British audience.

When you are pumping out every week a film with a budget of £50 million, which is what Hollywood is capable of doing, the British film industry is like a corner shop competing against the hypermarket. That is why we need the tax breaks and that is why we have brought this motion to Congress. I promise you the money will be well spent.

The British film industry makes films which connect with a multicultural, diverse, exciting country and they are made for the audience in that country. If the Americans are left to make movies the way they want to in this country, with American money, then we will simply become a picturesque back lot where, although the films will be extremely good, they will be about Americans and American subjects and they will not be about you.

So if you want an industry which can still make films about you and can still make the Billy Elliots, please support motion sixty-six.

* Motion 66 was CARRIED.

Jimmy Knapp Cancer Fund

The President: Delegates, I want to bring something else to your attention. There will be a collection for the Jimmy Knapp Cancer Fund. The GMB regional secretaries have started the appeal with a large donation and John Edmonds, in a staggering exhibition of generosity, has said that he is going to match the bucket collection, so give generously. Well done, John. (Applause)

I have something sad to report. As you know, Jimmy Knapp's wife, Eva Knapp, who made such a moving contribution to Congress last year and is obviously doing the work associated with the Jimmy Knapp Cancer Fund, was due to be here this week. Unfortunately for her, Jo, her mother, died on Sunday and so she cannot be with us, so we want to cheer her up a bit with a really great collection. So, Congress, delegates, dig deep.

Thank you very much. I need not remind you that there is quite an interesting speaker this afternoon so the security will be a bit heavier, as you have noticed already. I hope you will be joining me, I expect you to join me at 2.15.

(Congress adjourned until 2.15 p.m.)

TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

(Congress reassembled at 2.15 p.m.)

Gold badge awards

The President: I have one or two announcements that I need to make. Firstly, as you have come into the hall, knowing how sophisticated you all are and your cultural tastes are so good, you will have appreciated the Young Strings of Manchester; there is no relation. I do not know about you but I thought they were great. (Applause)

Women's Gold Badge

The President: Congress, this is the section where we honour and recognise the contribution to trade unionism made by our lay activists. The winner of this year's Women's Gold Badge is Lillian Kennedy. Lillian has been an active member of the Transport & General Workers' Union for 28 years. In many ways her involvement in her union is typical of many women of her generation.

Lillian returned to paid work aged 35, having raised four sons in difficult circumstances. On returning to work fulltime, she found the company she had joined had poor working conditions. With the help of two other colleagues, Lillian formed a branch in the workplace which over the years has fought for and won many improvements in pay, sick pay, and holidays, as well as better parental rights.

Colleagues, actually we try to honour the contribution that people have made and it would be nice if we could do that with the level of noise a bit less than it is at the moment. (Applause) It is a bit more important than any other gestures.

Lillian has been involved in her union for 28 years at branch, local and regional level. After years of bringing up her sons on her own, Lillian found that devoting time and energy to her union was a useful way of gaining some personal fulfilment.

Lillian cannot be with us at Congress. The Women's Gold Badge will be collected on her behalf by Diana Holland, the T&G national organiser for women, race and equality. (Applause) Presentation of Women's Gold Badge

The President: Diana, I now invite you to say a few words on behalf of Lillian.

Diana Holland (Transport & General Workers' Union): President, Congress, as Tony Young has said, Lillian Kennedy has been active in the T&G for nearly 30 years. I first met Lillian as a conference delegate over 20 years ago and I am honoured to have been asked by Lillian to collect this award on her behalf. We will, of course, make arrangements to present that to her formally. She is very very sorry not to be here today.

Lillian has been a shop steward, a safety rep, a branch secretary, an active Women's Committee delegate, involved in her trades council and regional TUC, a local councillor, a magistrate, a panel member of industrial tribunals, and child support appeals. She has been able to achieve many things in her workplace, in the community, and in the wider labour movement. We in the T&G, and I think now in the whole TUC, are very proud of these achievements.

Lillian is also a survivor of domestic violence and I would like here to thank her for her strength and courage in speaking openly about her experiences and giving that strength to others. It is something that she and her second husband continue to do as they have been foster parents through Barnardo's in recent years for a number of young girls who have been sexually abused. She is a special woman and this award is a special tribute to her.

Finally, I would like to read some words to you all that Lillian asked me to say: "Can I thank everyone who nominated me for the Gold Badge. I was so surprised and very honoured to be chosen for this accolade. When I came into the trade union movement 30 years ago, I did so because I wanted to help make things better for my fellow workers, and that is still my aim today. I never sought any thanks or rewards but to receive this Women's Gold Badge has made me so very proud. Thank you all and best wishes for a successful conference." Thank you, Lillian. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Diana. On behalf of Lillian, we salute that great record of service and a very indomitable woman.

Congress, a little later this session we are to be addressed by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and it gives me enormous pleasure to welcome Tony on to the platform now. Tony, we are delighted to have you with us today and we are looking forward to your address a little later. (Applause)

I had the feeling that not all of these photographers were here for me, that there might be another Tony intervening.

Congress Award for Youth

The President: The winner of this year's Youth Award is Kate Farrington. Kate is 16 and has been active in the GMB since she was 14. She is the President of the GMB Lancashire Region's Young Members Branch, called Massive. She has been involved in the development of the branch from its creation in the autumn of 2000. During the summer of 2001, Kate spent her vacation designing and editing a Young Members magazine for the region; 70,000 copies were distributed throughout colleges in the north west. Kate is a sales assistant at JD King in the Trafford Centre. She devoted her entire school holidays last year to building the branch and, along with a small team of young union members, was successful in getting 50 employers within the Trafford Centre to sign up to the Massive respect pledge.

Kate, on behalf of Congress, it gives me great pleasure to present you with the Congress Award for Youth, along with a certificate for your union to commemorate the occasion, and a gift, book tokens. It is really great to acknowledge your record of achievement. (Applause) presentation of Congress Award for Youth

Kate Farrington: Thank you, President and Congress. Hello, I am Kate Farrington. I am a member of the GMB Massive Young Members Branch in Manchester. I am now 16 and have just started at Eccles College in Salford, having attained 11 GCSEs. For students it is very difficult to balance work and study, and even more to find the time to change things for the better.

The Massive respect pledge commits employers to support education-friendly employment, and this is vital to all students today. Massive allows the voice of young people to be heard within the GMB and, today, through the TUC.

I am very proud to accept this award on behalf of myself and Massive members. Today, Massive recruits in colleges and universities throughout Manchester and across the north west. We are hoping to promote Massive in Newcastle and Glasgow. We are most proud of our training courses held within colleges. Our accredited training programmes provide knowledge and skills to young people in the workplace.

I would like to thank the GMB Lancashire Region for all their help and support. Special thanks to Gary Jones, Regional Secretary, Duncan Edwards, Membership Development, and Kate Jones, Branch Secretary of Massive.

I am especially honoured to have met Tony Blair, although I would have preferred to meet his son, Euan. (Laughter/Applause)

I would also like to thank all the branch members who have got involved and helped to create an exciting opportunity for young people. Our branch members come from all different walks of life and we all work well together. So if we can do it, I would like to see the whole world come together as one and, hopefully, not go to war. Thank you once again. (Applause)

The President: I think that is what is called refreshing candour, Kate. I think it is a bit of an ageist remark, though, but it was a pretty good first time contribution.

Men's Gold Badge

The President: That brings us on to the winner of the Men's Gold Badge. It is James McDougall. James is an active member of Unison. He joined NUPE when he moved to Doncaster in 1962. Prior to that he had been a member of the NUM from the age of 15. He was active in NUPE at a branch level from 1968 and held positions regionally from 1975 until the creation of Unison in 1993. He has continued to hold positions at branch and regional level since 1993 and remains a member of Unison's Regional Committee. He is also the chairperson of the Professional and Technical Grades National Sector Committee within Unison, a member of Unison, and a member of Unison's Health Service Group Executive Committee. James has been a delegate to his Trades Union Council and sits on the Yorkshire & Humber TUC Regional Council. In his spare time he is also an employment tribunal member and intends to carry on with this work after he retires from the NHS in 2003.

On behalf of Congress, James, it gives me great pleasure to present you with the Gold Badge of Congress for a terrific record of service to the trade union movement. (Applause) presentation of Men's Gold Badge

James McDougall: Somebody said, when you come up here, enjoy it, and that is what I am going to do.

You know something, when I look around this auditorium I knew that I was popular but I never thought I was this popular - (Laughter) - not an empty seat in the house. I thought this was all just for me and the other gold badge winners. How wrong can you be.

President, I have attended the TUC Congress before with NUPE but I have never ever been called to speak so, therefore, here I am in my 50th year as a trade unionist, at the age of 64, completing a unique double by addressing the Congress for the first and last time, and even the Prime Minister has to wait until I am finished. (Applause) But it was very good of the General Council to invite him to hear what I had to say and for him to accept the invitation.

I have been a member of the Labour Party for years and I have represented my trade union at all levels in the Labour Party, from local to national level, and I have campaigned within the party for our policies to become party policy. But there is one thing that I have never ever done in all the years of being a trade unionist, I have never attended a trade union meeting as a Labour Party member campaigning to get Labour Party policies to become trade union policies. To me, that is very very important because that single-mindedness on my part enabled me to avoid any inner conflict I may have had in trying to serve two masters. It has ensured that it is my trade union that comes before all else, come what may. (Applause)

That is not to say it has been easy because it is well-known in our job that it is not. We have more bad days at the office than good ones. We tend to take our frustrations out on those who least deserve to suffer. By that, of course, I mean our families. I have a wife, a son who lives in Canada, and two daughters. I would like to tell you just a little bit about them because, like the trade union movement, we, too, are in the business of looking after people.

My wife, Brenda, has worked at the DRI (Doncaster Royal Infirmary) for the last eight-and-a-half years and before that she was a school crossing patrol lady for 21 years. My eldest daughter, Caroline, is a senior sister in the A&E Department at the same hospital. She has worked there continuously for over 20 years. My youngest daughter is also a nurse and she has devoted the last twelve-and-a-half years of her career looking after the elderly. She is, in fact, a matron manager of a nursing home.

You add that to the 40 years that I have worked in the NHS and you will see that all this adds up to more than 100 years of service in the interests of our local community. I can tell you something right now, they are not finished yet, not by a long chalk. (Applause) I am proud of what we have achieved as a family and a large part of this award goes to them for their tolerance towards me and for being so supportive of me over the years; without that support I could not have gone on for so long.

Finally, President, I would also like to thank the General Council for helping me to achieve something that I would have thought impossible. You helped me to go one better than someone that I thought had done it all. Way back in the 1960s when we were getting serious with trade unions and the NHS, we had a young full-time officer, fresh from university, in his first union job and still wet behind the ears, but once we had taken him under our wing and smoothed out his rough edges, we knew he was going to go right to the top. That officer is Rodney Bickerstaffe, and the rest, of course, is history: (Applause) General Secretary of NUPE and Unison, and a member of the General Council and President to the TUC.

In keeping with tradition, at the end of his term of office as President he was presented with the great Silver Bell of Congress, an achievement which could not be surpassed, you might say. Well, Congress, I will leave you to be the judge of that because what all this actually means, Rodney, old friend, is that you ended up with the Silver; me, I ended up with the Gold. (Applause)

The President: Well done, James. I very much enjoyed the contribution.

Address by the Prime Minister: Rt Hon Tony Blair MP

The President: Congress, it is a pleasure and a privilege to have the Prime Minister with us today. Tony, this is the fifth occasion on which you have addressed Congress, including your brief but poignant and apt remarks made in Brighton last year before you had to return to London to deal with the crisis arising out of the events of 11th September.

We appreciate your coming to speak to us and the opportunity to hear your thoughts on the issues that dominate our agenda, and yours too. On every previous occasion when you have spoken to us, you have been honest and candid about areas on which we share common objectives and areas on which there are differences. We expect nothing less today and, Congress, I invite you to give Tony, our Prime Minister, a warm welcome.

Rt Hon Tony Blair (Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party): Tony, Congress, tomorrow, as you pointed out, September 11th, is the anniversary of the worst terrorist act in history. Let us today, once again, remember and mourn the dead. Let us give thanks to the fire fighters, the police, the ambulance and medical services, the ordinary citizens of New York. Their courage was the best answer to the terrorists' cruelty. Terrorists can kill and main the innocent, but they have not won and they never will win. (Applause)

We should never forget either the role played by trade unions in the wider struggle for justice. Today we welcome Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. Your opposition to the regime of Mugabe is the ultimate riposte to his fraudulent nonsense about fighting colonialism. People here, including myself, fought the detestable apartheid regime of South Africa and we know the difference between the cause of freedom and a leader abusing that cause to conceal incompetence and corruption damaging his people on a catastrophic scale.

We welcome, too, Congress, the Colombian trade union leader, Hector Fajardo. (Applause) Hector, your nation is fighting the ugly scourge of narco-terrorism, in which the drugs trade and terror destroy the life chances of a country. You have our solidarity in that struggle.

Thank you also to the trade unions of Northern Ireland, who, throughout the worst and even at the best, are living symbols of the non-sectarian future that Northern Ireland needs. Thank you. (Applause)

Around the rest of the world, too, trade unions are at the forefront of campaigns to end child labour, to remove discrimination, to bring democracy in place of dictatorship.

Congress, on September 11 last year, with the world still reeling from the shock of those events, the world came together to demand action. But suppose I had come last year on the same day as this year, however - 10th September. Supposing I had said to you: "There is a terrorist network called Al Quaida. It operates out of Afghanistan. It has carried out several attacks and we believe it to be planning more. It has been condemned by the United Nations in the strongest terms. Unless it is stopped, the threat will grow. So I want to take action to prevent that".

I think your response and probably that of most people would have been very similar to the response of some of you yesterday on Iraq. There would have been few takers for dealing with it and probably none for taking military action of any description.

So let me tell you, frankly, why I say Saddam Hussein is a threat that has to be dealt with. He has twice before started wars of aggression. Over one million people died in those wars. When the weapons inspectors were evicted from Iraq in 1998 there remained enough chemical and biological weapons to devastate the entire Gulf region.

I sometimes think that there is a kind of word fatigue about chemical and biological weapons. We are not talking about some mild variants of everyday chemicals, but we are talking about anthrax, sarin and mustard gas - weapons that can cause hurt and agony on a mass scale beyond the comprehension of most decent people.

Uniquely, alone of any country, Saddam has used these weapons against his own people, the Iraqi Kurds. Scores of towns and villages were attacked. Iraqi military officials dressed in full protection gear were used to witness the attacks and visited later to assess the damage. Wounded civilians were normally shot on the scene. In one attack alone, on the city of Halabja, it is estimated that 5,000 were murdered and 9,000 wounded in this way. All in all, according to Amnesty International, in the North, around 100,000 Kurds died. In southern Iraq, in the destruction of the marshlands, around 200,000 people were forcibly removed. Many died as a result.

Saddam has a nuclear weapons programme, denied for years, that was only disrupted after inspectors went in to disrupt it. He is in breach of 23 outstanding United Nations obligations requiring him to admit inspectors and to disarm.

People say: but, surely, containment has worked. Only up to a point. In truth, sanctions are eroding. He now gets around $3 billion every year through illicit trading. That money is unaccounted for, but almost certainly used for his weapons programmes.

Every day this year and for years past, British and American pilots risk their lives to police the No Fly Zones. But that cannot go on forever. For years when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam lied, concealed, obstructed and harassed them. It is all set out in the United Nations' reports. For the last four years, of course, there have been no inspections, no monitoring, despite constant pleas and months of negotiating with the United Nations. Finally, in July of this year, Kofi Annan ended his personal involvement in the talks because of Iraqi intransigence.

Meanwhile Iraq's people are oppressed and kept in poverty. With the Taliban gone, Saddam is unrivalled as the world's worst regime: brutal, dictatorial, with a wretched and disgraceful human rights record.

Given that history, I say to you simply this: to allow Saddam to use the weapons he has or to get the weapons he wants would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not and must not countenance it.

Up to this point, I believe many people here in this hall would agree. The question is, and the question you asked yesterday is: how to proceed? I totally understand the concerns of people about precipitate military action. Military action should only ever be a last resort. On the four major occasions that I have authorised it as Prime Minister, it has been when no other option remained.

I believe it is right to deal with Saddam through the United Nations. After all, it is the will of the United Nations that he has flouted. He, not me or George Bush, is in breach of United Nations resolutions. So if the challenge to us is to work through and with the United Nations, we will respond to it. But if we do so, then the challenge to all of us in the United Nations is this: the United Nations must be the way to resolve the threat from Saddam, not a way of avoiding it.

Let it be clear, therefore, that he must be disarmed. Let it be clear that there can be no more conditions, no more games, no more prevaricating, no more undermining of the UN's authority. And let it also be clear that should the will of the UN be ignored, action will follow. Diplomacy is vital, but when dealing with dictators - and none in the world is worse than Saddam - diplomacy has to be backed by the certain knowledge in the dictator's mind that behind the diplomacy is the possibility of force being used.

Because I say to you in all earnestness: if we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or next. But it will at some point. And I, for one, do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, that we saw it coming and that we did nothing.

I know this is not what some people want to hear. But I ask you only this: to listen to the case I will be developing over the coming weeks and reflect on it.

Before there is any question of taking military action, I can categorically assure you that Parliament will be consulted and will have the fullest opportunity to debate the matter and express its view.

On Kosovo, on Afghanistan, we did not rush. We acted in a sensible, measured way, when all other avenues were exhausted and with the fullest possible debate. We will do so again.

However, Congress, Saddam is not the only issue, it is true. We must indeed restart the Middle East Peace Process. We must work with all concerned, including the United States, for a lasting peace which ends the suffering of both the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the Israelis at the hands of terrorists. That negotiation should be based on the twin principles of an Israel safe and secure within its borders, and a viable Palestinian state.

This must go alongside renewed efforts on international terrorism. That threat has not gone away. I cannot emphasise that too strongly.

Put all this alongside India and Pakistan, climate change and world poverty, and, yes, it is indeed a daunting international agenda. But the most difficult thing is to persuade people that all these issues are actually part of the same agenda. A foreign journalist said to me the other day: "I don't understand it, Mr Blair. You're very left on Africa and Kyoto. But you're very right on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It doesn't make much sense."

But actually it does. The key characteristic of today's world is its interdependence. Your problem becomes my problem, and they have to be tackled collectively. All of these problems - all of them - in their own different ways threaten the ability of the world to make progress in an orderly and stable way. Climate change threatens our environment. Africa, if left to decline, will become a breeding ground for extremism. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction combine modern technology with political or religious fanaticism. If unchecked they will, as September 11 showed, explode into disorder and chaos.

Internationalism is no longer a utopian cry of the Left; it is practical modern statesmanship.

That, Congress, is one reason why Britain turning its back on Europe would be an error of vast proportions. Be under no doubt: if the economic tests are met, Britain should join the single currency. For Britain to be marginalised in Europe, when soon the European Union will have 25 members stretching from Portugal to Poland and the largest commercial market in the world, in those circumstances, would not just be economically unwise but it would betray a total misunderstanding of the concept of national interest in the 21st Century.

Solidarity is at the core of the being of trade unionism. I want our Government to work with you in confronting the challenges abroad and the challenges at home. Again, they are linked. The greatest challenge of our age is globalisation. Tremors in one financial market cause the ground to move round the world. Capital is footloose, fancy-free but also intensely vulnerable to changes in consumer fashion. Industries spring up and fall back. Some corporations, in their desperation to satisfy investors, bend or break the rules, collapsing confidence across the globe.

Meanwhile employees, your members, often feel powerless, victims not beneficiaries of globalisation. To add to it all, people live longer and retire earlier, bringing a real strain on pension provision, short and long-term.

This challenge needs a strong and vibrant trade union movement, standing up for its members in a coherent and intelligent way. It needs the trade union movement to work with employers and Government to map out a strategy for the future.

So what should that strategy be? First and foremost, it is jobs. Since 1997 we have one and a half million more jobs. More people are in work than ever before. Thanks to the New Deal, over 750,000 have benefited and now long-term youth unemployment stands at just over 5,000, which is the lowest total for 30 years. I think we can be proud of that achievement.

(Applause)

We are modernising the whole welfare state, bringing benefits and employment support together in Job Centre Plus, offering the unemployed a deal. We will help you with money and skills and a job offer, and we ask you to use that to help yourself.

As a result, our unemployment levels are below those not just of France and Germany but also those of Japan and the United States.

The trade unions have been instrumental in the New Deal. That is partnership in action. I say candidly, do not let anyone say a Conservative Government, which put unemployment above three million, would ever have shown that commitment to the unemployed, because they would not. (Applause)

Secondly, it is not just about jobs, of course, but also about skills. Since the launch last year of Skills for Life we have helped over 150,000 achieve basic skills qualifications. We are on course to meet our 2007 target to help 1.5 million adults to do so. Over half a million people have gained new skills for the workplace through Learn Direct, our e-learning network. Trade unions have been absolutely at the heart of that.

Meanwhile, there are over 200,000 young people on modern apprenticeships this year, compared to little more than a tenth of that in 1996. Just this morning at the BAE training centre in Preston, I saw the modern apprenticeships scheme in action, all of it supported by the trade unions.

In the north east, the GMB has pioneered a cross-company skills and workforce strategy for shipbuilding, removing old enmities, dismantling outdated practices, creating new opportunities. The result? An industry people thought was dying on the Tyne now being re-born.

Third, we need modern manufacturing. We understand the worry about currency instability, which is one of the main reasons why in principle we favour joining the single currency. We understand, and are listening also, to the plea to invest in science skills and technology, and we are doing so to the tune of £1.25 billion extra in science alone over the next three years.

The new working group established by Patricia at the DTI, which has trade unions represented on it, will allow us to develop policy together to shape our response to the challenges facing manufacturing, which are common not just for Britain but throughout the world.

That is also why we must continue to press internationally in Europe to end the wasteful abuse of the Common Agricultural Policy, and with the United States to persuade them to reverse their decision on steel tariffs.

Modern workplace partnerships however also demand modern employment laws. I am proud that we have given union learning representatives proper recognition in law, something the TUC has long campaigned for. We need fair rights at work, not to revive industrial conflict but to make sure we do not only have new jobs but jobs of quality. I am proud too that we brought in the national minimum wage putting money in the pockets of 1.5 million workers, something you campaigned here for for many, many years. We introduced the Working Families Tax Credit helping to make work pay for 1.3 million families in this country. Everyone is now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday. No one now has to work more than 48 hours a week. There is better protection against unfair dismissal, there is longer statutory maternity leave and, for the first time, paid paternity leave too. We have made sure part-time workers get a better deal, and of course there is a statutory right to union recognition where a majority vote for it.

Funding to promote social partnership is now well established and government support for partnership and the TUC Partnership Institute will continue.

We are reviewing the operation of the 1999 Employment Act to ensure it is working effectively, and we are also considering the best way to implement the European provisions on informing and consulting employees, and we look forward to working with the TUC on this issue. We are addressing the issue of the two-tier workforce. We are introducing new rules so that new recruits enjoy broadly comparable pay and conditions as other local government employees transfer red to the private sector. That includes for the first time a right to a proper pension.

We have also ensured that the vast majority of staff involved in hospital PFI schemes are able to stay on NHS terms and conditions of service.

I understand you want us to do more but when people say there is no difference between a Labour and a Conservative Government I say no conservative Government would ever have introduced a statutory minimum wage or a statutory right to union recognition, and both you and I know it.

Then in the face of globalisation we need public services of quality too. This actually is far more than simply about social provision. To achieve their potential young people need first-class educational opportunity, not restricted to an elite but available to all. To work effectively employees need quality healthcare. To make business efficient we need a good transport infrastructure and across all the public services we need staff to be motivated, skilled and well resourced.

I always said that this was a ten-year challenge and it is, but I think we should be clear also that real progress has been made. This year, next year, the year after, the year after that, we will be increasing health and education spending as a percentage of our national income faster than any other government in the world. Tell that to those who say a Labour Government makes no difference.

By the end of the financial year 2003/4, funding per pupil in our schools will have increased by over £1,000 that is in real terms, and it will go on rising with a further real terms increase in education spending of six percent up to 2005/6. At the end of 1997, half a million infants were taught in classes of more than 30 children. Now hardly any child under the age of seven has to suffer that. In 1997 the numbers of nurses in training, teachers in training, police in training, were all being cut. In 2002 we have over 29,000 teachers in training, and we have increased the number of training places to 32,000. There are 20,000 more in post than in 1997. There are 38,000 more nurses at work in our hospitals, police numbers are at record levels having increased by 4,500 in the last two years alone.

It is not only the inputs that have changed. School results not just for primary schools but also secondary schools are way up. When we came to office, about half of our 11 year olds reached the right results in primary schools. Now it is over 70 per cent. In 1998, well under half of secondary students were getting more than five good GCSEs. This year, we hope results will show that more than half are now doing so. On every measure, inpatients or outpatients, waiting lists are shorter now than in 1997. There used to be over 70,000 on the outpatient waiting list for more than six months, now it is down to 1,000. The average waiting list time for an operation is four months and 70 per cent of patients are treated inside three months.

I am not saying there is not still an immense amount to do, as you know as well as anyone, but please do not let us fall for this nonsense about the National Health Service being a third world health service. I saw a third world health service in Mozambique a few weeks ago, despite the heroic efforts of the nurses and doctors there, and to describe our British National Health Service as like that is not just a gross distortion of the truth it is an insult to the brilliant and dedicated NHS staff who give such good care to people.

Remember, of course, in a service that treats one million people every 36 hours, there will be mistakes; there are actually in every healthcare system round the world. But those who use these exceptions to denounce the whole of the NHS do so not, in fact, to improve it but to make the case for dismantling it.

Money, however, is not all the services need. The services also need change and reform, new ways of working, new ways of delivering services, new partnerships between public, private and voluntary sectors and between managers and unions, more choice for the consumers of those services. On these issues I offer again a partnership on this basis. No prejudices, no pre-conceptions on either side. One test only: what is good for the service and the users of the service? We will listen to you on genuine concerns about workforce conditions. I ask you in return to listen to us on the need for reform because, be in no doubt, if we do not join together and reform our public services the result will not be unreformed services, the result will be public dissatisfaction and eventually a Tory Government who will return to their unfinished business, the break up of public services. We both have a responsibility never to allow that to happen again.

Finally our partnership must also tackle the issue of pensions. We have already helped the poorest pensioners, and announced significant rises this year in the basic state pension. We are reforming SERPS. We have introduced stakeholder pensions and the pension credit. Later this year we will publish a green paper outlining the future for pensions. But I think both you and I know that these issues are really tough. They are some of the toughest issues that we have to confront at the present time. There is real concern at employers opting out of final salary schemes and then cutting their contributions, real anxiety amongst older employees, real confusion amongst younger ones as to the best way to provide for their future. I have asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to bring together both the CBI and the TUC to address these issues to inform the Green Paper. We need your input and we will welcome it.

This is a big agenda for us both: jobs, skills, manufacturing, public services, pensions. On all these issues we should work together to make globalisation work for the people that we represent. In the last five or six years the trade union movement has come a long way. Last year saw nearly 500 recognition deals, nearly three times the number in the previous year, all made possible by our legislation and by your hard work. Unions are consulted and listened to. My door is open to any trade union leader. There is no obligation of course! But it is sensible to remember how very different things were just a few years ago. You suffered 18 years of Conservative Government in which trade union leaders could not get to discuss anything with the Prime Minister of the day, 18 years of being kicked from pillar to post, 18 years of being ignored, derided and attacked as the enemy within, years of falling membership and zero influence, 18 years in which that government never offered a partnership and employers were encouraged to decline a partnership.

The trade union movement, however, did not give up. You re-grouped, not least through the leadership of John Monks. John, if I can just say to you - I do not know whether this helps you or not, it may well not - that I think you have made a huge contribution, I do not mean to the Labour Government but I mean to the trade union movement and you can be proud of that and proud of all you have done.

The trade union movement during that difficult time remade its reputation with the public, you worked hard to get a government in place that did believe in social partnership precisely because you saw the waste of those 18 years. I simply say it would be ironic if just at the moment that trades unions were achieving such a partnership some of you decided to turn your back on it. It happened before; it is always very instructive to read the history of our movement. It happened in 1948, in 1969 and in 1979. The result then was the folding of the Labour Government and the return of a Tory Government. Not this time. It will just be less influence with a Labour Government. Do not misunderstand this situation. The media will love the talk of going back to flying pickets and industrial militancy, unions attacking a Labour Government, the BBC re-running all that old footage of the 'winter of discontent'. Believe me, anyone who indulges in it will get a lot of air time.

By contrast, I honestly say that in all the scores of initiatives on skills and training I have done I have never got a blind piece of publicity for any of them and even pensions only hit the news, frankly, when there is a scandal. Partnership does not make headlines, but the vast majority of trade union leaders and members know that it does far more good than a lot of self indulgent rhetoric from a few that belongs, frankly, in the history books.

So, indulgence or influence? It is a very simple choice. Of course, there are going to be hard issues in this partnership; there are bound to be. There are low paid workers who deserve more, yet we know we have to be careful that we do not just swallow up all the extra public pending on the public services on pay. There are genuine issues around the desire for employees to have better protection and the need to keep the flexibility of our labour markets. It is, of course, in the nature of government never to be able to satisfy all the demands made on us. But I know - and I believe we all know - that a Labour Government making steady progress is infinitely better than a Conservative one taking us backwards. We know it from our experience. We know it from the rest of Europe where governments of the left, which desert the centre ground or where the left has split its vote, have gone. New Labour was the route to victory, it remains the only proven path to continue it, and it is successful because it is right. Your partnership after all those 18 years, after all the problems we went through, after the frustration and difficulty of sitting there day after day, complaining and agitating but never doing, your partnership, the partnership between the trade union movement and the Labour Party, at that time was vital in ending those 18 years of Conservative Government and bringing us to office. That partnership is vital still. It is vital to tackle these huge issues that we have outlined today. We know all the headlines will be what they are bound to be tomorrow, but on those bread and butter issues of jobs and skills and pensions and manufacturing, and how we improve our public services, in the end those are the things where our partnership will be the difference between success or failure.

So I say to you simply at this Congress, there will - as Tony said when introducing me - always be differences between us, but there is not just the bond of belief, there is also a history that unites us and brings us together. There will never be the Labour Government that does everything that everyone wants, but I think in these past few years through all the difficulties and challenges we have come a long way. I meant it when I said that your partnership and support was an important part of doing it. I mean it now. When I say let us keep that partnership, let us build on it, let us make it and the notion of that partnership a new political consensus in Britain. I tell you, that then would be an achievement of which we could both be truly proud. Thank you. (Standing Ovation)

The President: Congress, I am sure you will agree with me that, whilst you may not have agreed with every aspect of it, that was a truly great and inspirational speech. We welcome the assurances on Iraq, on the authority of the UN and Parliament, Tony. We welcome the recognition of the positive role of trade unions and welcome the assurances that you gave us on TUPE and on pensions. I am glad to know the door is always open, it does not need to be kicked down. There is no choice, is there, between indulgence and influence? We know that influence is what we seek and we know that influence is what we will not get under a Tory government.

I am glad you paid tribute to John Monks. I have said to you on previous occasions, I thought he was as essential to the success of a Labour government as any other policy that you have had. He was instrumental in building the atmosphere of change and partnership.

Tony, we may have our disagreements on occasions. I hope, and I have always said to Congress, they should be constructive. I believe you have demonstrated that the glass is half full, and probably more than that. There will not be absolute agreement on that but, nevertheless, the links are still solid; you have made it absolutely clear.

We wish you well for the future in the difficult decisions that you take, and we will be with you. Thank you very much, Tony. (Applause)

Congress, I appreciated the way that people conducted themselves during that debate. I thank you for that.

Corporate Social Responsibility

The President: I now move to Chapter 3, Economic and Industrial Affairs, the section dealing with Corporate Governance, which is on page 35 of the General Council Report, and Motion 21. The General Council support the motion.

Rory Murphy (Unifi) moved Motion 21. He said: Corporate Social Responsibility is not a new concept and to prove the point I would like to start with a quotation from Marx: "The secret of business success is honesty and integrity. Fake those and you have got it made." Of course, it was Groucho Marx and not Karl Marx.

Following the scandal of WorldCom and the collapse of Enron, international public debate surrounding issues of corporate governance have intensified and are key to the corporate social responsibility debate. While companies increasingly accept that their social responsibility goes beyond shareholders, many of them have yet to adopt the employment practices that reflect this. Equal opportunities and health and safety policies are already in place, but the reporting on human rights and child labour is rare, as is openness and consultation and employee involvement in the corporate social responsibility agenda.

CSR is, essentially, a concept where companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better and cleaner environment in society. It is important here to point out that at present corporate social responsibility is voluntary and what we have seen up till now is a patchwork approach where companies adopt the bits that they like and that they feel will provide them with good PR.

Unifi believes that the voluntary nature of CSR leaves too much to chance for workers and citizens. What we need is social auditing that is not tainted by scandal and a system that is open to independent scrutiny and where meaningful and comparable information can be shared with all stakeholders.

Some of the largest companies in the world conform to socially responsible criteria. They hold up well in ethical indices, such as the FTSE for good and the Dow Jones sustainability index, and they publish glossy reports on their social achievements. However, if we dig deeper we see some of the few unwanted facts that come to light. For example, Intel, the computer company, are accused of paying foreign professionals on average £5,000 a year less than native professionals doing the same job.

Proctor & Gamble has played down the risks of organotoxins found in Pampers nappies and have had multiple citations for cruel and illegal experimentation against animals. Of course, Shell is often accused of human right abuses in Nigeria.

It is not only about the large corporations, Congress, small and medium-sized companies also have a vital role to play. They make up 53 per cent of the workforce in Europe and it is important that small and medium-sized enterprises are also responsible and contribute to a more socially responsible climate in British society.

Europe is leading the way on CSR and it is vital that the UK is not left behind. The European Commission has published a green paper on CSR and has invited representatives from consumers, employers, and trade unions, to take part in a multi-stakeholder forum on CSR this year. We must be involved. We have nothing to fear from a multi-stakeholder view; after all, we are employees, customers, and members of the community often living in increasingly threatened environments.

Unifi accept that it is difficult to benchmark performance because there is no agreed reference point for evaluating CSR, but society itself is changing, consumers demand greater knowledge of the products and services they consume, let alone the organic food market that is now worth an estimated £605 million per year.

The concern being expressed by us in this resolution is to ensure that everybody encompasses the role and what is needed for corporate social responsibility. There is much in the CSR agenda that overlaps our interest in the workplace and we should be in the vanguard of developing corporate social responsibility policies. There is plenty of evidence to show that good CSR is of interest to our members.

In conclusion, President and Congress, we must ensure that there are good CSR standards and we must champion those independently verified standards that are allied with our interests and push forward a trade union friendly vision of business. In this regard, I would especially commend to you the work of the good corporation. Too often we have been left on the sidelines shouting. Let us take this opportunity now to embrace CSR and make it meet the legitimate interests of our members and workers in the UK and across the world. Please support the motion.

Nigel Gawthrope (Graphical, Paper and Media Union) seconding the motion, said: President, colleagues, corporate social responsibility is a concept that is clearly gaining ground and is frequently used by governments, corporations, trade unions and NGOs but is often vaguely defined or wrongly used. Nonetheless, the increasing use of the term with some companies genuinely employing the idea with no adverse effect on their competitiveness is to be welcomed. However, like the mover of this motion, we are concerned about the voluntary nature of the framework in the UK which makes it largely weak, ineffective, and unenforceable.

Colleagues, we know that rogue companies will break the rules and cut corners in pursuit of profits. Frequently, they try it on with employment rights and health and safety. We in the GPMU believe that CSR can only be effective within a comprehensive legal framework, with a guarantee of union involvement absolutely essential; only then will companies be made to accept their social responsibilities. Unless companies hit major problems, like Enron, WorldCom, and Xerox, malpractice often goes unnoticed. Let us not forget Maxwell and the pension scandal a decade ago.

Legislation would introduce some clarity and consistency in an area that is packed with bewildering and confusing voluntary codes of practice. Regrettably, despite a review in 1998, the only requirement of businesses in the UK is still to maximise shareholder interests. We applaud the contribution that Richard Howitt, MEP, has made in the recent assessment by the European Commission on corporate social responsibility. Sadly, the recommendation was to introduce a voluntary non-binding framework for the EU, therefore the more stringent systems in place in France and Denmark remain exceptions rather than the rule.

Colleagues, the issue of CSR is now firmly on the agenda. We believe that the TUC should continue to argue for the Government to take a firmer stance on the introduction of legislation in this area. There are opportunities to address some areas in the consultation on modernising company law. This should clearly place a mandatory obligation on employers to report on employment relations in social audits. We should also continue to encourage the European Commission to pursue a legally binding approach at European level.

Congress, please support this motion and send a clear message to companies, and the Government. I second. (Applause)

Luke Howard (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) speaking in support of the motion, said: Congress, not long ago we used to hear a lot about the stakeholder society but it seems clear that all this talk is just empty words, at least as far as the corporate sector is concerned. Our public services have always operated in a framework of broad responsibilities and the need for recognition of the full role corporations play in society is perhaps most acute where public functions have been privatised. The collapse of British Energy, this very week, and Railtrack a year ago show the damage that can be done when a corporation, whose accountability is only to its shareholders, runs an essential public service. Does anyone think that, if the PPP on the London Underground goes ahead, the companies that win those contracts will for one moment put their obligations to the people of London ahead of the interests of their shareholders? I do not think so.

The same is true of all companies, on a smaller or larger scale, they have a wide role in society and responsibilities to their workers, the communities in which they operate, and the local and global environment, yet these responsibilities are largely unrecognised in practice and almost completely ignored in law.

The speakers from Unifi and GPMU have talked a bit about the British context and I would like to say a little bit more about the international dimension. I suggest you go round the stalls in the exhibition upstairs and speak to Amnesty about their campaign on corporate responsibilities. Talk to War on Want about the efforts of corporations to impede measures on employment standards through the World Trade Organisation, or to dilute agreements on sustainable development at Johannesburg a couple of weeks ago. Ask Oxfam about the efforts of corporates in depressing commodity prices and forcing producers in the poorest countries of the world into poverty. One World Action will tell you about women workers in a factory in Nicaragua in a free trade zone, an employer with corporate labour standards. To ensure that these are available for the workforce to hold their management to account, they are displayed on the factory wall 20 feet up, in Chinese. Then ask Nestle about their corporate responsibilities and ask them why Baby Milk Action are still targeting them after two decades of campaigning.

Colleagues, corporate social responsibility is essential and the measures proposed in motion 21 are very important. Remember, also, that you are shareholders. Through your pension funds, our pension funds, and our union investments, we have a voice to call companies to account. Please carry this motion and then go out and use that voice. Thank you. (Applause)

Des Farrell (GMB) speaking in support of the motion, said: The United Nations has noted that more than half of world trade is produced by multinationals and more than one-third of world trade is composed of goods transferred within different branches of the same multinational corporation. Two-thirds of all international transactions and goods and services combined are dependent on multinational company operations. The free movement of capital allows corporations to transfer production, without regard to national boundaries, to wherever costs are the lowest.

Three basic elements are necessary in the globalised economy. We need good labour law, correctly enforced by all governments, we need strong trade unions and we need socially responsible companies. The problem is that, at present, in a large number of countries governments are passive, incompetent, or corrupt, or perhaps all three, whilst companies are arrogant and greedy.

Let us look for a moment at the clothing and textile industry, which, as Congress knows, has been ravaged in recent years. Many of the employers were so-called good employers, when the going was good, that is. When the going got tough, the goodness got up and went. Sadly, I am spoiled for choice on examples that I can give.

I could, once again, talk about Marks & Spencer who, in an act of sheer corporate greed, changed their sourcing policy and tens of thousands of clothing and textile workers in the UK lost their jobs. The company sat back and did nothing to assist whatsoever.

I will resist that temptation and I will talk again about Levi Strauss. Yes, the self-professed paragons of virtue on the international stage of corporate social responsibility. Seven hundred GMB members in Dundee and Bellshill woke up one morning a few months ago to hear on the radio and TV that Levi's had announced to the New York stock exchange that they were closing both Scottish plants, ending all UK production. We then received an invitation to consult with a 90-day notice of closure attached. How can there possibly be meaningful consultation when a decision has already been made?

Through the sheer determination of our members in Scotland, we gained some movement from the company by demanding the same consultation rights that our Belgian and French colleagues had when they went through the same painful process. As a result, Levi's agreed to fund an independent expert to work with the GMB to assess alternatives to closure.

Sadly, the outcome of the report did not save our members' jobs, it was too late for that, but it did confirm quite clearly that if there had been meaningful consultation at an earlier stage, closure could have been avoided. Levi Strauss walked away to lower-cost countries, anywhere they can find, and UK manufacturing suffers another body blow; a fine example of CSR.

The Prime Minister was actually right, our members are the victims. We hear a lot about the special relationship between the UK and the US governments but it would have been nice if Tony Blair had picked up the phone to his friend, George, and insisted that he make Levi Strauss think again; perhaps this special friendship does not extend to mere things like UK jobs or corporate social responsibility. Support the motion. (Applause)

Roger James (Amicus) speaking in support of the motion, said: Congress, the issue of corporate social responsibility is growing in importance. It is vital that our generation seeks common solutions to social and environmental problems on the scale and depth that we have never known before. It is also vital for us that we ensure that corporate social responsibility becomes a reality in the workplace. We, as trade unionists, need to be making that argument in force.

Colleagues, there is nothing new or novel about trade unions exhorting the business community to strive for greater social responsibility. We have been doing that for over 150 years. My union, in many ways, has been encouraging companies to have wider social responsibility. At the Re-learn Rossyth project, we demonstrated that trade unions working in partnership with Babcock's Engineering Services and the Scottish Learning Fund can work together for the benefit of the community.

When Ford announced their investment in the new diesel engine plant at Dagenham, it was the trade unions who argued that this investment should have a social spinoff. The environmental work carried out there and the new learning facilities will be a major asset in that part of East London.

Indeed, my union's charity project, the Learning Fund, is a practical example of trade unions being a force for good in the UK and further afield. It is on bread and butter issues that we need to be building our case. In fighting for trade union recognition, defending jobs, seeing justice within the workplace, we can influence corporate social responsibility.

If you like, charity needs to begin at home. We should be wary of companies who treat their employees shabbily and yet claim to be good corporate citizens. I make no apology in saying that any company boasting about its CSR programme, that does not even recognise trade unions, cannot be said to be practising corporate social responsibility. The Body Shop, for example, is a big player in corporate social responsibility but has no track record of recognising a trade union.

One thing is clear, without trade union involvement corporate social responsibility is incomplete. Colleagues, please support this motion. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Roger. There being no opposition, I will move straight to the vote.

* Motion 21 was CARRIED

Manufacturing

Brendan Barber (Deputy General Secretary) President, I am pleased to move the General Council's Report, Manufacturing: A Strategy for Growth, and to express the General Council's support for composite 7.

Congress, despite growth elsewhere in the economy, as many people in this hall know all too well, manufacturing has been taking a battering. In the last year alone, we have seen a quarter of a million jobs disappear and for far too long there seemed to be a dangerous complacency in the Government about the prospects for the sector.

For much of the first term, ministers seemed obsessed with dot.coms, information and communications technologies and the knowledge-driven economy. They gave the impression that manufacturing was old-fashioned, that it was all about metal bashing, declining industries, relics of the past that could happily be forgotten in the brave new digital world.

Congress, the General Council never believed that and I am very pleased that Patricia Hewitt has now made it crystal clear that she does not believe it either. Manufacturing makes a major contribution to national prosperity, to employment, to trade through productivity and innovation: four million direct jobs and another million dependent on them, 64 per cent of the UK's international trade, and over 80 per cent of research and development.

Since the last election, 0government policy has shifted significantly. The budget gave a big boost to investment in R&D through the new tax credit. The Chancellor confirmed his commitment to the projects piloting a legal right for paid time off for training.

In May, the DTI published their manufacturing strategy. In her forward, the Secretary of State said that the Government believes in a robust partnership with management, employees, and their unions. I agree. The Government is now supporting their words with action: £20 million in a partnership fund to support innovative partnership projects. The spending review included a large increase in spending on science and innovation and an extra £2 billion for regional development agencies, exactly what the TUC had called for.

These are very welcome and significant changes in policy but they are only the first steps on a long journey to make UK manufacturing world class. We all know that manufacturing has longstanding problems caused by under-investment, a lack of innovation, ineffective management, poor industrial relations, low skills and weak regional policy.

The report to Congress highlights where we think the Government has got it right but it also sets out where we think they need to do more, and where there are gaps in the strategy. Action is needed in a number of areas. We need a review of public purchasing policy to ensure that the increased investment in public services, including public transport, supports British manufacturing. We should not be buying medical equipment or trains from abroad, we should be making them here.

Government spending is essential for a world class manufacturing sector. We need better university-industry links and better arrangements for transferring technology, and spreading best practice. Regional development agencies should be the pivotal agencies for delivering a more effective science and innovation system; and, of course, we need new skills strategies, improved information and consultation arrangements, and greater certainty on the euro, issues which loom large in other key Congress debates.

Congress, the General Council has developed practical proposals to secure a sound future for manufacturing and the Government has begun to listen. Let us take that work forward with real determination. Support the General Council's statement and support composite 7. Thank you, Congress. (Applause)

Manufacturing

John Edmonds (GMB) moved motion 7. He said: A few weeks ago a survey in the papers told us that we were turning into a nation of Victor Meldrews. There is a danger that this debate will be a bit like that. Victor Meldrew mantra of miseries, lost jobs, businesses gone bust and of factories closed down. The awful truth is that things in manufacturing are getting worse. Ten years ago we were losing 2,000 jobs a month; five years ago, 8,000 jobs a month; it is now over 12,000 jobs a month. Victor Meldrew would not believe it but our members have to.

The biggest problem, and it has been for five years now, is the high value of the pound. A new Deputy Director of the Bank of England has just been appointed. Does he bring a deep knowledge of the problems of manufacturing? Does he hell. He is - I pause here - a banker from Barclays. I use that phrase with great care. That brings the membership of the Monetary Policy Commission to five bankers, three academics, with just one economist who has experience of industry, and that was a long time ago.

We must insist that the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee changes. We will never revive manufacturing industry if we rely on a bunch of people who know more about house prices in the south east of England than about the heartlands of our industrial economy. (Applause)

The good news is that the Budget was helpful; Brendan has said that. Tony Blair was sympathetic in his speech. But I still have the overwhelming feeling that the priority given to manufacturing in Britain is much lower than in France and in Germany. With the sole exception of Portugal, every government in the European Union provides more financial support to manufacturing than the UK. We are fourteenth out of fifteen, with government support in this country at less than half the European average. This will not change because the DTI has a hang-up about state aid. The recent White Paper said that the Ministry would not give, and I quote directly, "handouts" to domestic companies. You would never have heard that phrase in France.

Manufacturing is in crisis. It is time to sweep away these DTI prejudices and give our industry the sort of backing that French, German and Italian companies take for granted. (Applause) The Government should not think that it can look to the CBI for help. For 20 years the CBI has opposed training rights for working people. "No compulsion" is their cry. The result is that training standards are lower in Britain than almost anywhere else in the industrial world.

On training issues, as on so much else, the CBI is the voice of the past. If the Government wants to get us out of this mess, they should not imagine that the Monetary Policy Committee, or the DTI, or the CBI, will provide the solutions. The best blueprint for industrial strategy has not come from the CBI, or from any employers' organisation, or from any ministry of government, the best, indeed the only credible strategy has come from us here in the TUC.

I know that realisation does not come easily to some ministers but, if it wants to solve the manufacturing crisis, the Government had better start listening to the unions. In this, as in so many other things, the Government will be well advised to remember who its real friends are. I move. (Applause)

Danny Carrigan (Amicus) seconding the composite, said: President, colleagues, manufacturing in the UK is undoubtedly in crisis. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the past few years. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of families have suffered. Colleagues, our manufacturing landscape has been blighted, factories have been closed, inward investors have pulled out of Britain, hundreds of thousands of jobs, as I said, have been lost.

I know, as the Prime Minister has said and the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry has said, many who were shaken out of manufacturing have found other jobs. They found jobs in the services sector. That is, of course, very welcome, but, colleagues, all too often these jobs are less well-paid, less well-skilled, and less satisfactory than those that were in the manufacturing arena.

Colleagues, the list of companies closing or declaring redundancies over the past couple of years is endless: Motorola, Compac, Polaroid, Sony. I could talk about the 15,000 jobs lost in Silicon Glen in Scotland over the past 18 months. In fact, I could go on and on and on.

I can tell you that only in the past few weeks we have seen announcements all over the place: AGCO, the former Massey Ferguson tractor plant in Coventry, doomed to closure. I have to say to you that we certainly hope, my colleagues in the TGWU and Amicus, that the workers fight back there will save some jobs to ensure that we retain a manufacturing facility at that plant. (Applause) I am going to a meeting there tomorrow with the TGWU to lend our members support to their campaign.

Last Friday, we heard the news that LG Philips, the joint venture electronics company, are considering pulling the plug on four UK plants, employing in excess of 3,000 workers, and transferring that work to the Czech Republic; so plants in Tyne & Wear, Blackburn, and South Wales, are threatened. Colleagues, our members in LG Philips are angry that they have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. But let me tell you they are even angrier that they heard this news not from a caring sharing management in the UK but from a trade union source in France.

Colleagues, that epitomises what is wrong with current British industry. All too often companies in Britain treat their workforce with disdain rather than dignity, disrespect rather than respect, and discrimination rather than equality. That is the mushroom approach to British management. In contrast, let me say, on the Continent, often in the same company, there is a large measure of social partnership, real partnership, not bogus or phoney partnership, with empowerment, involvement of the workforce, information shared with the employees and, lo and behold, as John Edmonds has said, real partnership pays dividends.

That is why the French and the German workers are a third more productive than their British cousins. On the Continent, there is more investment. On the Continent, workers are treated with dignity and respect. No apology for saying that, incidentally, they are also in the euro and we will get an opportunity to debate that later.

I am saying to this Congress that the Government should support manufacturing, industry should support manufacturing, and I hope this Congress supports manufacturing as well. I second. (Applause)

Jimmy Elsby (Transport and General Workers' Union) speaking in support of the composite, said: The official figures tell us that manufacturing is in the grip of recession. In reality, that means more job losses and more plant closures, it means literally hundreds of thousands fewer people working in manufacturing today than a year ago. These are more than just economic data, more than just numbers in a balance sheet. It is about real people, real jobs, with real companies closing real factories.

Manufacturing matters because manufacturing directly provides some four million jobs. It directly accounts for many millions more in areas such as transport, energy supply, catering, cleaning, commerce, and communications. Manufacturing generates our national wealth, it drives our economy, and it is the seed corn of British industry. When manufacturing grows and prospers, so does every sector of British industry. That is why this motion is right to call for a whole range of initiatives underpinning and assisting the growth of a strong manufacturing base for the UK. It means British workers delivering first class productivity and flexibility with first class working rights, increased investment in R&D, in skills, and in training, more effective powers through RDAs, and long-term investment with a partnership culture and, above all, an industrial strategy with manufacturing at its heart.

What we are witnessing now is not so much inward investment as industrial terrorism with global corporations shifting jobs around the world like modern-day industrial pirates. The most disgraceful example of this is Massey Ferguson in Coventry. Danny has touched upon that. Imagine this, imagine being at a team briefing in the plant: "We are a world class company", says the management, "we have a world class product. You, our employees, are a world class workforce. We are profitable. The order book is full and we are winning new markets." Then in an act of callous brutality, the company president flies in from America, announces to a stunned workforce that their plant is to close, and then flies out back to the land of the free that same afternoon, leaving the workforce, the shop stewards, and the trade unions, to pick up the pieces. My colleagues, Peter Booth and Danny, are attending a meeting tomorrow and I am sure Congress will wish them well in fighting for these jobs and keeping that plant in Coventry. (Applause)

Congress, President, the economic equation is a simple one: the future of the British economy, and world class public services, depend on the future of British manufacturing. Colleagues, I urge you to support both these principles by supporting the composite. Thank you. (Applause)

Keren Bender (ISTC - The Community Union) speaking in support of the composite, said: President, Congress, the Government is insistent about its commitment to manufacturing and, rightly so. A vibrant manufacturing sector is key to reasonably fast economic growth. Progress is improving. Essential public services depend upon this. Full employment, too, requires a strong competitive manufacturing base.

We welcome the Government's help yet the British manufacturing base is eroding faster than ever. The statistics show sharp falls in manufacturing employment every month. In several industries, we are fast approaching the point of losing critical mass. We will not be able to take advantage of economies of scale, of synergies, or to justify large expenditures on research and development.

It is not good enough to imply that industry itself is responsible for its woes. I work in the steel industry where we have had an annual rate of productivity improvement of 10 per cent for over 20 years. Globally, only Germany has superior productivity. And longer hours and lower wages here should make us more competitive.

There are real structural weaknesses, particularly the century-old failure to invest in manufacturing, but that is not the main issue here. Companies cannot invest; they need every penny they have just to keep going. We cannot compete because of the gross over-valuation of sterling in euro terms. This is the issue. It must be addressed to staunch the haemorrhaging of jobs and plants from Britain.

My union is convinced that government has the power to act quickly and effectively to help British manufacturing. Ministers should end this shilly-shallying about entry into the euro. A clear signal that entry on the right terms is essential in our long-term economic interest has to come both from number 11 Downing Street and Number 10. The Government really must end the persistent overshooting of the inflation target by the Monetary Policy Committee.

City interests and the notoriously inaccurate decrees of economics do not justify the price of our industries that they have to pay in Scotland, in the north of England, and in Wales. We support the motion. Thank you. (Applause)

Terry McKnight (Association of University Teachers) speaking in support of composite 7, said: There is no argument that this country needs its manufacturing industry. This is no optional extra. Equally, it goes without saying that their manufacturing base needs a thriving research and development function to support it. To a large extent, universities and its researchers can, and could, provide this R&D for industry. Thus universities have an important role to play, but there is a problem.

With the chronic under-funding suffered by universities over the last 20 years, laboratories and the general scientific infrastructure have been run down to such an extent that universities' ability to supply this service to industry has been called into question. However, in the recent comprehensive spending review, the Government has at last begun to address the problem; the crisis in scientific funding has been recognised and significant sums, an increase of around 10 per cent, have been allocated to rejuvenate the scientific base, for basic and applied research.

However, this is only the beginning of a long process that would be required to end the erosion of the scientific base and alleviate the crisis at universities. End it we must, if we are to see the economy grow. Make no mistake about it, the research performance of universities is a prime economic driver, specifically in the peripheral regions of the UK where universities are very often the only providers of R&D. Universities provide support and help not only to attract new industry but also to keep the existing industry. Indeed, we cannot overestimate the importance of scientific research for our future prosperity and economics revival.

A little extra money has been provided to boost the scientific infrastructure within universities but no comparable sums have been allocated to boost the salaries and job security of the researchers in universities who perform the necessary work. Over 90 per cent - yes, over 90 per cent - of researchers in universities are on fixed-term contracts, with minimal job security, yet we rely on them to produce our investment for the future without being prepared to invest in them.

In conclusion, universities and industry working together is the programme for the future. I support Brendan's call for greater and improved links between universities and industry, but for this relationship to flourish government has to be prepared to fund all aspects of the relationship adequately. A start has been made but much more is needed. I move. (Applause)

Peter Court (Amicus) speaking in support of the motion, said: I speak in support of the motion, the previous speakers about manufacturing, and to support the point John Edmonds made earlier about the Bank of England Monetary Committee and them not having experience in manufacturing.

When the Prime Minister spoke today about previous Labour governments the night Harold Wilson was elected came to mind; I think it was 1964 in that Labour government. It brought back a memory for me of when he spoke at the Labour Party Conference and made due reference to "the white heat of technology", way back in those days in the mid 1960s. It made me think about the then Labour government and the makeup of the then parliamentary Labour Party, when many many of our MPs had an industrial background and an industrial base: manufacturing, mining, shipbuilding, chemicals, oil. They came from all sorts of backgrounds. They had worked on the shopfloor, moved through the trade union movement, and then they became MPs. They had real knowledge, experience, and understanding of manufacturing, in those days.

I know things have changed dramatically since then, that things have moved on, but when you draw a comparison with the present Labour government - and I am in no way criticising the Labour government; I, for one, am delighted to have a Labour government as opposed to a Tory government; the choice is this Labour government or a Tory government, so I am delighted they are here - and when you look at the make up of the PLP (and I do not mean this as a criticism of academics) most of them are academic-driven. They go to school, to university, obtain a degree, get jobs as research officers (and again I am not criticising research officers, they do a first class job) and then end up on the professional trail to become academic-driven MPs. They do not understand the needs of manufacturing. They say they listen, and they may listen, but they certainly do not hear, and they certainly do not understand the plea for manufacturing.

If further evidence is required, a couple of years ago when the foot-and-mouth crisis hit the country, which had a devastating effect, and I know the food chain had to be supported, billions of pounds were fed into an already over-subsidised industry to support that problem. Last year, a year ago tomorrow - with the terrible things that happened then - when the aerospace industry fell into a huge temporary decline because of it and when pleas were made for financial aid, some MPs, and some people, were saying, "No handouts to lame ducks."

I am saying we should invest in success. I want success in manufacturing. I do not want to hear about task forces; they are for the past. I want to see government investing in successful industry and successful manufacturing. Please support the motion. Thank you. (Applause)

* Composite motion seven was CARRIED.

Address from the Sororal Delegate from the Labour Party

The President: That brings me, Congress, to our sororal address from the Labour Party, which will be given by Margaret Wall.

Margaret is National Secretary, Policy for Amicus. Her varied background in the trade union movement has included leading the successful campaign over ten years on behalf of members working as speech and language therapists for equal pay with colleagues elsewhere in the NHS.

Margaret was elected to the NEC of the Labour Party in 1995, she is Chair of the Labour Party NEC this year and Co-Convenor of Labour's Health Policy Commission.

Margaret, we are particularly pleased to have you here today and I now invite you to address Congress. Margaret, the floor is yours. (Applause)

Margaret Wall: Thank you, Tony,

Congress, I am delighted to be bringing you the good wishes from the Labour Party as the sororal delegate, as Tony has said, and I am very please, as the Chair of the Labour Party NEC, to be here as a lifelong trade unionist.

However, as Tony Blair did in his speech, I would like to mention very quickly the significant anniversary that we will all face tomorrow. Both in my role at the Labour Party and as a trade union official, I wish to convey my heartfelt sorrow to the families of the victims of September 11th. My thoughts, and I am sure all of yours, will be with them tomorrow.

Friends, I would like to outline some of the priorities and achievements of the Labour Party during the past year. These we have achieved not alone but with your support. In the past year we have seen the arrival of David Triesman, our new General Secretary, a man whom many of you will know and respect through his dedication to the trade union and labour movement. We welcome David and we have enjoyed working with him already.

With David we are experiencing a new and different approach to party organisation with clear staffing structures to ensure that we have the ability to deliver a modern party fit for the 21st Century.

It is vital that we combine our principles of equality, social justice, solidarity and tolerance with a clear set of objectives. The objectives are these: the guaranteed involvement of all lay members in the decision-making processes, the most important of which are the effective delivery of clear and strategic campaigns on targeted issues; the stabilisation of our membership base; and, of course, to ensure that we have the finances available to deliver all our aims and objectives.

Many of you will know that we now have a new head office and as Chair of the NEC and with Charles Clarke as chair of the Party, I was delighted to see that the nearest pub to Old Queen Street is in fact called The Two Chairmen. I am sure Charles and I will have great fun in deciding who is going to be the first chairman and the second chairman, but we look forward to having that discussion over a drink.

Sisters and brothers, UK history has been dominated by the agenda of the left. We need to work together to ensure that this century is seen as the era of the progressive left. The best way to achieve this is to work with all of the communities across our country and be part of all of those communities. We must make sure that we are listening to their concerns and responding to their needs. This is a prime example of the benefits which could and should, and I think will, come from partnership in power.

Trade unions form core institutions in society. Working together, we can ensure that the Party and the Government are representing the needs of our electorate.

A prime example of this partnership working was seen in Oldham recently. The community immediately turned to the local trades council when they were up against the threat of fascism, a big issue which I know Congress discussed yesterday. We must remember also that it was a coalition of trade unions and the Labour Party which responded to the local community's claim that they needed a campaign. The campaign was set up and the campaign was run and will continue to run.

But, Congress, of course we cannot actually achieve anything unless we are in power and many speakers have spoken about that, not least our Prime Minister today. This year has thrown a number of challenges at us. Following our by-election success in Ipswich and Ogmore on May 2nd, we faced the local government elections. In the face of media and Opposition speculation that we would be annihilated, we in fact managed to triumph. Our performance was better than that in the year 2000.

I am here to say thank you to all of you. We could not have done it without your support. Our success was achieved by all of us who knocked on doors, who delivered leaflets and who telephone canvassed. Every call, every letter made a difference, and it will in the future.

We held marginal councils in Birmingham, Bolton, Bristol, Bury, Coventry, Croydon, Exeter, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leeds, Tamworth, Trafford and Wolverhampton; a tremendous list. We also took Sheffield, Oxford, Bexley, Hyndburn and Rossendale, which is just down the road.

The last 12 months has proved that Labour is an effective government, with national policies working for people locally, and we have seen this in that electoral success.

Colleagues, it is now 20 years since the Tories gained a seat in a by-election and we have not lost a single by-election since we came into government. But, as ever, and it is always said, there is still a lot of work to do, and the challenges of 2003 are even greater. We have over 12,000 council seats up for election, elections in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We can expect the cynics to doubt what we do and how effective we are, but Labour is delivering in Scotland and is delivering in Wales.

But, friends, however poorly the opposition is doing in the polls, we cannot and must not be complacent. Tories never go away, you know. They have reinvented themselves so many times throughout their history. It is the Tories that we will face at the next general election, wearing whatever disguise they can to cloak the simple fact that they are more to the right than they have ever, ever been.

It is worth reminding ourselves, and Tony did some of this earlier, about the damage that their policies would do to employment, to the economy and, not least, to industrial relations in the UK. Remember, it has been just ten years since the financial disaster of Black Wednesday, when millions were wiped from the pound and interest rates rose twice in one afternoon - and that is just their economic record!

Liam Fox, their health spokesperson, has declared he wants to break the NHS, and he will, if we let him. Michael Howard, the Shadow Chancellor, and Iain Duncan Smith have refused to match Labour's extra investment in schools and hospitals. We must not forget William Hague's pledge during the general election. The Tories, he said, will repeal the Employment Relations Act, and they will, if we let them.

In government, they ran down investment in skills and training and oversaw the two worst recessions since 1945. In opposition, they have voted against the Comprehensive Spending Review and every other single measure that Labour has put in place to build long-term economic stability and improve public services; and none of us in our movement will ever forget that it was a Tory administration that banned trade unions in GCHQ and a Labour Government who gave us the right - a legal right - to join a union.

I am not saying everything is perfect but the Labour Party recognises that to be effective in government, we must be truly representative of the whole society we seek to serve. To be the natural party of government is harder than it is to be in opposition. It demands of all of us that we reach beyond our own interests to a wider responsibility and, of course, an understanding that has always been clear in the trade union movement. That has been our strength.

At this point I would like to pay personal tribute to John Monks. He is having a lot of them today, and well deserved they are. I want to pay a tribute to John for his strength and resolve over the past years working with our Labour Government. Things have not always been easy, have they, John? Thank you, John. Thank you for your support for the Labour Party and our key objectives. I know that this has not always been an easy feat, but you, more than most, have worked to prove that partnership in power can and does work.

Colleagues, the years pass and the years ahead are filled with challenges and opportunities; partnership working between party and government, between politicians and the public, between trade unions and our members. You and I together, working to improve the lives of British people, must succeed. There is no other option.

Thank you very much for listening to me. It has been an absolute pleasure to address Congress and an experience I will never forget. Thank you. (Applause)

The President: Thank you, Margaret, for reminding us of the value of the link and the benefits of partnership. A great address. It gives me great pleasure in presenting you with the Gold Badge of Congress. (Presentation of Gold Badge to Margaret Wall)

The President: Congress, before I move on to the next item, I thought you would like to hear the results of the Jimmy Knapp Cancer Fund. You did dig pretty deep. The collection raised £3,123.55. (Applause) The GMB has offered to match that amount, unless the Fund gets a better offer. I have not seen anybody volunteering yet, John, so it looks like it is down to the GMB. I thank Congress for their generosity and the GMB. I think it will be a great tonic to Eva Knapp.

The National Minimum Wage

The President: Delegates, we are staying with Chapter 3 and moving to the section on the National Minimum Wage, page 39 of the General Council's Report. I will now explain how I intend to take the debate. First I will ask the General Secretary to lead in on the General Council's Report and to move the General Council's Statement that we are putting before you today.

John Monks (General Secretary): leading in on paragraph 3.8 of the General Council's Report, said: President, Congress, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the General Council's statement on the minimum wage and to express support for motion 23.

There are three quick points to be made from the General Council. First of all, that the minimum wage should be increased significantly; secondly, that the discriminatory treatment of young workers should be reversed; and, thirdly, the minimum wage must be rigorously promoted, monitored and enforced.

As the Prime Minister was saying, the minimum wage covers a large number of workers; actually, more than a million saw their wages go up with the initial introduction and more than a million saw their wages rise after the up-rating last year. There have been no job losses in the sectors primarily affected - catering, cleaning, security and one or two others - and these are all areas of strong employment growth.

If you remember what was said about that by our critics at the time, I think the Conservatives said it would cost two million jobs. That was Mr Michael Howard, who is still on the scene. The CBI said that more than £3 an hour would push up unemployment, and there is no evidence of that whatsoever either. So the opponents have been proved wrong.

We were initially, if we are honest, in uncharted territories. We did not know quite what employers would do. So we supported the Low Pay Commission in being cautious when they first introduced the National Minimum Wage. Anyway, we are learning from experience and if there was a time then for prudence, there is also now a time to be bold and a time for a big, big increase in the National Minimum Wage.

So that is the basis of the campaign.

We are talking about a range from £5 to £5.30 an hour, with the emphasis on the top of that. We are adding to that, by the way, a collective bargaining target of £6 an hour, as unions have fulfilled the original £5 one which we had when the minimum wage was introduced. That is point one.

Point two concerns discrimination against younger workers. How can anyone believe it is right that if you are 18 you should not get the same pay as people doing the same job alongside you who are aged 30, 40 or 50? It is not right; it is discriminatory. I think it sends an initial unfairness message to young people and it is wrong.

Let me say that there should be some protection too for 16 and 17 year-olds who at the moment are being left wide open to exploitation; they are not covered by the minimum wage at all. We are looking for the adult rate at 18 and a lower rate paid to 16 and 17 year-olds, with the message that we do encourage a strong learning element, particularly for those below 18.

Perhaps the third point to touch on is that employers should have no opportunity to avoid the minimum wage. In fact, it has been reasonably successful. There has not been widespread avoidance. The vast majority have complied but a small minority are still getting away with it, even though this is the most actively enforced of all our labour laws. So there is a role for the Government in enforcement; there is a role for the union movement in enforcement. If you hear about any cases, please report it. Report to it the Inspectorate attached to the Inland Revenue.

Those of you negotiating with employers' associations, get them too, because they are the ones being undercut by the cheats who are not paying the minimum wage. We must get them to do the reporting as well, so we catch these cowboys who are letting down quite a significant number of workers in this country.

I believe, with the state of the labour market now, we have a great opportunity to take decisive action to end low pay, so support the General Council's statement; support motion 23, and let us all start working towards that £6 target. Thank you. (Applause)

National Minimum Wage

Barry Morris (National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades) moved motion 22. He said: Colleagues, we will continue our arguments over the rate of the national minimum wage, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the policy has been an overwhelming success.

As John said, despite all the scare mongering, since the introduction in 1999, there are virtually a million more jobs in the economy and more than one million workers have received an increase in pay as a direct result of the national minimum wage.

I want to concentrate on and bring to the attention of Congress those workers who do not receive the National Minimum Wage. To our shame there are "no go areas" for the National Minimum Wage. I refer to the informal economy, or sweatshops, that exist and prosper in many of our large towns and cities. Indeed, in some areas, the informal economy is larger than the formal sector. That statistic is alarming despite trade union efforts to enforce the national minimum wage, in particular my own union, which is working very closely and in partnership, in many instances, with the Inland Revenue compliance teams. There are also many local initiatives involving the DTI, Inland Revenue and trade unions and, again, my own union, KFAT, has been very active in these areas.

The local initiatives and campaigns are aimed at making people aware of their entitlement and trying to persuade them to openly register a complaint. However, to make a complaint, it is, of course, the worker who takes all the risks. If he or she plucks up courage to phone the helpline and ask what the procedure is, they rarely continue any action against their employer. After 15,000 positive calls to the helpline last year, only approximately 1,400 registered a complaint. The rest went away. This more than demonstrates the procedures are not worker friendly and penalties against employers are inadequate.

The compliance team officers work their socks off in trying to persuade employers who have been caught not paying the national minimum wage to repay the arrears. This, colleagues, is because they also know that procedures and penalties are totally inadequate.

If - and it is a big "if" - an enforcement notice is issued after painstaking persuasion has failed, the cost to the employer is £8.20 per day for each day the employer does not comply. This would be on top of refunding to the employee. In desperation to get the employer to pay, they would offer to waive the £8.20 per day penalty if the arrears are paid. If that fails, the officer then has to make a judgment on whether bailiffs are a worthwhile next step. Invariably, this is never used as an option.

The next stage open to the officer is to instigate criminal proceedings against the employer. The Inland Revenue avoids this option like the plague because their powers are not watertight and they are loath to put them to the test.

Let us compare this sad sequence of affairs with another criminal event that probably the same employer not paying national minimum wage also commits. I refer, colleagues, to counterfeiting. However, active trading standard teams have the tools to take decisive action against culprits. Unlike not paying national minimum wage, counterfeiting falls within the Theft Act. This crime carries an unlimited fine and up to ten years in prison. I am pleased to report, Congress, that the courts use these penalties. News like that travels like lightning around the sweatshops. Providing they are applied, these penalties become a real deterrent.

Colleagues, there is, though, a sad message. If you steal from the big brands by counterfeiting, you will be dealt with in a big way, and in the way that I have explained. If you steal from your employees, it results in a tap on the wrist, an arm round the shoulder and, "Let's try and sort this out over a cup of tea." (Applause) Colleagues, non-payment of the National Minimum Wage must be dealt with severely.

Our officers recently caught an employer not paying the national minimum wage and £40,000 were forced out of the employer in back pay, but no further action was taken. It again shows that many employers will avoid paying the minimum wage because the penalties will not be applied if they are caught. Imagine, colleagues, applying that to the TV licensing system.

It gets worse, delegates!

In an amazing ruling an industrial tribunal has ruled that if an employee no longer works for his employer, they cannot force that employer to repay the arrears of the national minimum wage. That decision, Congress, must be appealed against. It is an appalling decision. This decision leaves national minimum wage in turmoil.

For many workers in society, it is irrelevant what the rate is; whether it be £4, £5 or £25.

There is a real need now, colleagues, to take enforcement action and to apply more penalties. I will leave the seconder the to speak to the problems we have on age restrictions. Thank you. (Applause)

John Hannett (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) seconding the motion said: Congress, John Monks referred to a number of key reasons why the minimum wage was introduced. I want to deal specifically with three areas. One, to deliver justice and fairness for workers; two, to combat cheap labour practices and provide a level playing field for employers; and, three, to relieve the taxpayer of the cost of shoddy employment practices.

Congress, the way our youngest workers are treated means we are still failing all three tests. Where is the fairness in 18year old shop workers waiting four years for the full adult rate when they are fully competent in weeks or even days? Where is the justice in unprotected 16 and 17 year-olds being paid an obscene £2 an hour or less? Where is the level playing field when the worst employers sack older workers and substitute cheap teenage labour? Where is the benefit for the taxpayer when our investment in continuing education is ransacked by the worst labour practices?

Congress, these are not academic arguments. My own union, USDAW, has had two national agreements suspended in recent years, having been told by employers in the retail pharmacy and the retail footwear sectors that only the minimum wage now applies, leaving 16 and 17 year-olds with their pay frozen at around £2 an hour since 1998; frozen to pay the bare minimum the law now requires for 18-21 year-olds. So we have the poor subsidised by the poorest! That is precisely the kind of cheap labour abuse the minimum wage was designed to combat.

As workers, of course, everyone should get a protected fair rate of pay. That is not just a basic principle; it is a common practice internationally. Minimum age rates often extend to 16 and 17 year-olds. Across America, in Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the youngest workers are protected by the law. The US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand do likewise. Even in the UK, many of us have ensured our collective agreements set down the adult rate at 18 and establish rates for under 18 year-olds, too.

As trade unionists, young workers can rely on our support but the truth is most young workers are not trade unionists. They rely on the Government and the law for protection, and to date they have been let down. All the evidence shows that without protection, young workers' pay will fall. The Tories relied on that in the mid-1980s, when they started to dismantle the Wages Councils. Young workers' pay immediately fell and young women's pay fell furthest of all.

John Monks said let us be bold and it would be a good place to start by treating young workers in a decent and fair manner. Thank you.

Andrew Ratcliffe (GMB) supporting the motion said: At the end of next week, we should know if 1.2 million council workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have accepted a pay deal which delivers a minimum wage of £5 an hour this year, moving up to £5.33 next year. If so, they will be following in the footsteps of the deals achieved in Scotland.

Congress, if it is good enough for local government workers in 2002, we should hardly hesitate to demand that the rest of the workforce should at least get this in 2004.

There is one section of the workforce that stands to lose out. However successful we have been in reaching the national minimum wage, the youth wage remains a scandal. (Applause) It is a scandal to pay people less because of their age, yet the Government have refused to even implement the Low Pay Commission's modest proposal to lower the age of the threshold from 22 to 21. The GMB supports KFAT's call for the cut in the age at which the full rate is paid. The only - and I mean the only - justification for the different pay rates for young people is when training forms an essential part of their package and their pay.

We say "no" to age rates. It is not all right for 16 and 17 year olds, when doing the same work as 18 and 19 year olds, to be paid lower rates.

Congress, Britain has signed up to the European Directive which outlaws age discrimination. It is time that the Government took action to end this outrageous policy of discrimination against young workers. (Applause)

The President: Well done, Andrew. I presume that was a first time contribution. That is what you call going in at the deep end. Well done.

* Motion 22 was CARRIED

* The General Council's statement on The National Minimum Wage was CARRIED.

Working Time Regulations

George Brumwell (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) moved motion 23. He said: Congress, how many times have we heard that Britain should be at the heart of Europe? I think it is a call and a message we have heard many times. If we are going to be at the heart of Europe, let us enjoy the fruits of what comes from Europe as far as the Social Chapter is concerned. I am moving this resolution on the Working Time Directive and I am moving it because it is a piece of legislation that the Labour Government signed up to and it was designed to give every worker in this country a paid holiday.

The reality is that the fourth richest country in the world has signed up to this directive in a grudging fashion, and when we talk about 20 paid days holiday a year, that includes public holidays. The reality is that many employers are denying workers their legal entitlements under the Working Time Directive. They are actually breaking and flouting the law by denying workers paid holidays.

This resolution is a call to make sure the directive is fully implemented and extended. British workers have got the least holidays of all workers in Europe and we are calling for a full embracing of the directive and an extension of the holidays provided.

We have been told about partnership and of course we have tried this partnership and we have signed several partnership deals with companies. As soon as we have gone in and said, "We want paid holidays under the Working Time Directive", employers have said, "Well, we did not know that that was partnership; that you are demanding rights for your workers and your members." That is the sort of partnership that we come across in the industry that I deal with.

We get regulation and more constraints placed on the ability of individuals to go to employment tribunals and employment tribunals are actually clogged up because British employers are denying British workers their rights under the employment law and the Working Time Directive. It is high time that British employers faced up to their responsibilities and stopped breaking the law and denying workers their entitlements. If you want to ease the congestion at employment tribunals, let us introduce penalties against those employers who deny British workers their legal rights because that, at a stroke, will free up the tribunal system.

This resolution is long overdue. This approach of constantly resorting to taking the Government to Europe to get them to implement the law and the constant actions of trade unions to resort to the law is a waste of energy and a waste of resource. We have actually gone back to a simple remedy. The construction industry is fast moving and if we use the tribunal system, it can probably take between six to nine months to get a case heard and the employer inevitably pays at the end of the day.

Our message now to our members on large construction sites is, "If you want your rights, you will have to strike for them". It is far cheaper and far more efficient to have a ballot of the members. Let me tell you this. Within two or three days of us doing that, the employers are willingly prepared to pay up.

Thank you.

Owen Coop (Graphical Paper and Media Union) seconded the motion said: President, we fully support the arguments made by the mover of the motion that public holidays should not be part of the four week calculation under the regulations. (Applause)

We, the GPMU, welcome the Working Time Directive and the important role we hope this will play in reducing the excessive working hours culture which has become the norm in the UK. As a union, we have remained totally opposed to the individual opt-out and the effect this has had in undermining the working time regulations, which has helped to encourage the systematic working of long hours, at a time when many other EU countries are reducing working hours.

A survey by the Government shows that working hours within the UK continue to increase. The Government's evidence also shows that one in five workers want a better work/life balance and seven out of ten workers suffering from stress do not have access to formal flexible working practices. What sort of picture does this paint of working life in the UK, four years on from the introduction of the working time regulations? How does this picture fit into the Government's stated policies on balancing work, the quality of life and their acceptance that this is acting against raising efficiency within the workplace?

Congress, we have evidence in our own union that the individual opt-out has clearly enabled unscrupulous employers to coerce and bully workers into signing away their rights to decent working time arrangements against their will. The arguments for introducing the opt-out arrangements into the directive were to allow employers in the UK and Ireland time to prepare for the introduction of a maximum 48hour working week. We did not believe that would happen and the evidence is conclusive that no attempt has been made by the majority of employers in the UK to move in this direction. In fact, the reverse has happened. It is no longer acceptable for the Government to allow this to continue. It is time for the Government to take immediate steps - immediate steps - to remove the opt-out from the working time regulations. Thank you. (Applause)

Nancy Coull (Unison) supporting the motion said: Delegates, the long hours culture in Britain is a problem and it is getting worse.

A recent survey revealed that one in five workers wants a better work/life balance and I am going to use my own family to give you examples. My eldest son is 27. He has a partner and a three year-old daughter. He is an electrician and has been made redundant twice; once from the oil industry and once from the coal industry. He is working again for a small private employer. He was told when he had his interview that he would be expected to work overtime. He did not, and does not, have a problem with working overtime. What he does have a problem with is working six or seven days a week, 12 hours a day. That is 72-84 hours a week. Then you add on things like travel and the necessity to sleep and you will see that there is not much of the week left for any kind of family life. Things such as your health start suffering, your work rate slows, you get tired and irritable and you have arguments and your home life can start to fall apart. So you go back to your employer and you tell them that you need to cut back on your hours. What is the answer? "Tough. That is the job, take it or leave it there are plenty of people out there to replace you."

Then there is my 16 year-old son in his first job, training to be a car mechanic. He has always wanted to be a mechanic. During the week he works from 8 o'clock till 5, and again another 9 hours on a Saturday. If anybody else is off or on holiday, then he has to work overtime at nights. He does not get public holidays, nor does he get four weeks' paid holiday a year. Will he let me contact his employer? No. The reason? He does not want to end up like his friends, on the dole. All this, 54 hours a week, for £72. He gets £1.50 an hour during the week and £2 at the weekend.

Congress, thousands of people, including our members, are working long hours, not because they want to but because they have to. Some do it because that is the only way they feel they will get promoted; some are bullied into doing it and many, many more have to do so because they simply do not get paid a decent hourly rate. That is why the reform of working hours will only succeed when people are paid a living wage.

Unison supports this motion. For the Government even to consider extending the Working Time Directive opt-out is simply unacceptable. We need all the actions called for by this motion if we are going to create the decent working environment our members and my family deserve. Please support. (Applause)

Graham Fowler (British Airline Pilots' Association) supporting the motion said: Congress, European regulations governing the working time of mobile workers in civil air transport, such as cabin and flight crew, are still to be introduced. However, Congress, in the UK we are fortunate in having rules which have been developed over time and which are based on medical and scientific evidence. These rules, however, are threatened by a proposal now being pursued by the European Parliament which seeks to find a compromise between the different regulations within the European economic area and which ignores such evidence.

A recent illustration of the way in which these differences can endanger air safety is the confusion caused by the conflicting advice offered to pilots employed by Ryanair. Congress, the regulations in the UK limit the total number of flying hours that a pilot may fly in a rolling 12 month period to 900 hours. Ryanair recently informed its pilots that they had an understanding with the Irish Aviation Authority that pilots could ignore any hours flown before 31st March each year. Such an interpretation would make a nonsense of any annual limit on flying hours and, following further representation from BALPA, the Irish Aviation Authority appears to agree. Consequently, we have written today to Ryanair insisting that the airline clarifies the position to its pilots as a matter of some urgency.

Congress, BALPA welcomes the expansion of civil air transport that the no frills airlines have brought about and the opportunity for more people to enjoy and experience overseas travel. But, whilst air travel should be more affordable, it should not be at the expense of the terms and conditions of those employed in the industry or air safety. BALPA supports the motion. (Applause)

* Motion 23 was CARRIED

Creators' Rights

Rory MacLeod (National Union of Journalists): moved composite motion fifteen. He said: This will please you, President; I hope not to use all the time because the argument on this is very simple, and I will outline it as quickly as possible.

Colleagues, brothers and sisters, the rights of journalists, writers, musicians, actors, artists and other creative workers are being badly abused. Media moguls are stealing their work and selling it on again and again globally through their mass of international media companies without the permission of the creator and with no recompense for that work.

Creators have an inalienable right to maintain the ownership of their own intellectual property and to make a living from their own creativity. This right should be enshrined in law and we must campaign for that to happen. Journalists and other creative workers and producers produce a piece of work for one outlet, only later (or sometimes not at all) to find it has been sold on to other outlets without the creator's knowledge and with no sense that this is little more than theft because the original creator will not see any share of the proceeds from this sale. Newspaper owners, for instance, seem to think that it is acceptable to take a story which has appeared in their newspaper and put it on a website without giving a repeat fee to the journalist who first created and presented that work. Colleagues, that is theft and it must stop.

You can be damn sure the likes of Jeffrey Archer protected himself and, the likes of him, he never lets his work be sold on without getting some cash or some action from further sales of his work, so why should it not happen to the ordinary working man and woman?

One colleague and friend of mine lives and works as a freelance in Essex and sold a story to a local paper. Pretty standard stuff, she thought. Six months later she went on holiday to Australia and on the way back stopped off with friends in Singapore. They congratulate her, as she touches down, for having a front page story in The Straits Times. She looks at them and says, "The Straits Times? I have never written for The Straits Times in my life." Her local paper had played around with the story a bit and then sold it on. No permission was sought from her and no extra fee was given to her from the money they received from selling it on. It transpired they had sold it on no less than six times to six different publications. Unusually, the only thing they did not strip her of was a by-line, otherwise the theft would have gone unnoticed. She got less than £100 for writing that story but you can bet the paper got a hell of a lot more for each time they sold it on.

Let us not call it "resale"; let us call it for what it is. It legitimises the act to call it resale. It is theft. Keep calling it theft.

Often these thefts are being taken from freelancers or single self-employed workers who have to battle large corporate empires to try and get what they are rightly due. They need and deserve the protection of law.

Protect the work and intellectual property of our creative colleagues from theft by media robber barons. The Government need to establish a charter of creators' rights which is backed by law to give the creators the teeth to be able to bite back and make sure they get paid properly for the work they do and stop the sell on, or theft, of their work. Thank you.

Graham Lester-George (The Writers' Guild of Great Britain) supporting the motion said: Congress, all poets, writers and musicians have long hair and are out of touch with reality. All artists live in garrets and are starving. All journalists spend most of the day in the pub, where they make up the news. All actors are effete and call each other "Luvvie". What is more, all of them are irrelevant to our daily lives. That is the myth. This is the reality. Every book you read has been written by an author. Every drama you see on television at the cinema, the theatre or that you hear on the radio has been written by a dramatist, directed by a director and performed by actors. Every picture on your walls has been created be a visual artist. Every piece of music you hear has been written by a composer and performed by musicians. Every newspaper or magazine article you read has been written by journalists and illustrated by photographers.

Irrelevant to our daily lives? Imagine life without books, plays, TV drama, films, newspapers, pictures, music!

We creative workers, for the most part, work alone and in isolation, making our living by offering our creations to the powerful media industry who control the means of distributing and disseminating our work. In this world of business, we are vulnerable. We have no job security; we have little or no economic power. All we have is the power of our imaginations and our creativity and our only asset is our professional reputation. We put our names on our work because we want to be identified as the creator of that work. This is how we make our living and it represents what we can do. If it is liked and successful, then our reputations grow, our talents continue to be in demand and we continue to make a living. Our reputations are fundamental to whether we eat or starve.

Now, here's the rub. Our professional reputations are not under our control. When the clauses dealing with the moral rights under the Berne Convention were incorporated into the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988, the then government, no doubt persuaded by the industry side of the argument, saw fit to hedge them about with exceptions and get-outs that effectively allow those with the economic power to drive a coach and horses through our so-called rights.

It is perfectly legal to present a creator with a contract demanding that they waive their moral rights under a threat of, "Don't sign, don't work", and this is frequently done.

Journalists, photographers and other contributors to dailies and periodicals have not been granted any moral rights at all. They do not even have the illusion of choice. Their creations can be distorted beyond recognition and the writer and the photographer have no redress. In France, Germany, Belgium and other EU countries, creators' rights, moral rights, are absolute. No one can steal them and no one can waive them, even if they were foolish enough to want to.

Creators in this country need the protection of the law if they are to go about their business secure in the knowledge that their rights are secure and absolute. I, therefore second the motion and urge Congress to call on the Government to establish a charter of creators' rights. (Applause)

John Smith (Musicians Union) supporting Composite Motion 15. We are pleased to be one of the unions that belongs to the Creators' Rights Alliance that is mentioned in the Composite and to assist this Alliance with all sorts of like organisations in valuable work, and commends this work to you in trying to get the protection for creators' rights.

Copyright is very important to creators. It is a simple notion: it is the right to control copies of your work being made. It has always had to move and adapt with changes in technology, but the first Copyright Statute in this country was the Statute of Queen Anne in 17O9. A prime motivator and mover of that was Jonathan Swift, looking after his own self interest because we had mass printing of his books and he wanted to ensure that he got something for it, that something came out of it.

At the moment we are dealing with the implementation of a Copyright Directive into UK law which will deal with copyright in the information society, vitally important. English copyright is regarded as property, intellectual property; therefore it can be traded according to English law. That is the problem we are dealing with. It can be traded just as much as anybody's house or car.

The French look at it differently, it is a droit d'auteur, the right of an author, and it actually means that the work is a spiritual part of that author and it is recognised in French law. Hence the importance of moral rights that my colleague has just mentioned.

Copyrights have received some bad press lately. You have probably read about the record industry trying to protect its rights and its copyrights and fight against piracy. We support the record industry in this. You do not often hear the Musicians Union support the record industry but we do as far as piracy is concerned. The reason is that artists get paid a royalty based on the sales of their records. Already when they get an advance from a record company, that is recouped out of their income, they have to pay for the recording costs, the packaging, the promotion; they have to pay for the session musicians. All of that comes out of their income. On top of that the record company takes the rights to their songs. This is a problem across the industry. I assure you they are not all Paul McCartneys and Elton Johns. There are a lot of one hit wonders who end up owing money to the record companies. Please support the composite. Help us to ensure that the original creators receive their just reward and are no longer forced into the kind of coercive contracts that are prevalent in our industry. Thank you very much.

* Composite Motion 15 was CARRIED

Foundation for Lifelong Learning

The President: We are now able to return to the debate on education issues in Chapter 3 of the General Council's Report, page 48. I call Motion 38, Foundations for Lifelong Learning. You will be pleased to know we are supporting the motion.

Kathryn Stallard (National Union of Teachers) moved motion 38. She said: In moving Motion 38 I need to acknowledge the fact that although the Government's 14 to 19 Green Paper is not the most perfect document it does start to raise fundamental questions about whether the artificial divide between vocational and academic education actually undermines or enhances young people's opportunities.

Within this debate, there are indeed big issues facing all of us in the trade union movement: how to improve links between industry and schools; how to accredit all the achievements of young people without excluding half from such accreditation, which would be the effect of government proposals at the moment; how to make sure that the best possible incentives are given for young people to stay in education after 16, both to consolidate skills already acquired and to develop new skills they need for life.

The Government have a vision about how they want to deliver education at secondary level. They believe that we ought to develop a ladder of schools, a ladder of schools that involves specialist and now advanced specialist schools. They are favoured by extra money, and the identification by government that they are indeed special, compared wih the school down the road, you know the local school, which has not been so lucky and despite a good inspection report struggles to get away from the damming label coined by Alistair Campbell of being bog standard.

This is not a criticism of those who work with the greatest commitment to their students in the specialist schools. No one should be surprised about the results from specialist schools, but our aim must be to ensure that every young person has opportunities to achieve their maximum and not to put in place artificial barriers for the majority of our secondary schools. The Government would do better to focus on working with those in education and industry to develop a properly resourced core curriculum and a set of options which are designed to ensure all young people retain their entitlement to a broad and balanced education, an education which includes vocational and general elements for all.

The Government's ladder of schools is in danger of encouraging a ladder of achievement as well. This is not just my view, and the National Union of Teachers does not make these assertions without evidence. The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, published recently the first results of an international study of the acquisition of skills and knowledge for life in fifteen year olds. The conclusion of one of the reports was fundamental to this motion. It found that schools systems which have different types of schools have a wider variation in student performance than those who do not. To quote from the OECD report, the effects of social clustering are larger in schools systems with differentiated types of schools than in systems in which the curriculum does not vary significantly between schools. I know there are some who have genuine concerns about the need for young people to develop skills appropriate for a modern, increasingly technologically based society; they want to see stronger school and industrial links, and so do those who work in schools.

The proposals in this motion encourage the unions representing those who work in industry and those who work in education to get together, to make these links stronger and more effective. We are in favour of closer links between industry and schools. There are plenty of ways of doing this, further developing and achieving our aims.

Colleagues, we need to go forward positively and together. We need to resist buying into a system which is not as good or effective as our own comprehensive system.

Congress, I ask you to support this motion.

Sue Rogers (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) seconding Motion 38 said: As Cathy has said, there is much to welcome in this Government's Green Paper for 14 to 19 education, not least the aspiration that those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, 80 per cent of them, do not take part in any higher education or any form of training. The Green Paper seems to redress that problem. It is brilliant as well that the Government are actually extending education maintenance awards. My own school in Sheffield was a pilot for this scheme, a scheme which paid £30 for every student in need to ensure that they stayed on in post 16 education and, not only that, but gave bonuses of £100 at the end of the term if they had things like 100 per cent attendance. This really worked. It lifted the pressure off their families, it lifted the pressure off the students, it meant they did not have to try and seek some kind of part-time employment. It meant also they could spend more time in their study. The whole thing brought an upward spiral of progress, an upward spiral of improvement and educational gain. The Government extending that scheme is a very positive move indeed and one we welcome.

It is also excellent that the Government have got rid of that snobby, elitist divide of the words 'vocational' and 'academic' when it comes to GCSE. You knew whether you had a vocational GCSE or an academic one, and somehow an academic one was better. They have got rid of that by simply using the label 'GCSE'. Why they cannot do the same for advanced level I do not know but the sooner they do that the better because, after all, what is a surgeon other than a well read plumber?

Therefore, colleagues, that elitism ought to be brought to an end. However, having given all these positives there is a weakness and there is a flaw in all of this. There is a weakness in that the Government preaches coherence and co-operation. The reality is that it creates different types of specialist schools. There is a weakness, therefore, in the competition between schools. There is a weakness as well in finance. In the continuum it suggests a 14 to 19 grouping but there is no continuum in how schools are financed. Up to 16 they get their money from the LEA and they get it through Local Management of Schools, LMS. Post-16 they get their money from the Learning and Skills Councils on totally different criteria, and yet there is supposed to be a continuum.

There is difficulty in the idea that 14 year olds can simply move into colleges. I know my colleagues in NATFHE have no desire to get all my disaffected 14 year olds into their classes, and I know some 14 year olds who the moment they walk out of the school grounds would never get anywhere, certainly not going to college. So there are real problems and those are exacerbated in the rural divide and the problems of rural travel.

The young people themselves are very confused as to what course to follow, whether they turn to connections or to their parents or to individual education plans. All of these have problems and limitations with them but at the base of this as well is the difficulty of employers. They are supposed to find employers to provide their share and support in this training programme. There are too few out there doing too little for so many who need their support. So, like so much Labour legislation, it is good in its aim, it is good in all its aspirations, but the delivery is a problem to us. We look to the TUC to try and resolve some of those tensions.

The President: I am not sure if the BMA would accept your job definition of a surgeon. I will contemplate the idea if I have to have surgery in future.

Maureen O'Mara (NATFHE): I am Vice President of NATFHE, The University and College Lecturers' Union, a full time lecturer in an FE College and this is my first Congress.

In general, NATFHE supports the provision of a broad based curriculum for 14 to 19 year olds but aims to break down the barriers between academic and vocational training. The current proposals, whilst well intentioned, will not achieve this. Many young people from the age of 14 will be encouraged into further education colleges in order to participate in vocational education.

There is a widespread perception that vocational education is somehow of a lesser value than that of academic education. How many of you here in this hall partook of vocational education in further education colleges? Probably most of us. I do not accept that vocational education is of lesser value than academic education. It does, however, mean that those children who are less likely to achieve at GCSE will be sent to their local FE colleges, thereby helping schools to reach their targets and maintain their position in league tables. No child is best served by these crude targets.

Furthermore these students will make decisions at 14 which will not only affect their future careers but their lifetime income; they will not receive a broad based vocational education because no qualification exists for this. Girls will unsurprisingly continue to choose courses such as health and social care, boys engineering and construction.

There are concerns regarding the health and safety of these students in, for example, engineering workshops or during free study time where those over 16 are not generally supervised.

Finally, there is the issue of pay. School teachers earn considerably more than those of us in further education and, whilst there has been a pledge to redress the current pay gap by 2004, the recent package for school teachers that equates to 5 per cent and the offer of 2.3 per cent in FE hardly seems to close the 14 per cent pay gap that already exists. Further education is not and will not become education on the cheap. We teach the same children in different places. That is not a basis for different pay. Thank you.

The President: Well done for a first time contribution.

* Motion 38 was CARRIED

Reducing Teacher Workload and Remodelling the School Workforce

Doug McAvoy (National Union of Teachers) moved motion 10.

He said: Delegates in this hall with teachers as parents or sons and daughters, or teachers as friends, will understand the purpose of this motion. You will have seen, and are seeing at first hand, the effect on teachers of excessive workload and excessive demands. You will understand the need to reduce teacher workload. All of you who have youngsters at school will be concerned by the disruption to their education caused by high teacher turnover, by unfilled posts, by having different teachers term by term, month by month and sometimes week by week.

All of you who are concerned for education, and hopefully that is all of you, will be increasingly alarmed at the numbers leaving teaching, and that is too great, and the numbers choosing teachers which is too small.

Last Saturday's Times had a story about teachers leaving their schools and becoming drivers on London Underground. They moved for better pay, and they moved to protect their working time. But the Tube's gain is teaching's loss. These teachers, trained and qualified, experienced, should be in teaching not in tunnels, in schools not in stations.

High on the list of reasons why teachers are leaving is excessive workload and the stress so caused. According to the Health and Safety Executive, teachers are the most stressed occupational group. There is a teacher shortage, there is a crisis in our schools, and the major factor is excessive workload. The shortage of teachers increases the workload and gives new cause for teachers to leave. We are in a vicious circle which must be broken, so we need to protect teachers from an open ended contract, which sets no limits to the demands in hours of work required of them. We need an overall limit to working hours, and a maximum limit to teaching time; guaranteed time for marking and preparation; an end to open ended demands in the contracts; and entitlement to support from clerical administrative and specialist staff.

We took action, which we suspended 18 months ago, and as a result of that action we have a protective contract with the employers, but we also had a willingness of the government to recommend to our Review Body the need to look at excessive workload and the teachers' contracts. It has made some positive suggestions, and we now hope for negotiations with the Government in order that we can bring those suggestions to fruition with a better contract, a contract that supports teaching, a contract that protects teachers. If we can achieve that then we will be able to recruit the number of teacher we need in our schools and be able to retain in those schools those who come in. They will not then be attracted to go off to work in London Underground to protect their working time.

I urge you to support the composite.

Eamonn O'Kane (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers) seconding Composite Motion 10 said: This is the third year running that the teacher unions affiliates in England and Wales have been able to bring a common motion on this vital issue to Congress. This truly dizzy rate of success reflects a deep and widespread view amongst teachers that their unions should work as one in prosecuting this campaign, since without that unity of purpose and action I believe the campaign could founder.

Estelle Morris herself, to her credit, has recognised that unless the problem of excessive workload is successfully tackled, the government's ambitious agenda to produce a world class education service, an ambition which we share, will not be achieved.

In the talks that we have had with the Government about the contract which Doug has described, to provide sufficient time for teachers to mark, prepare and assess work in the teaching day, and also to apply the downward pressure on hours with the number of hours that teachers work, I was gratified to hear the Prime Minister say that no one in Britain should work more than 48 hours. So we have made progress there.

As well as that, the talks have also been concerned with what has been described as a remodelling of the teaching profession. Remodelling is a curious word, again a very New Labour word. It avoids the more obvious term 'reconstruction'. An un-remodelled teacher does not have quite the same connotation as an unreconstructed teacher. In any case, in these talks on remodelling we have, along with our colleagues in the GMB, T&G and Unison - representing staff other than teachers - been discussing the role of teaching assistants and how that role can be enhanced to take on the work presently undertaken by teachers. These discussions have been at times quite difficult, because clearly there are issues here which are difficult, but they have been greatly helped.

I want to pay tribute to Brendan Barber the Deputy General Secretary for his role in chairing these discussions. On the one hand, there has been the fear of many teachers that the Government, in looking for a solution, could substitute their role by unqualified staff. On the other hand, there is the equally legitimate concern of the unions representing other school staff that their members will be asked to shoulder responsibilities without adequate compensation or recognition. These problems are not insuperable, as the discussions at the TUC have demonstrated, and it is a tribute to all the unions involved that they have been able to tackle these issues in a way which represents a good way forward and in the best interests of the members.

But time is not on our side. The patience of teachers is finite. This is a problem that has been recognised by government, it is one of the underlying reasons for the crisis that Doug has described in his speech in moving this motion. Frankly if we are not able to make progress on this issue and resolve it reasonably soon, and that is a matter of weeks, then the demands for action by teachers themselves will grow irresistibly.

Gerald Imison (Association of Teachers and Lecturers): I want to make just one or two additional points because Eamonn has stressed the unity of purpose that there is between the teaching unions on this issue. It is something about which we feel very strongly. Our children deserve the best from education, but their educational success must be limited only by each individual child's own ability; it must not be in any way impeded by a lack of teachers or a lack of resources. That is the problem at the moment.

The Government have at last recognised that there is a teacher supply problem. Recognising a problem does nothing to solve a problem. Schools have known for years that classes are not being adequately taught because of lack of teachers, a lack of teachers in the right subjects, or a lack of teachers in permanent vacancies. Schools have for years seen teachers leaving the profession prematurely because they are stressed out largely because of over work.

The Schools Minister has recently re-emphasised that the government have made a manifesto pledge for 10,000 extra teachers. What will these teachers do? They will actually begin filling the vacancies that already exist; they will be replacing the teachers who are already leaving. That is important. They will not be additional to the teacher workforce. With an ageing profession we have problems in the future. Where will these 10,000 teachers come from anyway because they are not in training?

Most teachers would not feel able to recommend teaching to their pupils. Some would actively counsel against them doing it, and that is a real problem for the profession. There is no salary level compensation anyway. So we have to make teaching attractive, and the only way to do that is by addressing the workload issue now.

Once again, the Government have recognised the problem, but recognising the problem provides no solution. The Government, as Eamonn says, have embarked on a serious remodelling work force issue. It is an important issue but results are promised next Easter as part of the comprehensive spending review. Sadly that will be too late for the teachers of today, the teachers who wanted something to happen this term, this week, in their classrooms. Sadly, there is nothing for my members in the remodelling agenda at the moment and, at the moment, that is crucial.

So what we have is children going to be deprived of the education that is their right. Teachers have waited patiently for contractual protection; they have to get it now. I would like to join Eamonn in thanking Brendan for his work. Sadly we have not got to the point that we need to be at, and so we are looking now for this resolution to be passed to add weight to the campaign which is so crucial.

With the advance of ICT you can have virtual books, you can have virtual classrooms, you will never have virtual children and you can never have virtual teachers. Both are real and both are crucial.

* Composite Motion 10 was CARRIED

Fraternal Delegate Address by Ken Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress

The President: I want to introduce the fraternal delegate from the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti, who is the President of the Canadian Labour Congress. He was also the fraternal delegate last year but was not called for the tragic reasons we know. I am particularly glad that he has decided to come again.

Ken has been CLC President since 1999, the youngest ever elected to that post. He previously led the British Columbia Federation of Labour and originally came from the Steel Workers Union. He is known both at home and internationally for his intelligent militancy. I am sure it will reach both the militants and the intelligensia amongst you.

Ken, I invite you to address Congress.

Ken Georgetti (Canadian Labour Congress): As Tony said, last year I was unable to speak because, as soon as I got here, the Congress was cancelled. This time I get to follow both John Monks and your Prime Minister as the last order of the day. I am not sure which was the better draw!

It is also nice to learn that as a pipe fitter if I had read more I would have been a doctor!

It is a privilege and a pleasure though to be with you today at this important Congress, this fascinating Congress, that I got to witness yesterday and today. Today I bring to all of you the warmest greetings and sentiments of solidarity from the almost three million women and men who are the strength of our Canadian labour movement. There is much that unites Canada and Britain: our language, our form of government and, far from least, the socially and politically engaged labour movement.

British trades unionists, as you know, played a major role in building and strengthening the Canadian labour movement. A number of your own Tolpuddle martyrs are buried on Canadian soil. Speaking of the Tolpuddle martyrs, I noted with pleasure that a record number of people attended this year's martyrs rally in Dorset.

It is indeed important to acknowledge and commemorate our history but it is equally critical that we squarely face up to the present challenges and struggles in order for us to build a better tomorrow for all of our children. Labour in Canada, in Britain and around the world has its work cut out for it though. The 1990s was a lost decade for Canadian workers, indeed I think a lost decade for labour globally. Profits skyrocketed, as you saw, but economic security plummeted. There were stock options and perks for managers from Enron, from Marconi and from Ivendi and for us there were lay off notices and bankrupt pension funds for workers.

We, in Canada, have our own rogues gallery of modern day corporate robber barons. Nortel Networks, the fibre optics giants, and JDS Uniphase are two of the best known Canadian multinationals. In 2000, the year this high tech bubble finally burst, Nortel lost a staggering $3 billion. But their then CEO, John Roth, who was highly criticised for failing to see that coming telecoms sector collapse, was still rewarded with a meagre salary of $88 million that year. Nortel workers though and the shareholders should be so lucky. The company's stock was worth $125 dollars at the beginning of that year. Now it trades at under $2 and the 50,000 workers that used to work for Nortel are still looking for work.

Similarly since 1999 the 14 top executives at JDS Uniphase have reaped $1 billion just from their stock options. They said to me when I reminded them about it that "it was over two years you know." Poor guys.

The worst factor is - and I know Brendan knows this with me as well - that most of those companies are largely owned by pension funds around the world. In Canada last year, in the last 18 months, our pension funds lost fifteen per cent, the union pension funds. That is only $80 billion if you are counting. It went to the pockets of these people who laid us off and bankrupted the economy, yet these same corporate voices, these illegitimate sons of she dogs, want more. They want more. They are like hungry dogs: they want more and more. They want more tax breaks, more deregulation, more privatisation. They are shameless in their greed and their audacity. I cannot believe it.

We are paying a steep price as working people. There is not an organised worker on the face of the globe who does not feel or has not felt the negative impacts of this new corporate globalisation, because globalisation has sharpened as never before the opposing views of business and labour. That is the only redeeming factor of it: we have a timely message as a movement for a public that craves a voice of fairness and common sense. We have a powerful movement for people who feel they have lost the ability to have some say to control the events in their lives.

The corporate agenda is based, of course, on the economic survival of the fittest, individuality at its best, and ours is rooted in the well-being of the communities in which we live and the families that make them up. Last Spring over 3,300 union delegates from all across our country gathered in Vancouver for the Canadian Labour Congress's Convention, much like yours. Those delegates helped us guide a process of renewal, almost the same as the debate you are having. As Canada's labour centre, we have begun to review all of our strategies and tactics: how we organise, who we organise, our relevance to the communities in which we live, the relationship of negotiations and strikes to capital strategies, to the ethical use of our retirement and pensions savings. Canada, like Britain, has both the wealth and the human and physical resources to end this downward spiral of living standards and quality of life.

The answer and our challenge is to renew and increase workers' involvement in decisions and deliberations that dramatically affect their lives. Far too many working people have been lulled into this trance they hear all the time from the media, from these powerful interests who tell them government no longer serves your needs. Far too many have been convinced that nothing can be done to turn back that liberal tide. There was the reminder from your Prime Minister, as I am reminded from my home province, that it is just too easy to lose a government that is not always there for you to a government that is never there for you.

Far too many Canadians, especially young Canadians, are disconnecting completely from politics, giving up. I am told this is also the case in the UK. Meanwhile, big business, multinational corporations, spend millions of dollars and pounds every year lobbying the people who run our governments, in supporting the campaigns of their political friends. You know what, they are really, really good at it. Over the last decade it won them hefty tax cuts, weaker labour laws in our country and a very much diminished public sector.

For the CLC our overriding goal is to break this political stupor and rouse working families to try and act in their own interest. We must now, in our movement, show our force and show our strength as never before and stand up for the decent quality of life for working people, one that recognises the rewards of their economic contribution, as I remind our politicians in our countries, as the economic backbone of the economy. You stand up and demand accountability finally from elected politicians; you stand up for a comprehensive system of social security and support programmes, a system that ensures all people equality regardless, shows them dignity and comfort and the chance to participate fully in the life of our great nations, and to stand up for tough and effective regulatory regimes that ensure the health of workers, ensure their workplaces and ensure their communities benefit from manufacturing and industry. But last, but far from least, to stand up for accessible and affordable public healthcare. We will not let the privatisers destroy the Medicare system in Canada, our National Health Service.

We must also not forget that Labour's agenda is neither narrow nor nationally based, it is comprehensive and global in its vision as well as in its impact. That is why it is critical that we focus our efforts beyond our own borders. I must say your organisation, the TUC, is renowned - and rightly so - for its longstanding commitment to and support for international issues. We pride ourselves on modelling our International Department on yours.

The CLC itself has devoted much of its international work in assisting our brother and sister unions in Latin America and Africa. One example is that the CLC has developed a grassroot initiative with our municipal labour councils across our country to sponsor refugee trade union families who are persecuted in Colombia, fleeing the terror of the civil war there. A number of families have already been welcomed to the Canadian labour community and more will follow.

You may also be aware that the Canadian Labour Congress, when our government emphasised economic assistance to Africa as the theme of the summit at the G8, thought it would be good to inject an element of realism into the rhetoric. So the CLC brought a number of African leaders to Canada, to Alberta, to meet directly with our Prime Minister, key politicians and the media. Unfortunately, the results from Alberta appear to be much more rhetoric than reality, as we found out later that our government spent $300 million dollars on security alone for that 12 hour meeting. which is ten times more than our government have spent in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa.

As George Bush Junior sets out on his crusade against the people of Iraq, we have added our voice to the growing chorus urging a negotiated settlement within the United Nations. It appears finally that our Prime Minister agrees with us. As soon as I breathe a sigh of relief after his meeting I am reminded of an adage that my father taught me, that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We are internationalists and not simply because we believe that what we want for ourselves we desire for all. That is true, but in this day of corporate globalisation and international solidarity the key to progress and justice lies at home as well.

My planned address to this Congress last year was swept away in the horror of the World Trade Center bombing. For the first time in my life I felt my freedom taken away from me. I could not go home. As much as I tried at Heathrow every day I could not get on an aeroplane and was not allowed back into my country. However, in the midst of that madness -and I noticed a number of speaker including the Prime Minister reflecting on this-- there was one group of men and women who did not run from that inferno on that day. They were public sector workers, unionised public sector workers in New York City, dedicated professionals, police, firefighters, ambulance workers and healthcare workers. Tomorrow we should and will pause to mark their courage and their sacrifice.

On September 11 this year I get to fly home. My freedom is back. But terrorism has brought our nations a new reality, a reality we cannot ignore. At the same time we must ensure that personal freedoms, personal freedoms that we have fought so hard for, are not swept away in an authoritarian response to those terrorists attacks. If organised labour cannot be counted upon to defend civil liberties then really who can?

Sisters and brothers, we want a just and equitable world, of course, so that there are no more September 11's. We want an end to despotism, to religious zealotry and repression, but the answer I think is through bread not bombs. I have travelled to China twice now, and the first time I travelled we went to a place called the Souk Market where you can buy almost everything. The second time we came the United States was upset about copyright, about CDs, music, and I heard the debate this morning, and about data, from Microsoft I am sure. So the second trip, the only thing you could not buy in these markets was CDs. They were selling them like drug dealers in their coats and when the authorities came round they ran away. It seems to me that within 18 months, if the United States that quickly can resolve copyright, then it seems to me that the nation sure can resolve human rights as quickly. I think only social, political and economic freedom will and can bring about a world of peace and security for our children, who so desperately deserve it. This is where labour can do so much to effect positive change, as I have heard this healthy debate in the last day and a half here. Around the world and across our countries in our communities, in our workplaces, workers have to raise their voice and show their force.

In closing though I wish each and every one of you a productive Congress. In particular, I want to extend my personal best wishes to your General Secretary, John Monks, for his personal support and also for coming to Canada to remind us how good it is to have a government that respects the labour Movement. He and all of you can be assured that you have the support of your sisters and brothers in the Canadian Labour Congress for our issues are the same, our battles are the same and our goals are the same. With much hard work we will share our victories.

To cite the familiar words of your great poet, William Blake, I wish you much success in your struggle to build Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land. (Applause)

The President: I am sure you will agree that was an incisive, inspiring and great contribution to end the day on. Thank you, Ken. If that is a definition of intelligent militancy, I can back that one; it is terrific. We have to acknowledge that. We have great pleasure in presenting you with a decanter. I am sure that has nothing to do with your capacity to consume the contents.

(The presentation was then made)

I have made a note of that fine line in insults, illegitimate sons of she dogs.

Scritineers Report

Now, delegates, I invite Ian Bowser, the Chair of the Scrutineers, to give the results of the ballot for the General Council and the General Purposes Committee.

Ian Boswer (Musicians Union) presented the Scrutineers Report.

(Insert)

Congress adjourned for the day.

Minutes and agendas (52,500 words) issued 10 Sep 2002

This page http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-6825-f0.cfm
printed 8 February 2012 at 05:09 hrs by 38.107.179.233

Search

RSS Feeds

Email alerts

Publications

Events

Send to a friend

Related documents

TUC Congress 2002

SECOND DAY: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10

MORNING SESSION

TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION