2003 Congress Wednesday verbatim

THIRD DAY: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10

MORNING SESSION

( Congress re-assembled at 9.30 a.m .)

The President : Good morning, colleagues. Can I call you to order. I think it is proper for us to have a prompt start in view of the amount of business that we have. Once again, many thanks to The Jazz Pirates who were playing for us this morning. (Applause)

Economic and Industrial Affairs

The President : Colleagues, we now return to Chapter 3 of the General Council's Report, Economic and Industrial Affairs, on page 29. I now call Composite Motion 13 on Transport, indicating that the General Council supports the composite motion.

Transport

Mick Rix (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) moved Composite Motion 13.

(Insert Composite Motion 13, Transport)

He said: Good morning, comrades. We can have no doubt that our transport system now really is in crisis. On other really important issues we could say that the Government should have done a bit more of this and a bit less of that but on transport I think there is no doubt that this Government has been seen to fail. The public thinks so and business thinks so.

However, the right words may have been said -- "integrated transport", "10 year plan", "more cash available" -- but really the Government has not walked the talk. Our roads are more congested than ever and giving in to demands for more road-building and road-widening will do nothing to ease congestion, whilst it also damages our fragile environment. As for the railways, cuts are now on the agenda rather than the promised growth; there are still too many fat cat companies in our industry, like CONNEX, ripping millions off taxpayers' money and putting it into their own shareholders' and directors' pockets, whilst they are announcing cuts in services which will force thousands more into cars and on the roads.

As for the Strategic Rail Authority, it is clear that they are now part of the problem in the industry. It is the Strategic Rail Authority that is drawing up the programme for cuts and closures. This idea of an integrated transport is to convert rail services to bus services whilst doing nothing to promote the industry. Nothing has been heard from the SRA, for example, over the disgraceful decision to scrap Royal Mail trains on railways.

This is a decision by a publicly-run body of Royal Mail, which flies in the face of Government policy, which is a move to transfer goods from road to rail, and which will mean laying off hundreds of millions of pounds of public money that has been invested over the last five years, as well as cutting hundreds of jobs, damaging the environment further, and ripping up the terminals which were built at public expense. It is a disastrous decision also for the service and quality delivery of mail, which I think most people will recognise. Every possible pressure has to be put on MPs and the Government to reverse this decision and, by supporting the rail unions and the CWU over the "Save Mail on Rail" campaign, perhaps we could start to turn the corner.

We talk about dialogue. Yesterday the Chancellor said, "My door is open" and we have been promised a meeting with MPs and unions to reverse the decision on the "Save Mail on Rail". We found out this week that the Government has again reversed their decision and is now refusing to meet the unions who can put a case to save these necessary jobs and services. So if people are really listening and saying they want to engage in dialogue, I think what we have to say, colleagues, is this. There is no point in making public statements which, in reality, turn out to be untrue.

Previous plans on this have failed for one reason or another. They still try to pump the cash through the blocked and leaky privatisation pipe within our industry. It should be beyond any doubt whatsoever that the privatisation process in the rail industry has been one of the biggest single disasters that have ever been inflicted on any industry. If trade unionists, Congress, and people in the Movement can do anything that is possible and in their power to promote the public ownership of our industry and if the Government announced that it was to promote the public ownership of our industry, I am, and I am sure many others will be, in no doubt whatsoever that it will be one of the biggest single acts that will help Labour win a third term of office. Instead of dithering, it is time to start acting. Congress, I move.

David Porter (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) in seconding the composite motion said: President and Congress, as the second paragraph in the composite before you sets out, it is indeed a matter for regret that the Government has effectively already abandoned the targets set out in the 10-year plan in that it has signalled a switch from rail to road. It is regrettable but it is not surprising because the problem is that, since privatisation, the investment costs and the costs for implementing any new railway project have gone up by roughly three times what they would have been in the old British Rail days.

Any product which trebles in price is going to have difficulty in selling, and railways are no exception. They currently offer poor value for money so it is not surprising that the Government should start looking more towards roads. The fear of those of us who work in the railway industry and who depend on it for our livelihoods is that if new railway projects cannot be afforded, far from there being any visionary expansionist future for the railway, the most likely long-term scenario is one of decline and a gradual slide into irrelevance. We are in a real crisis and it requires decisive action to get us out of it.

First of all, of course, we need to understand why costs have risen, so much so that we are in a better position to put things right. I have no doubt at all that there are two main reasons for the massive increase: the first is privatisation and the second is a particular form that that privatisation took -- the fragmentation, the atomisation, of a single previously unified system.

What now holds the industry together is a huge number of contracts for all the companies to buy and sell services to each other. Each contract has a risk element and a profit margin built in and it is the cumulative effect of all these contracts, as the pyramid is built up, which causes the huge rise in costs.

Congress, the TSSA has been an advocate of railway nationalisation since 1910. Far from it being outdated, that policy is as relevant today as it was when we first adopted it. It is the only solution if we are to get back to an affordable, integrated railway. Railway privatisation has been an experiment on a grand scale, and it has failed on a grand scale. The sooner we abandon the experiment and re-nationalise, the better it will be for all of us.

Chris Tapper (Communication Workers' Union) in supporting the composite motion said: President and Congress, much has been said at Congress this week about how our members of unions have been told by text messages and other means that they have lost their job. As a worker on the stations in Cardiff, I was at Annual Conference this year and the CWU invited Alan Leighton to address our Conference. He addressed our Conference at 2 o'clock in the afternoon but this person who wanted to be a friend, says he wants to be a friend, that he is one of the lads and everything else, turns round and fails to say anything about the decision, the short-term crass decision in the opinion of the CWU, to remove this without any dialogue, discussion, or anything else. He did not mention it at Annual Conference yet, two hours later, the decision was made and we had no input on that, similarly to the rest of the unions.

What does this mean to the members in the CWU? One hundred and fifty members work on dedicated rail terminals throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Royal Mail has invested, over the past 10 years, £170 million in these rail terminals in purpose-built trains. The decision was to move the mail from passenger trains to improve quality and to put it onto dedicated trains whereby currently around 40-odd trains operate 21 per cent of the total traffic that Royal Mail transfer throughout the country.

As a result of this, some work has been carried out and it has been proven that there are going to be, on average, an extra 500 heavy goods vehicles on the roads that you, our members, and the public, will be using every single day. It means 30 million extra miles driven by Royal Mail vehicles on already congested roads when, as you can imagine, we have total gridlock on all of our motorways at the moment. The Royal Mail decision, I believe, was not taken in consideration with the Government. The Government's own position is that over the 10-year period they wanted to increase rail traffic by 80 per cent. This has not been done in the context of where we are saying we can put extra mail back onto rail.

We also have to look at this £170 million that I mentioned the business has invested over the previous 10 years. You see the crisis that the business has been saying we are in and that we have been losing millions of pounds every day. I can let you in on a little secret and this little secret is that this part of the business has never ever lost a penny. Where has the money gone? It has gone in foreign acquisitions and failed computer programmes installed in the Crown Offices but it has never come from the fact that we have delivered that mail on there. The response is job losses.

We have now to turn round and say in the wider campaign of the CWU, where we are arguing for job losses, that we also defend the right of other unions as well, and their job losses. I support.

Malcolm Cantello (Unison) in supporting the composite said: The key to a better rail network is investment in the track, rolling stock, and the industry's long-suffering employees. The most important priority is the safety of passengers and the industry staff but we also need investment to extend the network and off-peak services. We want better information for passengers and a simplified cheaper fare structure where tickets can be used on any operator service. Better pay and conditions plus extra training for staff would make them feel more valued, and customer service would benefit from their better morale.

New Labour has failed to sort out the mess created by the Tories' privatisation. Network Rail was a step in the right direction but we still have a crazy system in which an operator is fined £5 million one week for poor service and given a £55 million operating subsidy from the taxpayers the next. Ultimately, returning the railways to public ownership is the only way to guarantee the taxpayer gets value for money and the public gets a good, safe, service. We need a public service which the staff can take pride in delivering and which passengers enjoy using just as much as their cars.

The real problem now appears to be that the strategic rail authority is restricting funds to Network Rail, Passenger Transport Executives and Authorities where I work, and shire counties. This may be due to strictures from the Treasury. If so, the Government should be up front about this as local authorities and PTAs are currently submitting local transport plans. They are hoping to get approval for capital spending on the development of integrated transport schemes involving many rail lines, usually upgrading from freight use to reopening for passenger use, but the Government needs to be honest as to whether there is any chance of success since the apparent expenditure over on the West Coast mainline causes some delay and concern. The Strategic Rail Authority seems to be concentrating at the moment on long-distance rail travel; sod the commuters, they can always use their cars.

The Government's targets, plans, and policies, on public transport have all gone to pot. Look at the recent cancellations of various commuter and Virgin services. Those in charge in the summer blamed hot weather for poor operations. Of course, this country suffers from extremes of temperature, does it not, yet in Canada and Switzerland where they have extreme weather their trains always run on time. Sack the lot of them, I say, and bring in people who know how to run the railways, people we trained years ago. It is all a laugh, really, is it not, unless it is a crying shame. Transport should not be a political football. People's mobility and quality of life is too important for that, surely? Colleagues, support the composite.

Mick Roberts (Amicus) speaking in support of the composite said: The UK rail network is in crisis as never before. Promised improvements under privatisation have not materialised and cancellations and delays now run at record levels. As a union with members working in the transport industry this is unacceptable.

The issue of transport is very important. An integrated transport system is the key to tackling the problems we face with road congestion, which are getting worse. This costs British industry billions of pounds each year and cannot continue. We need to develop and implement an integrated transport strategy. Union members who work in transport industries do not like the negative image of the less than effective transport systems we have but we understand that we cannot just sit there and complain. We must play a part in rebuilding a system that is world-class. The country needs transport that is affordable, reliable, and safe. Road travel is the main reason for pollution in this country but, disappointingly, we have seen Royal Mail make a decision to move its transportation of post from rail to road. Not only is this bad for our member but, further, it has huge environmental impacts as the extra lorries will produce environmental damage and just add to congestion on the roads.

We are well aware in the industry that large amounts of money are currently being spent but we must ensure that we use our political influence so that when contracts for new rolling stock are placed in the UK the work is carried out in the UK. The train-building companies that now operate in the UK think in terms of European-wide manufacturing strategies. We have already seen that it is too easy for them to vacate the UK taking the work with them. Congress, we must ensure that all work generated in this country should benefit our manufacturing factories.

In conclusion, the country needs a first-class, high quality, transport system that serves all its users well. The country needs to have a debate on the future transport system and how it will be funded. The task group called for in the composite will help to achieve this. At the moment nothing is happening and that is not good enough. Congress, I urge you to support the composite.

Bob Crow (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) in supporting the composite said: For those people who get confused when they are having dinner with the Prime Minister I will make our position quite clear, we want the re-nationalisation of the railways. It is marvellous, really, that when Digby Jones (and people like him) says he has to keep pay rises down he certainly was not saying that to his own members in Network Rail, where the five board directors sacked 2,000 workers in Network Rail (formerly Railtrack) and then awarded themselves a £1.8 million bonus. Perhaps those kinds of people should start making an example, first of all, and avoid telling workers they should have excessive pay rises in a low-paid industry.

The worst criminal acts of all is that when Tony Blair was at the Labour Party Conference in 1997 he called for a publicly-owned, publicly-accountable, railway. My previous General Secretary, Jimmy Knapp, was up there clapping as if his team, Crystal Palace, had won the Premiership League; quite rightly so, and everyone else was applauding that decision. Never mind about any other agenda, all Labour has to say is that they are going to re-nationalise the railways at the next election and they will win it hands down. The real criminal act that took place was by those people like Balfour Beatty, Jarvis, and Network Rail (formerly Railtrack), who are involved in a criminal investigation at the moment because of their activities in Hatfield and Potters Bar. Not only do they say we are going to have a cooling period but under a Labour government they privatise all 6,500 workers on London Underground. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for that decision.

We have a Strategic Rail Authority without a strategy. We have this bloke, Bowker, who turns round and says that more money needs to go into the railway network and that efficiencies need to be made. Yes, he is putting more money into the railway network all right, the former company that he worked for, Virgin, has had one lot of one hundred million, and then a further lot. It makes Don Corleone out of Godfather look like a character from Orlando. I will tell you something about the Strategic Rail Authority. How about having some strategy in how the railways are run. Instead of all those people interfering in the election of the ASLEF General Secretary, they should be out there producing a railway network.

We are asking not only for mail to be kept on trains but we want mail to be on the road, we want mail to be in the air, and we want a full range of activities for post to be moved around the country. Do not take that dreadful decision and argue on one point that global warming is being caused as a result of more fumes and emissions and then take the mail off trains and put it solely on the road which will lead to environmental problems in Britain. Our position is quite clear and I make it absolutely clear, once more, to the Prime Minister in case he is not listening: we want the entire railway network bought back and not one single penny of compensation paid because it was stolen in the first place.

Graham Stevenson (Transport & General Workers' Union) speaking in support of the composite said: The Government started out with high hopes on transport. In 1997, John Prescott pledged that if he had not sorted out the problems within five years he would deserve to be sacked. Far be it for me to stand in the way of the Government fulfilling any of its pledges but the truth is that in no part of the transport sector of the economy is the position satisfactory.

The T&G would take issue with paragraph 3.12, page 42, of the General Council Report. In a single sentence a statement is made: "....it should not be forgotten that the Government has increased public investment in transport by 62 per cent since it took office" and implies that bus usage is up. This is, to be charitable, a possibly misleading sentence. Its purpose would seem to be to suggest that the Government has done all right, really, and things are going quite well as far as buses are concerned but it runs very close to being a huge distortion. The plain fact is that a huge bulk of increased transport spending has not been to the benefit of bus users. Overall, the Government's position is depressingly familiar, to seek improvements vainly through appealing to the generosity of spirit of the giant transnational corporations.

Is it a case of the General Council being taken in by an example of the effects of spin in politics rather than it being the case of that mysterious entity, the office, trying it on us? In fact, bus usage continues to decline in overall terms except in London where the growth has been so strong that it has distorted the appearance of the national figures. Arguably, it is less the effect of the congestion tax as the effects of congestion itself which makes driving a car in London so time-consuming that it hardly seems worthwhile and forces a small increment in bus usage. Having a Travelcard and the absence of on-street competition may also have something to do with it. As income from congestion charging rises, then central government expenditure on London diminishes. I expect that historical economists will term this "the Livingstone effect". As far as bus workers are concerned the only serious attempt in public expenditure to address the problems of low pay and high turnover has been the £5 a day Mayor's Bonus paid directly to busworkers in London and not to shareholders.

The instruction in the composite to the General Council to establish a task group of transport unions to campaign on transport issues has our one hundred per cent backing. I am only sad that it takes an instruction from Congress to see a step forward on this. There are many and varied issues affecting transport workers and only such an approach will enable us to begin to tackle these and campaign so that the Government will begin to listen to the desperate needs of transport workers of all kinds. Thank you very much, Congress.

Jonathan Baume (FDA) in supporting the composite said: We have members working in bodies like the Strategic Rail Authority and Department of Transport so it is very difficult for us to comment on some of the very detailed policies on this. As our colleague has just said, this is a matter that is actually not only just for transport workers, it is actually an issue for all of us.

We have 45 per cent of our members working in London and many of us travel there for our jobs extremely regularly. Day by day, those who particularly work in the London area use the Tube. Six-and-a-half years after the Government was elected, on every single performance indicator the Tube is doing worse than it was back in 1997. I was one of those caught up in the power failure a couple of weeks ago. I only lost an hour-and-a-half that evening but I was one of the lucky ones. Those who travel on Network Rail across the south-east area, day by day never know from one day to the next what time they are actually going to get to work and what time they are going to get home in the evening. Going back to the Tube, it is going to be 2015 before we see any visible improvement in the Tube network.

Frankly, the situation on transport in the whole south east of England is an utter disgrace. When looking at some of the issues we have looked at this week about stress, about work/life balance, all of these transport problems add to the stress that builds up for people day by day. Part of the work/life balance is being able to get to work and get home in time to see your family. You cannot do that reliably, given the state of the transport network, particularly in the south east of England where I have direct experience. If you talk to colleagues working in other parts of the UK, you will get exactly the same sort of problems. Those who use the roads spend hours gridlocked trying to get into work and trying to get home from work.

This is an issue that is not only for the transport workers, it is an issue for all of us. It is about our quality of life. Whatever the detailed policies, and it is difficult for the FDA to comment on some of them, this is a motion that deserves the whole-hearted support of Congress. It is about time we actually had something happening to tackle the dire transport problems that this country now faces. Thank you.

The President : There are no speakers against so we shall not bother with a right of reply, Mick? (No reply) I will move to the vote.

· The motion was CARRIED.

·

The President : I move on to motion 58, Keep Britain Flying. I indicate the General Council's support for the motion.

Keep Britain Flying

Jim McAusian (British Air Line Pilots Association) moved Motion 58.

(Insert Motion 58, Keep Britain Flying)

He said: When the Wright brothers got the Kitty Hawk off the ground in December 1903 they unleashed a freedom which grew and grew. A century later aviation is a massively important industry. It directly employs 180,000 people in the UK and supports 540,000 additional jobs, and many hundreds are union jobs. In our knowledge-based economy air travel is indispensable and if manufacturing matters, then aviation matters.

Air transport is more than that. When I was a lad it was only the rich who flew. Today, we all use air transport. Ninety per cent of the population has flown and 50 per cent flew last year. Air transport gives us an opportunity to take holidays to see other cultures and to make us global citizens, yet we are deeply schizophrenic about air travel. Whether it is Jamie Oliver giving his disapproval for the expansion of Stansted or flying round the world sampling supermarket wines, or the many earnest and concerned campaigners around Heathrow and Gatwick whose income derives from aviation, or the representatives in this room who are understandably concerned about the environment but whose members are among the 80 per cent of the population who want to fly more often, this industry happens to be loathed.

In considering this motion, I want to challenge some of the assumptions that underpin the schizophrenia and I want Congress to consider the facts. First, direct subsidy: the Government spent almost £36 billion in transport subsidies over the last four years and only £199 million of that went to air transport. It was used to operate lifeline routes in the Scottish Highlands, only one half of one per cent. The Government nearly got away scot -free. In fact, the industry itself funds nearly £15 billion of investment. We know this because after 9/11 and in the face of continuing terror-related costs, the UK industry asked for help and went away empty-handed. Our transatlantic friends, on the other hand, had massive subsidies from their government channelled into the industry. Very soon, this will start to hurt UK transatlantic competitiveness.

Second, environmental impact: aviation is not beyond reproach but my union believes we have a credible record on the environment which we still want to improve upon. Engines are 50 per cent more fuel-efficient than 30 years ago leading to lower fuel-burn and lower emissions. Future new technology will improve that further. The number of people affected by noise around Heathrow has reduced from 2 million in 1974 to 300,000 today. Today's generation of short-haul aircraft is eleven times quieter than its predecessors.

Third, the argument is then put that air transport users pay nothing. That is not true. Every passenger pays between £5 and £40 a flight, ostensibly to mitigate the environmental impact of air transport. That is almost £1 billion in taxation. The most authoritative studies put the environmental impact of aviation at nearly 1.4 billion so we are already meeting a substantial part of our environmental costs. We will pay more, if it is hypothecated and goes towards the environmental impact. I say, ostensibly, because I think what the Treasury is about is putting more taxes on the industry, not for the environment but a stealth tax, flat-rate tax, a tax that everyone pays irrespective of what they earn, a poll tax of the skies.

Finally, there is the issue of capacity. Even if we imposed taxes, which some say would choke demand, the impact is likely to mean only a 20 per cent drop in anticipated demand over the next 20 years. Passenger numbers still will treble by 2030.

Congress, these are the facts: The lesson from road and rail is that politicians need to take the tough decisions and I thank the TUC for their support in campaigning for expansion. They know that if you delay investment you will live to regret it. It will be no good saying, "if only we had", which, curiously, is a UK disease. Only one new runway has been built in the UK since the War. Amsterdam, Paris, and Frankfurt, have new runways and have taken their local people with them. Most graphically, of all, when the planning permission for Terminal 5 was lodged, Mick Jagger was 38.

Congress, please reflect on these facts, support the many thousands of your colleagues in this industry, and give yourselves the opportunity to keep Britain flying. I move.

Danny Carrigan (Amicus) in seconding motion 58, said: Colleagues, for us in Amicus this motion is summed up in two sentences from the first and third paragraphs. In the first paragraph, it states: "Britain has an enviable lead in air transport, creating directly 180,000 jobs, and sustaining hundreds of thousands more in tourism and related industries." In the third paragraph, it states: "Further taxation of air passengers would be counterproductive, leading to an exodus of passengers, airlines, and jobs abroad. It would also price ordinary people [I emphasise 'ordinary people'] out of the sky."

Colleagues, the UK aviation industry adds over £10 billion per year to our economy and generates half a million jobs. Just as yesterday's debate on manufacturing highlighted the crucial issues faced by that sector, aviation workers are facing similar instability. This instability, in our view, is not caused by decline but capacity constraints, as Jim McAuslan said. Latest government forecasts show that demand for air travel in the UK will more than double by 2020. Half the UK's population took a flight last year and up to 90 per cent of the population has flown before. When Mick Jagger was a boy, I guess, and I remember him myself when I was a boy, who would have thought 40 years ago so many ordinary working-class people from my community, and many of your communities, would be able to enjoy a holiday abroad.

Colleagues, Amicus believes that aviation is vital for the UK. It supports jobs and it supports investment and tourism. It has also opened up social and cultural benefits of holidays and visits to friends, colleagues, and relatives, all over the world. We also have to acknowledge, as Jim has said, that there are major environmental challenges. We believe that everyone in the industry, employers and trade unions alike, must work to minimise the environmental impact of growth. We must also acknowledge the social impact of making air travel only a pastime of the rich. It should not be the preserve of the rich. We do want to have the opportunity of well-paid, full-time employment for thousands of people, and particularly young people, in that industry.

Colleagues, the UK must maintain its position as a major hub airport. We do not have the right to expect airlines and passengers to fly direct from the UK but we do believe that this should be a growth industry. We believe the Government must maximise the economic and social benefits of air travel for the UK and support sustainable growth for this industry. Colleagues, Amicus are pleased to second this motion.

Jean Geldart (Unison) in supporting the motion said: I am very regretfully standing up to oppose this motion, not because Unison does not support the aviation industry (we would be bonkers not to support it, we have members working in it ourselves in municipal airports), not because we do not think the aviation industry is essential to the development of this country, not because we do not agree with much of what is in the motion, but because of a couple of points that are in the motion that we are very unhappy about. It is the issue of taxation and the issue of planning, and particularly the issue which is implied in the motion of the encouragement of further airport development in the South East.

Congress, I have heard very carefully what the last two speakers have said. Unfortunately, if I can revert back to the previous motion which talked about transport strategy, there is no transport strategy in this country. The only strategy there seems to be about the development of airports is the British Airports Authority deciding what is good in its own relatively narrow interests and trying to persuade the Government to go along with that. Of course, we have a very peculiar planning system which does produce these very odd planning inquiries. That is not a very good way of developing a transport strategy.

What we have at the moment is the prospect of Heathrow, a major airport in the middle of a densely built-up area, expanding massively. The issue about Heathrow expanding massively is about its impact not only on the 10,000 people who will lose their homes as a result of that expansion, not only its impact on the 35,000 people who will be affected by dangerous levels of air pollution as a result of that expansion, not only on the one million people whose already high level of noise pollution will be increased by that expansion, but the impact on the rest of the country, on increasing the overheating in the economy in the South East and continuing to depress the rest of the country.

We want to see a strategy that develops airports and air travel, and airport hubs, throughout the country and not just based in the South East. We also want to see a policy on taxation which says there should be an international approach to the taxation of air fuel. Why is it that when you go to fill your car tank up at the petrol pump you pay 75 per cent in tax but when an airliner, which uses millions of gallons of fuel, fills up it does not pay a penny in tax. I will not go on about pollution but it is not much of an incentive to any air company and to any air construction company to do much about pollution if not a penny is being paid in tax.

We are arguing that there should be a positive approach, an international approach, to the taxation of fuel and we are arguing that there should be a very clear national strategy on where and how airports are developed. It is for those reasons, as I say very regretfully, that Unison is opposing this motion but wanting to work in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in all the air industry trade unions in order to develop a positive air traffic strategy.

Andrew Mooney (Prospect) in supporting the motion said: I will not repeat for the sake of time what has already been expressed by the mover and seconder on the importance of the aviation industry. Partly in answer to the previous speaker, it was indeed a welcome change last year that the Government took steps to consult on the long-term future of air transport.

There has been much publicity and debate about the need for extra runway capacity and other airport facilities. This, however, is only part of the answer. A crucial aspect of planning to meet increased demand for air travel is to ensure that our national air traffic system has the necessary investment to provide sufficient capacity thus ensuring a continued safe and efficient service.

Traditionally, air space capacity constraints have been addressed to a change in air space design and ensuring the availability of sufficient qualified air traffic staff. In recent years progress has been made to optimise flight plans to promote fuel efficiency and minimise that environmental impact. A lack of capacity and the corresponding delays in the system would undermine these important advances.

NATS does plan to replace much of its infrastructure, its radar, its communication networks, and its data processing systems, but we must not delay this investment in the renewal of this essential infrastructure. It is now time to provide an increased investment in new and sophisticated equipment and systems. Air traffic controllers need new productivity tools to provide the capability to handle more air traffic movements in a more efficient manner whilst not maintaining but enhancing levels of safety.

NATS became a Public Private Partnership in the summer of 2001, despite a long and hard-fought campaign. The slump in demand for air travel after the appalling events of 11th September 2001, and the impact of SARS, has caused significant financial difficulties for both the rest of the industry and NATS. With an anticipated shortfall of revenue in NATS, an issue alone of some £50 million, we must not mortgage the future by delaying the much needed investment in our national ATC infrastructure due to these immediate financial difficulties. To repeat the mistakes of the past would indeed be a national tragedy.

The Government, as we have heard, received significant revenue from the air-travelling public through their passenger duty. It has an obligation, therefore, to us all to ensure that adequate investment in the ATC system takes place. Air space capacity cannot be created overnight. It is vital that a long-term view is taken of the future of this important industry to provide economic and social benefits for all. I urge you to support the motion.

Bill Morris (General Council): President, Congress, the General Council supports this motion but would like to explain our views on the relationship between a vibrant aviation sector and, of course, environmental protection.

The motion itself is wholly consistent with the General Council's response to, and I quote, "The Future of Aviation" which was the Government's 30-year plan for the industry. The aviation industry is already worth some £10 billion and half a million jobs to the UK economy, and is heavily unionised.

Colleagues, we are looking for ways to realise the strong potential for growth in this industry, including the creation of a quarter of million new jobs but, of course, the expansion must be environmentally sustainable; and we are looking for the industry to improve its environmental performance. We are lobbying the Government to adopt a programme of environmental protection for the industry and some changes to the taxation regime.

Our support for expansion depends on progress being made on environmental concerns. At the moment there are strong signs that such progress is being made and it is on that basis, with those assurances, that we invite Congress to support Motion 58.

Jim McAusian (British Air Line Pilots Association) in exercising his right of reply, said: How refreshing a debate. I would ask Unison to reflect. As you say, it would be bonkers to oppose a motion that employs so many of your members and affects the enjoyment of so many as well. I think there are three points I want to make.

Firstly, we agree with the international approach. We need to find a way of dealing with this internationally. The analogy with a car is, I think, misleading. You cannot take a car to Paris to refill it. If you want to look at what happens with taxation at international borders, go and look at what happens between Ireland and Northern Ireland about petrol, and the filling with petrol between cross-borders. We think that we have to have an international solution. Planes can move wherever they want to move to refuel and an international solution is required, you are quite right.

Secondly, we welcome the proposals on the environment and the campaign for integrated transport. There is talk that things like landing and takeoff slots should be auctioned to reduce noise impact; that the Government should push for international agreement on airspace congestion charging, that greenhouse gases should be down to international domestic regulation, that noise charges should be tradable, that the impact of flights on local inhabitants should be monitored and influence white craft trajectories. We welcome all of that. We want to join in that debate.

In terms of planning, we have a White Paper due out this autumn. There has been a lot of input. Unison, I am sure, had the chance of an input and will have done so. The Government will then make its decision on how we should expand. Our union’s line is that once that decision is made let us get on with it and not pussyfoot around. I know what Unison is against but I am not quite sure what Unison is in favour of. It is ironic that when they look to get a consolidated and composite motion in transport policy, they are not able to get it. I think they were then left with moving the motion independently. A good point has been made and we would ask Congress to support this motion. The points that have been made we believe can be taken into account as the TUC takes the motion forward but for all those members who work in aviation and for those members who use aviation, we ask Congress to support and keep Britain flying.

The President: Thank you very much, Jim. We move now to the vote.

· The Motion was CARRIED.

Energy Policy

The President: I now call Composite Motion 14, Energy Policy, indicating General Council support for the composite motion.

David Simpson (Prospect) moved Composite Motion 14.

(Insert Composite Motion 14, Energy Policy)

He said: President, Congress, like the TUC, Prospect supports a balanced energy policy based on a diversity of fuel sources. Along with many other organisations, we have been saying this to government for quite some time. Last year alone Prospect responded to half a dozen official consultations or inquiries on different aspects of energy policy and we are on track to respond to at least as many again this year. We now have so many papers on aspects of energy policy that we have consolidated them into a Prospect briefing, which was presented at last night’s fringe meeting.

Where does this leave us now that the Energy White Paper has been published? The House of Commons Science & Technology Select Committee said that whilst they agree with many of the White Paper sentiments, they remain disappointed largely because that is what it is, a document full of sentiments with few practical policy proposals that give us any confidence the targets and aspirations can be met. We share that view. What we need now are practical implementation programmes. If the Energy White Paper objectives are to be met we need a number of things. Firstly, we need increased public spending on research and development for a wide range of renewable energy sources. The White Paper itself makes clear that more R&D is necessary, both to encourage the development of longer term options, such as hydrogen, and to enable emerging technologies, such as renewables other than wind power, to demonstrate their potential. As the Select Committee pointed out, despite some recent increases in funding, investment is pitiful in absolute terms, and in comparison with our international competitors. We agree.

Secondly, we need a major investment programme in transmission and distribution networks, both to accommodate distributed generation and to carry electricity from remotely sited renewable generation to the load centres. This will of course have financial implications.

Thirdly, we require an overhaul of the UK’s planning systems. Under the current arrangements it can take longer to argue about whether or not we should build a power station than it does actually to build it. This must change.

Success in all of these areas is critically dependent on attracting and retaining high-quality staff. We are very concerned that with an ageing workforce and a shortfall in the number of newly qualified engineers and other technical specialists, essential for the energy and environment sectors, the UK will be ill prepared to make the most of new opportunities.

Prospect is currently investigating skills gaps, new skills that will be required, and where these will come from. It does not seem to us that these issues are being given enough priority.

We have another serious concern regarding security of supply. Government appears to have accepted the somewhat complacent view of the outgoing regulator, that the hidden hand of the market system will somehow ensure that all will be well. We are not convinced. It is true that low electricity prices have caused power stations to close and that a power station can be closed and dismantled quite quickly but it takes years to build a new one, no matter how high electricity prices become.

In the real world as opposed to the world of economic theory, the harsh reality is that any significant shortfall of generation will have to be met by disconnecting load. It is 30 years since the UK saw programmed blackouts. Many here will remember them and the ensuing disruption of everyday life. Since then our increased reliance on computers and other electricity-dependent technologies means that any power interruptions today cause even greater disruption, as was briefly demonstrated in London a fortnight ago.

Prospect recently organised a representative seminar to consider what would be required to realise the aspirations presented by the White Paper. The overwhelming view of our representatives was a large dose of luck. We certainly do not think that the Government have it entirely right at the moment, although we do welcome the fact that the White Paper does not claim to be the last word. There will be at least annual opportunities to contribute, to progress reviews and policy development. There is no doubt that the debate will be hard-edged and challenging but we believe that unions and the TUC must engage with it fully. Please support the composite. I move.

Ian Lavery (National Union of Mineworkers) in seconding Composite Motion 14, said: Would it not be easier if the Government was to consider the re-nationalisation of the whole of the energy sector; we would then control what we own. Congress, there was an energy failure, a power failure, in London and America a fortnight ago and both were in complete darkness for a short period of time. This is the 21^st century we live in. It is 2003, for heaven’s sake, and we have been in darkness. The National Union of Mineworkers have campaigned for generations for a secure and balanced energy policy and, strangely enough, now the academics agree with us. There must be something behind that.

This week at Congress we have discussed many important issues, many issues which will affect all of us, all of our families, for years and years and years to come. Energy is very important and undoubtedly affects all of our lives. The energy mix in the UK at this current time is coal 32 per cent, nuclear 23 per cent, gas 38 per cent, oil 4 per cent, and renewables 3 per cent. The energy sector is united in their views, that is to say, we need a balanced, diverse, and secure indigenous energy policy.

The recently published Government White Paper on energy entitled, Creating a Lower Carbon Economy, fails to address the crisis in UK energy. The White Paper sets out four major goals: the first one is 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050; the second one is to maintain a reliable energy supply; the third is to promote competitive markets; and the fourth is to ensure affordable heating to every home. The White Paper accepts that by 2020 the UK will be a net importer of energy, importing up to 75 per cent of all requirements from some of the most politically unstable nations in the world, such as the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, and North Africa, to mention but a few. The situation is, frankly, out of control. As we speak the country’s largest deep mine coal producer has been allowed to close the Selby complex in South Yorkshire, sterilising millions of tons of coal and costing millions and millions of pounds to the communities, putting more miners on the dole, and creating more hardship and more poverty in those areas. Would it not be sensible to secure what we have, not to expose the essential commodity of energy to the free market.

Congress, the trade union Movement must unite on this issue. We must start to organise and campaign and, if necessary, take the appropriate action to secure, exploit, and utilise, the UK indigenous energy reserves. I support.

The President: Thank you very much indeed, Ian. No further speakers, I take it. No problem with right of reply so I move to the vote.

* The Composite Motion was CARRIED.

Public Services

Statement of the General Council

The General Secretary: President. Congress, the public service reform is one of the most crucial issues between unions and government. It is where we give the Government some of our strongest support and where we have some of our sharpest criticisms. The result has been tension and frustration. Where we should both be on the same side arguing for decent, well-funded, public services we found ourselves distracted by mistaken policies, excessive gimmicks, and sometimes unnecessary arguments. As I said on Monday, too often Government has given the impression that public service reform is something done to public servants, not with them, but it is first necessary to nail the lie that public service reform and improvement is something we oppose.

The media, not surprisingly, totally misrepresent us as just a producer interest, desperate to preserve the status quo, dedicated to putting the interests of the workforce before the right of the public to better services. We know that is a crude caricature. While there was a time when Government seemed to want to feed it, I hope that we now have the start of a new relationship where we can be honest about where we disagree and still celebrate our common purpose.

Why did things go wrong? Why have we had so many difficulties at a time of record investment in public services? In part, it is frustration that commitments that had been given were not being met at all or only being implemented grudgingly. In part, it is that we had almost stopped talking, largely because there did not seem to be anywhere for us to have an honest and constructive conversation. Take the two-tier workforce. We won a clear commitment to end it two years ago. It took far too long to secure the agreement that we have now won. Let us not belittle what has been achieved. The local government model is a good one and the challenge now is to apply the principle across the public services as a whole. We want a clear commitment from the Government that you cannot get quality public services on the cheap.

What about not having a place to talk? Look at foundation hospitals. No discussion, no consultation, no Green Paper, no White Paper, no pilots, and until very late in the day no dialogue at all with public service unions. It is hardly surprising that people are angry, anger that is reflected in the motions before Congress today. Of course, we have continued to disagree, too, about major elements of public policy, the role of private finance, of markets, of competition. Those disagreements continue but I think that ministers are beginning to learn that they cannot improve public services without the enthusiasm, commitment, and dedication of public service workers.

The General Council has made real efforts to build a dialogue. We began at a meeting with the Prime Minister in January and we continued with a series of seminars involving all the public service unions, chaired by Douglas Alexander, Minister for the Cabinet Office. Many of you will have seen that a General Council delegation met the Prime Minister last week and public services were at the heart of our discussion. We made the case for a Public Services Forum, as contained in the statement that I move today, that was unanimously agreed by the General Council. The Prime Minister accepted the General Council’s proposal, and Douglas Alexander will chair the forum.

We want to look at how we can be more involved in the process of public service improvement, how public services can recruit and retain the best staff, how we can ensure fairness in public sector pay, how we can make real progress on the gender pay gap and perhaps most importantly, how we can make progress on the big policy issues around the future of our public services. That sounds like a pretty useful job of work to me but surprise, surprise, it was reported in caricatures, either it was 'the brothers are back' or it was just a talking shop, either it was going to stop all change in the public services or was not going to make any difference at all, either it was Labour in the pocket of the unions or just a bag of wind. Let me be clear. Of course the forum does not give the TUC a veto, it does not mean we are running the country, but it does mean that public service unions are able to have a sensible conversation about strategic issues. It is no more than what a good private sector employer would do to develop a high-trust relationship with recognised unions.

We want to work with the Government to deliver the objective of better public services and better standards for public service workers. That is what the forum is for. Will it be a talking shop? What is dialogue if it is not talking. The key test will be what emerges. Can we use it, for example, to make more rapid progress on issues like the two-tier workforce? Can we address some of the tough issues around recruitment, retention, skills, training, and pay? Whether this makes real progress or not, that will become clear over the course of the next year, but we should never forget that it was our idea, one put by the General Council to Government. That is why we have to do all we can to make it work. That is why I want to see it meeting as soon as possible, and that is why I want to see the first item on the agenda to be the ambitious work programme set out in the statement that I move to Congress today. Congress, support the General Council Statement, support Composite 11, and support Composite 20.

Dave Prentis (Unison) moved Composite 11.

(Insert Composite Motion 11, Public Services)

He said: I watched John Reid on television this week. He is thinking about a new name for foundation hospitals. John, I have a suggestion, be honest, call them what they are, private hospitals. Congress, I do welcome the extra investment in our public services. It is something we have campaigned for for many years. I really am amazed at the efforts of some of our friends in government who focus not on what is being achieved, not on what is being delivered, but on peddling a twisted ideology that promotes private sector delivery, an ideology that denigrates and demoralises public service workers. Some in government say that I have no right to raise these broader issues and that Unison should stick to workforce matters. What an insult, what a put-down, not just to our movement but an insult to the hundreds of thousands of public service workers, our members, who have a right to have their say. Until that is accepted, we will continue to use our time, unfortunately, fighting on behalf of our members. Congress, fight we will because our values, our services, our members, are worth fighting for. Where investment has gone in real progress is being made: nurses, nursing assistants, social workers taking on extra responsibilities, police staff playing a bigger role, teaching assistants raising standards, a push to improve skills, new ways of working, and in our health service and in our schools improvements at last coming through, things getting better.

Congress, where a wide picture is being painted of staff pursuing self-interest, resistant to change, in need of a bit of private sector discipline, unions portrayed as having narrow interests, is it any wonder that the public is confused and losing its patience when those in power, those who should know better, talk down the improvements our members are making. They talk of modernisation, reform, and markets, all euphemisms for more competition, more fragmentation, more privatisation, and new directions of travel just when progress is being made.

Congress, my members can add up. They know when they have been sold short. The money that they could use to deliver better services is being siphoned off by big business. They see what happens when a contractor walks away from a contract because it is not profitable enough. They see the company director taking over a public service contract and awarding himself a 67 per cent pay increase, a salary 30 times more than our members providing the service. They see a three-star housing department being spun off into the private sector and worsening the service. They see contracts written so tightly that all goodwill goes out of the window; profits of 20 to 30 per cent on 30-year contracts and no one, no one in government has yet had the decency to tell them what the grand plan is, what is the big picture, no assessment of how markets and competition will deliver improvement, and nowhere is that more true than in the NHS itself.

John Reid says the NHS cannot stand still. John, NHS workers have gone through 17 reorganisations in as many years but not one of them is as ill-thought out as the bill now before Parliament, successful NHS hospitals to be transformed into foundation hospitals, into a risky experiment, creating at best a two-tier health service and at worst a staging post for privatisation, creating choice for the few but mediocrity for the rest of us, our health service handed over to an independent regulator, hospitals competing with each other instead of cooperating, poaching the best doctors and nurses, privately run treatment centres running down NHS capacity, poaching NHS doctors and nurses, professionals trained at taxpayers’ expense, six years of cooperation with a modernisation of the board of the NHS down the pan, four years of negotiation on Agenda for Change in jeopardy, national bargaining arrangements out of the window.

Where was the manifesto commitment? Where was the discussion in the Labour Party? Why were we not consulted? The Government has now called for dialogue. That is a bit rich, is it not? Congress, the time is running out but it is not too late to listen. It is not too late to make all that investment really bite. It is not too late to move towards us, to work together to reach an accord. Congress, the stakes could not be higher. I know where my loyalties are, to my members and the services that they provide.

Tony, I will leave you with this message, do not look back in five years and wonder where it all went wrong because you will never be forgiven. I move.

Janice Godrich (Public and Commercial Services Union) in seconding the composite, said: Colleagues, this motion welcomes the Public Services Forum but when we are told in no uncertain terms by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair that there is to be no retreat or change on policy on foundation hospitals, privatisation, and pay, we need to be very clear about what we are doing. We must make it clear that we are opposed in principle to privatisation and to regional pay. We must demand inside and outside the forum that public services are run in the public interest, not in the narrow self-interest of profiteers, that national pay, decent pay, and equal pay, is protected for our members. The TUC is right and the Government is wrong.

This is not simply idealism. In the PCS we base our policy on years of bitter experience of dealing with privatisation from the Astra fiasco in the 1990s to the disgrace of the EDS computer systems in the Inland Revenue, and the current plans for the mass privatisation of support work in the Ministry of Defence. We have seen conditions worsen under TUPE and the level of service reduced. Now the Department for Work & Pensions file stores are out to tender. These file stores hold the files on people receiving social security benefits. Who is going to be trusted with such sensitive and personal information? You have a choice between Pickfords, the furniture removal company, possibly Iron Mountain, well known in the USA for union-busting, or maybe even TNT, well known here for running a scabbing operation during the Wapping dispute and driving lorries through picket lines. Regional pay would mean the lowest paid areas getting even lower pay. The bottom line is that it would damage public services, not improve them, a policy based on dogma and myth, not facts or fairness.

Congress, this is urgent. It is clear that since the firefighters’ dispute the Government is saying to public sector workers that they must accept a reform programme that undermines their national pay agreements. In the Fire Service, in the NHS, local government, and education, the unions are resisting proposals for more and more local pay initiatives. PCS has learnt from hard lessons about the importance of national pay. In law civil servants have a single employer, the Crown, whether they work in the Brighton benefit office or a Whitehall department. In 1996, the Tories unilaterally withdrew from national agreements and imposed delegated bargaining on every department and agency. The result was 170 or more sets of pay negotiations, ludicrous performance pay schemes for even the lowest paid staff, minimal pay progression, scandalous inequality, and pay levels falling.

We have recovered some ground over the last years by winning money for low-paid workers and the Government has had to put money in to address equal pay problems. We are now campaigning hard for a national pay framework as exists in other parts of the public sector, including crucially balloting all members of our union to win support for that proposal. We are now currently fighting the Treasury plans to cap our members’ interests, pay increases in the so-called delegated bargaining units at below inflation levels, including scandalous delays in pay talks across the Civil Service. We have the support of civil servants, not the Government.

Colleagues, in closing, this motion is about the fundamental principles of our Movement, public services delivered in the public interest, and national collective bargaining. It is about the defence of public services, it is about equality, and it is about decent pay for all our members. This is what we should stand for unlike, for example, the reports we are currently receiving from the Home Office about members being paid to cross picket lines. Things must change. We can make it change. It is our agenda. Support this composite. Thank you.

The President: I move now to Composite Motion 20.

Foundation Hospitals and the NHS

Bill Morris (Transport & General Workers’ Union) moved Composite Motion 20.

(Insert Composite Motion 20, Foundation Hospitals and the NHS)

He said: President, Congress, in 1945 the British people voted for a new kind of society. They elected a radical reforming Labour government, a government committed to building a new society, a society free from the fear of poverty, free from the fear of hunger and the fear of unemployment and, above all, the fear of ill health.

Colleagues, lest we forget that new society was called the Welfare State and the jewel of the welfare state was the National Health Service. As a public service, the National Health Service defines our society. It is indeed a measure of our collective humanity. At the heart of Atlee’s new society was a contract, a sacred contract, between the state and the citizens, universal contribution in return for universal provision predicated and built on the principles of full employment. I ask today what has happened to Atlee’s society and his legacy. I ask that question, Congress, because successive governments have ripped up that sacred contract. In every single area of our public life, in transport, in education, it is a simple mantra, 'public bad, private good'. We have to oppose that.

Congress, for us the National Health Service is in fact the line in the sand. It is our dividing line because we use it, we deliver it, and we pay for it, and therefore we must defend it. Today we face a new reality. The new reality says that if we are to defend the National Health Service then it must be, no, to foundation hospitals. Foundation hospitals represent the most radical reform since the creation of the National Health Service. As the General Secretary said in his introductory statement, there was no debate, no discussion, no consultation with the people at the sharp end, the stakeholders, not a single word in the Labour Party manifesto, no Green Paper, no White Paper, and not a single mention in the ten-year plan for the National Health Service.

Congress, if ever there was a backdoor policy this is it, drawn up in the back of a taxi, written on the back of an envelope at the back of Newcastle railway station on a rainy day. This policy lacks any real legitimacy. The best that can be claimed for foundation hospitals is that it will deliver excellence for a few; the opposite of that is misery for the many. We have the right to demand excellence for every single person because we can support the National Health Service at all our hospitals, not just the chosen few. Friends, they will be free to hire, free to buy, free to sell, free to lend, and free to do everything. The non elected regulator will have more power than the Secretary of State. I do not want a non elected regulator answering to parliament, I want the Secretary of State to accept his responsibility.

Let us be clear, trade unions have led the modernising reform agenda. We have delivered Agenda for Change. We have gone out and campaigned. This Movement did not go out and campaign, we did not march to secure extra public funding for the National Health Service just to hand it over to the private sector. That is not why we marched to improve the National Health Service. I tell you this, we do not accept that we should now legalise for inequality in health. Medical help depends on needs, not on the size of your wallet. What we have is a two-tier system coming forward, core payment, and private insurance. That is not the National Health Service that we all voted for; no way. It is not what was in the manifesto.

Congress, we do not want Enron in the NHS. We do not want Railtrack in the NHS. Foundation hospitals are not just a step towards privatisation. It is the dagger to the National Health Service. We oppose them, and we ask you to support Composite 20.

Dave Anderson (Unison) in seconding Composite 20, said: Congress, if we believe the press we are collectively the voice of awkwardness. I am here to say that is not true. We are not the voice of awkwardness, we are the voice of awareness. We are aware that there is massive opposition within the Labour Party, within the labour movement, even within the parliamentary Labour Party, to their credit, to these proposals. We are aware that the people of this country are prepared to put money, extra taxes, into the NHS to see it rebuilt after years of decimation. We are aware that the vast majority of healthcare workers do not support these proposals. Health workers and their unions are portrayed as anti-reform; that is simply not true. This composite shows that clearly. We are opposed to reform for reform’s sake, reform that is not thought through, and reform that will take us backwards to the days of competition. We are urged by this Government to be part of a solution and not part of a problem. How can you do that if policy is decided by the Health Secretary on a two-day trip to Spain? How can you do that if ministers ignore the ten-year plan for health while the ink is still wet on the paperwork? How can we do that if ministers agree to allow foundation hospitals to set their own terms and conditions just after we have agreed to pilot a new national agreement, after years of hard bargaining?

Let us be clear, changing the name will not change the problems. People have spent the last 20 years changing names, having mergers, demergers, restructuring, reorganisations, they have lived through settlement trusts, they have seen the internal market come and go, they have battled against budget cuts, and have suffered the eternal obsession of all governments to make the NHS a political football, with one message, 'Give us a break.' Let us get on with doing what we do well, saving people’s lives, rebuilding people’s lives. We are not 'the awkward squad'. I have a message, a word of advice to the advisers, the dark forces of Westminster, we are not the enemy within. We are the people who kept the health service going during 20 years of Tory rule and, by the way, we are also the people who kept the Labour Party alive during those same 20 years. We are up for reform, reform that gives us back a true National Health Service and not a service that is owned and run by a market system that has failed this country for the past 20 years. We want to work with this government to build a health service fit for a new millennium. Supporting and implementing this composite will help us along this road. Please support. Thank you.

Debbie Coulter (GMB) speaking in support of Composite 11, said: Congress, we are halfway through Labour’s second term and the latest Mori poll shows that the proportion of the public who believe that government policies will improve public services has fallen to 31 per cent. Last week the union movement was once again accused of blocking reform. The accusation refers to our continued resistance to privatisation and profiteering. I have just a few words, Congress, on why we do not believe in private sector management expertise.

Jarvis, profits up 37 per cent in the year of the Potters Bar disaster. Capita, criminal records bureau, passport agency, individual learning accounts, to name but a few; W.S. Atkins, the Southwark Education contract was too financially challenging., GEC Marconi, a £35 billion telecoms giant reduced to a £50 million basket case in a matter of months. I could go on but, Congress, I do not want to trade accusations. There has been enough of that going on over the heads of public service users in recent times.

The real issue is how do we draw a line under failed policies like PFI? We welcome the progress that has been made towards ensuring that the so-called value for money in PFI is not at the expense of employees’ terms and conditions. The Treasury goes some way to acknowledging PFI’s wider failings in its latest review but the Government is still trying to squeeze more life out of PFI by re-jigging it, repackaging it, and re-branding it. While it talks about new localism, the Government is preparing to send out a whole new cadre of Stepford-like procurement quangos to spread standardised PFI contracts throughout the land.

The Treasury review discusses in depth private sector concerns about the cost of bidding and the potential for profit, but you will search in vain for any assessment of the real concerns of service users. It is time that these concerns were at the heart of public service reform. The union movement has a vital role to play in bridging the gap between the Government and the two-thirds of voters who have lost hope that things will ever get better. Congress, please support.

Paul Noon (Prospect) speaking in support of Composite 11, said: I have three minutes so I will make three points. The first point is that we very much support the focus on health and education in terms of funding but the civil and public services are not just about health and education. There are other functions of our society that are important as well and also need proper funding. They include health and safety enforcement, defence services regulation, R&D, and the criminal justice system. They are all vital to our society, they all require proper resourcing, and they do not all get it at the moment.

The second point I would make is that Prospect is in favour of dialogue. We want to work constructively with government and we want to work constructively with employers, in fact it is in our rules that we should do so. We say, two cheers, for the Public Services Forum where we know there is a lot to be done. The Government has not explained where it sees the boundaries of the public sector, if indeed it knows its view. If the forum is going to work it has to listen to our views, the concerns of public services on pay, equality, and status. I make one basic point, that if the Government continues to maintain that modernisation equals privatisation, then the Public Services Forum will fail and our relationship with the Government will fail.

The third point I make is that it is not only through the Public Services Forum that the Government needs to listen but at all levels and in all areas. I give you one example, that is, the Forensic Science Service. You may have seen men and women, scientists and others from Prospect and PCS, in white coats and white overalls handing out this leaflet this morning as you came in. Many people would say it is not before time that men in white coats visited the TUC but I think actually the men in white coats should visit the Home Secretary if he thinks that the way to improve the criminal justice system is through privatisation. More than that, it was announced on the last day of the last parliament without the courtesy of a meeting, which was requested, with the unions and with the representatives of the staff involved. More than that, Labour MPs, local Labour MPs, who asked to go to the laboratories at Chorley, and elsewhere, to visit the sites and talk to the representatives have been denied access. How is that partnership and how is that inclusion? The staff of the Forensic Science Service believe that their sole role should be the detection of crime, not the creation of profit, and I hope that Congress will support our campaign of opposition. I support the motion.

Lesley Mercer (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) speaking to the composite and in support of Composite 20, said: CSP members have not so far been in the firing line for privatisation and contracting out in the health service but they do care about their co-workers who have, and they know the vital importance in the health service of team work. Colleagues, you can have fine nurses in the NHS, fine therapists, fine doctors, but if you want quality healthcare then you need fine support services, too. That is why we have always opposed the notion of a two-tier workforce in the health service and why we are supporting this composite. I also want to take the opportunity, very briefly, President, of welcoming the decision to create a Public Services Forum to try to restart the dialogue that Brendan referred to earlier. In the NHS we have shown that we can work effectively with government to the benefit of both our members and the public, and the patients, where there is a genuine will on both sides to do so. I know that partnership is a bit of a dirty word in some circles but it is through partnership working in the health service that we have been able to negotiate a really significant new package of terms and conditions that should deliver equal pay in the health service for the first time in its history, and providing of course it is not derailed by the foundation hospital initiatives.

The Agenda for Change package was achieved by the health unions and by government, by making a real effort to build relationships and trust in the negotiations by putting probably a much greater degree of openness into negotiations than maybe characterises normal traditional collective bargaining, and also by a joint commitment to solving problems, and there were considerable problems in these negotiations to be faced. These, I suggest Congress, are the kind of key principles that we need to take into this new Public Services Forum. The Forum may turn out to be a sop but we cannot as unions afford to pass up this opportunity to try to influence the future of public services reform. Agenda for Change is just one example of what can be achieved through effective joint working. I would suggest the continuing rows over foundation hospitals and PFI demonstrate so clearly the problems created when government acts first and then talks later. Congress, please support the composite.

Don Wood (Prison Officers’ Association) speaking in support of the composite, said: In addressing our amendment I will give you just a flavour of the consequences of privatisation in the Prison Service. Facts: pre Labour Government there were just four private prisons; post 1997 there are ten private prisons and four more being built. That is approaching 15 per cent of the prison estate already. The cost to the public purse, who knows; we cannot find out. We are told that the private prisons have exactly the same targets but to achieve these targets our members in the private sector are working longer hours for less pay with unsafe working practices every single day of their lives, not forgetting the nice fat profit for the shareholders from taxpayers’ money. It is frightening, is it not?

The Prison Service is in the process of ongoing modernisation. I think we have all heard that before. It is nothing new. It started in 1986 with us. It depended on public opinion as to which bit they are going to change. There are areas where they believe that we are failing so how do they address it? Where a prison is poorly managed they get the same managers to do an action plan. Where the managers fail to come within budget, they get the same mangers to set new financial targets, and to help them on their way they have to make a 5 per cent cut in the budget. That is less money for more work. If the action fails and is not accepted by the Prison Service, it is put out to tender. Guess what, we are not allowed to bid. We are not even allowed an appeal process to say that those managers let us down; still more frightening. It is no coincidence that the latest two that are going through this test were chosen because they had the cheek to challenge the poor record of the management in health and safety.

It was brought to our attention on Monday, I think it was, about recognition rights. Let me tell you about the private sector. It is 2003, remember, and we are still meeting our members in the private sector at 10 o’clock at night in car parks, away from their workplace, at night in back rooms of pubs and clubs, and sometimes even in their homes. If they meet us anywhere else, they fear they will get the sack. What are they really doing to us? I can be brief. The long-term cost means they are mortgaging the Prison Service over the years of those contracts. In conclusion, they have betrayed the trust of our members and this TUC. They have put profit before principle. They are endangering the health and safety of all our members. They treat truth as a moving target. Congress, prisons are a public sector service. Please support.

Ann Pollard (Society of Radiographers) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: Colleagues, earlier this year the members of the Society of Radiographers voted unanimously against the introduction of foundation hospitals. Following that, we became a partner of Foundation Trust Concern, a collection of unions and other patient groups concerned about the impact of this policy. Neither the Labour General Election manifesto nor the NHS plan mentioned foundation trusts.

Foundation trusts have been brought before Parliament without a Green Paper, draft Bill or any other form of consultation, and this is by a Government which preaches the benefits and needs of partnership working.

The Government are publicising foundation hospitals as the way forward. They argue that foundation trusts will guarantee the fundamental goals and principles of the NHS and we, as an organisation, believe that safeguards to maintain equal treatment in respect to equal need are inadequate.

During the past 20 years there has been a major review of the NHS on an almost annual basis. This is not cost-effective, they divert funds and management effort from patient care and they remove clinical staff from patients. Staff are left demoralised because they are unable to maintain the required standards of care.

Will foundation hospitals respond by selecting patient treatment and services on the basis of financial gain? What will happen if a foundation trust finds itself in financial difficulties? Will it be bailed out by a diversion of funds from elsewhere in the NHS to the detriment of patient care across the UK or - sorry - should I say, just England? There is no requirement for a foundation trust to consult locally about the services it will offer. The trust will decide without reference to the Government or to the wider community. Foundation trust members will have no accountability to the local community.

Networks, such as the cancer network, are set up and working well across boundaries for the benefit of patients. We are sceptical that this situation will continue. We believe that foundation trust will employ staff on terms and conditions of their choosing and not be bound by national agreements such as Agenda for Change, which is an agenda that we have rejected. If you are not a foundation trust you will not be allowed to offer the same incentives. Poaching of staff will become commonplace. This is especially crucial for us where we know that the NHS is struggling to recruit and retain its members. Already we have a recruitment crisis of 30%. Foundation trusts will do nothing to address this shortfall.

We believe there will be an increase in the use of agency staff at the expense of the service and our members’ employment within non-foundation trusts. Staff within these trusts will become even more pressurised as they will be expected to perform to Government targets. Once again staff morale will suffer.

For these reasons, we urge you to support this motion so that the aspirations of that foresighted figure of Aneurin Bevan remain in tact.

As a final word, if you do accept this motion, please, President, could you raise awareness amongst the public that a change of name does not necessarily mean a change of policy.

Andy Ballard (Association of Teachers and Lecturers): President, in speaking in support of Composite 11, I want to address the very real threat to the State education service in this country. Since the Thatcher Administration, we have seen successive Governments extent to which private companies play a part in delivering public services. Indeed, the World Trade Organisation has state education high on its wish list for acquisition. Local education authorities are compelled to out-source an increasing proportion of their work. Whilst ATL accepts the efficient and cost-effective use of public money is highly desirable, we do not believe that a quasi virtual market could be created for education or other public services. It is philosophically absurd to regard pupils and their parents as customers and schools as commodity suppliers, like Comet, B&Q or MFI.

The consequences of a supermarket going bankrupt are bad enough, but for a school or college to be in such a predicament is unthinkable. The effect of the commercialisation of the education service is that companies looking for profits are engaging in activities previously undertaken by local education authorities. They bring no new skills or expertise to the service, save their ability to win government contracts.

WS Atkins, for example, employed ex-LEA staff providing the same service to the same schools by the same people but for a profit, not enough as it turned out so they withdrew from the contract. Those same ex-local education authority staff now work for Jarvis PLC offering, at a price, advice to so-called failing schools. Plus, local education authorities are residualised with their influence being constricted to the least marketable part of the service, usually special educational needs provision. ATL was dismayed by the announcement on February 11^th that local education authorities would be compelled to offer the running of all new schools to private companies. This announcement was just days after the European Commission said that health and education would not be opened up to GATs, at least for the time being. We do not believe that this policy is in the best interests of the public. The residualisation of local education authorities, most doing sterling service for the children of this country, is shameful and disastrous for State education.

ATL agrees with the statement by Gordon Brown to the Social Market Foundation earlier this year that the delivery of services, such as education and health, can best be met by public funding and public provision. Please join us in supporting Composite 11.

Janet Downie (Amicus) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: The proposal to create foundation trusts has been variously described as 'A return to the mutual roots of the labour Movement' or 'A precursor to the privatisation of the NHS'. How have we come to such a position of extremely contrasting views?

The confusion is a direct result of the mixed messages received from Government on the proposals to introduce foundation trusts and the non-involvement of trade unions in discussing how to modernise our National Health Service. This has created alarm amongst health workers that could have been avoided if stakeholders were involved and in the formulation of the proposals.

It is strange, therefore, that the documents outlining details of foundation trusts talk much about democratic community involvement in developing plans? Why were they not fully discussed and agreed at the Labour Party Health Policy Forum? Why are health unions not involved in discussing how we could meet our shared objectives in modernising the NHS in other ways? It is not as though we do not have experience in this area. After all, we have just completed a major re-organisation of health in the primary care sector with full trade union involvement. position of extremely contrasting views?

The confusion is a direct result of the mixed messages received from Government on the proposals to introduce foundation trusts and the non-involvement of trade unions in discussing how to modernise our National Health Service. This has created alarm amongst health workers that could have been avoided if stakeholders were involved and in the formulation of the proposals.

It is strange, therefore, that the documents outlining details of foundation trusts talk much about democratic community involvement in developing plans? Why were they not fully discussed and agreed at the Labour Party Health Policy Forum? Why are health unions not involved in discussing how we could meet our shared objectives in modernising the NHS in other ways? It is not as though we do not have experience in this area. After all, we have just completed a major re-organisation of health in the primary care sector with full trade union involvement.

We believe that the Government should look at more co-operative means by which so-called restrictive practices of some health professionals can be overcome rather than introducing market mechanisms and hitting income flows.

We believe that the Government should look at more co-operative means by which so-called restrictive practices of some health professionals can be overcome rather than introducing market mechanisms and hitting income flows.

We also intervened in other ways. We have insisted that foundation trusts be covered by the Agenda for Change pay talks, we need more skilled people to be attracted to work in the NHS, not the freedom for foundation trusts to entice colleagues away from other trusts where there are severe recruitment and retention problems in a number areas key to delivering the Government’s health agenda.

We also intervened in other ways. We have insisted that foundation trusts be covered by the Agenda for Change pay talks, we need more skilled people to be attracted to work in the NHS, not the freedom for foundation trusts to entice colleagues away from other trusts where there are severe recruitment and retention problems in a number areas key to delivering the Government’s health agenda.

We have three benchmarks by which to assess whether a progressive vision for foundation trusts has been realised. The first is that they do not result in the creation of a two-tier workforce. We have not spent the last four years in talks on the creation of a new pay system for foundation trusts to opt-out now. The second benchmark is that they do not have a detrimental effect in other parts of the health economies on which they are based, thereby exacerbating existing health differentials. The third is that care will be free at the point of use and foundation trusts will not be able to choose the clients which in the sphere of education has resulted in the children of working class people receiving poorer quality schooling.

Further, we will check the proposed legal block on the people’s assets being transferred to private hands in the future, as we have seen that many mutuals have been demutualised.

We need to prepare ourselves to determine how trade unions can mobilise their members and families to stand as community candidates for the governing bodies.

Finally, we, Amicus, intend to issue a policy statement and guidance to members on the creation of the trusts. We move support of Composite 20.

Paul Russell (NATFHE, the University & College Lecturers’ Union): I refer to that part of Composite 11 which refers to Bro Brown’s Budget policy for local and regional pay, which calls for the maintenance in our composite for national pay rates and national pay bargaining for public sector workers. For NATFHE this is one of the most dangerous developments in Government thinking that we are now having to deal with in both our further and higher education sectors.

Delegates here probably know about the sorry story of how further education colleges were stolen by a previous Government from the local authorities, which had built them, run them and then had to hand them over to unelected local quangos and funded by a selection of un-elected national quangos. NATFHE has struggled ever since to maintain some kind of national order in the way that lecturers are paid and the conditions under which they work.

When the Chancellor made his infamous announcement of his fondness for regional and local pay differentials, our further education employers, who were in the middle of negotiating with the joint unions on what we understood to be a national bona fide pay agreement, wrote out to their members explaining that they were looking to reach an agreement with us which would leave almost total flexibility to individual college employers to decide what elements to implement and, indeed, whether they were seriously going to implement any of it at all, depending on their local conditions.

We are currently consulting our members as to whether to accept their final offer, and if we do, who knows what that national deal will really mean in practice, when the Government have indicated that they expect local pay rates in the public sector to operate rather than national pay. Will I, working in Bradford, which is a low pay economy, automatically get paid less than my colleagues in Leeds - which is only a 20 minutes train ride away - which is a significantly higher pay area? This is no way to deliver a key national public service, central to lifelong learning, to the delivery of the Skills Agenda and to providing access to and increasingly the delivery of the expansion of higher education.

An effective further and higher education sector to function properly needs a national environment in which all the workers are paid a decent wage consistent with their role no matter where they work. NATFHE believes that the Government should accept the responsibility to ensure that this is the case. I urge support.

Anthony Richardson (Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union) supporting the composites, said: Congress, the Bakers’ Union is here today to give a cautious welcome to the announcement that Tony Blair and the Labour Government are to give a significant role to the relevant trade unions in determining the future and improvement of public services in the form of the proposed forum. This, in our eyes, is a recognition that the best placed organisations to give first hand advice on how to improve delivery of service are those that represent the people which deliver those services day in and day out at the sharp end on the ground. There is no point in only consulting bureaucrats, managers and technicians who may produce glossy plans and exotic presentations but who do not have the substance and wherewithal to carry them through and deliver at grass roots level.

The only people to get that job done are the workers, who are well-trained, well-paid and well-staff public servants. Yes, the forum is welcome, Comrades, but having said that I remember the Labour Party Conference 1996 and Partnership in Power, National Policy Forum, etc. Constituency delegates voted 50/50. The whole thing was allowed to go through on the backs of the union vote as many colleagues in this room from the larger trade unions know. I was a constituency delegate and I voted against it. I saw it happen. It was allowed to happen because of the promises of employment law reform. Fairness at work! Fairness at work, what a joke! What we in the trade unions were left with was a disgrace over policy that gave us back nothing but tinkering with the edges, leaving us only marginally better off on the industrial scene and giving most of our power to the Party.

The real debate today is not how we reform but who reforms public services. Do we allow the privatisers to run rampant in health, transport, education and other public spheres, given a green light by its new Labour soulmates, or do we ensure that public services remain firmly controlled by public organisations - the trade unions and the workers?

Congress, we must sustain the Labour Party in Government. Support the Party as our partner, bargain hard for our members and beliefs, but never again take our eye off the ball as we did in 1996. We must embrace partnership and dialogue where it is beneficial to us but always keep our powder dry and be prepared to take the action where necessary to keep our public services public. We support.

The President: There are no further speakers. I assume that there are no complications with the right of reply from Bill and Dave. (The rights of reply were waived) There has been no opposition. Brendan has already so indicated to me.

· The General Council’s Statement on Public Services was CARRIED.

· Composite Motion 11 was CARRIED.

· Composite Motion 20 was CARRIED.

The President: Before moving to Motion 38, let me just say a few words so that delegates are not unnecessarily disappointed later on. This debate, like many others, has been a very important debate, and in recognition of that I have allowed to take part all the unions which have indicated a wish to speak, additionally to those down to move, second and support. However, as I said in my introductory remarks, we do have a lot of outstanding business and we are beginning to run somewhat behind in our schedule. We also have other important debates later on the agenda. I would, therefore, ask unions to understand that I will not be able to be so generous in continuing to take virtually all the additional speakers who have indicated a wish to contribution.

Targets and public service reform

The President: In relation to Motion 38, I indicate that the General Council supports the motion.

Jonathan Baume(FDA, the Union of choice for senior managers and professionals in public service) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 38 - Targets and public service reform)

He said: 'The Government cannot deliver good health or safe streets in the way that commercial companies deliver pizzas'. That was Patricia Hewitt speaking only two months ago. Sadly, it has taken the Government seven years to grasp the obvious, the obvious that any one of five million public sector workers could have explained. This is yet another lesson and yet another reason for the Government to listen more to the views of public sector workers.

What does this admission mean? Labour came into office determine to reform public services. They believed that those who ran hospitals, schools, colleges, courts the police and other services would flitter away time and resources if left to their own devices. At the core of the Government’s approach was one simple belief: targets!

Of course, there was more. The targets were supported by audit, inspections, performance indicators, star ratings and comprehensive performance assessments. All those the Government believed would somehow galvanise listless public servants into a new frenzy of achievement. Well, it has not quite worked out as planned.

Individual targets simply emerged without any efforts being made to agree them with the people actually running the services. Ministers have had to admit that many were simply plucked from the air. Some were just naïve, but others have been a lot more problematic.

Remember in 1997 the pledge on the little card: The Labour Party will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients. FDA members in the NHS are all too well aware of the consequences, as are our colleagues in Unison and other health service unions. Clinicians and managers, hospital by hospital, under pressure to hit the target, whatever the consequences for health care in the totality. It is no wonder that occasionally managers falsify statistics fearful that their jobs were on the line. The FDA has had to represent people traumatised and publicly humiliated as a consequence.

Let us be clear. The FDA nor any other union defends such falsification. But it happened because hardworking, conscientious individuals were pushed to their personal limits by the enormous pressures to meet politically determined targets that took no account of local needs. It is not just public servants who have suffered the consequences, but service users, and in some very tragic cases people have even died. There are similar examples across the public sector.

Of course, there was no evil intent and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with performance indicators. Audited inspections have been with us for many years. The FDA represents schools inspectors who were created almost 150 years ago. Many unions themselves use different performance indicators and targets, including, of course, financial ones. So the answer is not to abandon targets but to design ways of measuring performance and achievement which will truly reflect success and reform.

At the core of any new approach has to be the involvement of unions and other relevant representative and accountable bodies in the design of performance measures. . Ministers have had to admit that many were simply plucked from the air. Some were just naïve, but others have been a lot more problematic.

Remember in 1997 the pledge on the little card: The Labour Party will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients. FDA members in the NHS are all too well aware of the consequences, as are our colleagues in Unison and other health service unions. Clinicians and managers, hospital by hospital, under pressure to hit the target, whatever the consequences for health care in the totality. It is no wonder that occasionally managers falsify statistics fearful that their jobs were on the line. The FDA has had to represent people traumatised and publicly humiliated as a consequence.

Let us be clear. The FDA nor any other union defends such falsification. But it happened because hardworking, conscientious individuals were pushed to their personal limits by the enormous pressures to meet politically determined targets that took no account of local needs. It is not just public servants who have suffered the consequences, but service users, and in some very tragic cases people have even died. There are similar examples across the public sector.

Of course, there was no evil intent and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with performance indicators. Audited inspections have been with us for many years. The FDA represents schools inspectors who were created almost 150 years ago. Many unions themselves use different performance indicators and targets, including, of course, financial ones. So the answer is not to abandon targets but to design ways of measuring performance and achievement which will truly reflect success and reform.

At the core of any new approach has to be the involvement of unions and other relevant representative and accountable bodies in the design of performance measures. There may be a role for key national targets but these should be few in number. Instead, let us focus on regional or even local approaches. Reduce the number of all targets, drop precisely quantified targets and move to measures of progress in performance. We must involve users in setting them, systematically monitor user satisfaction with their public services, enhance skills of local service providers in setting and monitoring appropriate measures, learn from Scotland and Wales and use the National Audit Office and Audit Commission. Let us press the Government for an honest and constructive debate about how to move forward, perhaps through the Public Services Forum.

All of this matters. Too much of the media is increasingly hostile to public services. Newspapers waste no opportunity to denigrate public servants and the services we provide. Even where people see good local services, they too often feel it is against the backdrop of national shoddy provision. They are in an isolated pocket. So we need the Government to explain much more clearly what public services can and cannot plausibly deliver. The Government have injected massive extra resources into public services, so they must explain to the public how this spending and taxation will make a meaningful difference and how our services can honestly be expected to perform. The public is not stupid. If we set reasonable objective measures that fit with what service users actually want, trust in public services and in the Government

can only increase. All of this will be a crucial building block in upholding the public service ethos and preventing further privatisation. I move.

Ralph Surman (Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Education Union) in seconding Motion 38, said: Performance league tables skewed. Standard Attainment Tests, known as SATs, perverse. They are a waste of time, a waste of money and a vehicle for checking up on poor, beleaguered professionals, who work as part of our public services.

To add insult to injury, targets are then showered down from the fountain of knowledge that bear no resemblance to the different cohorts of children who teachers are trying to teach. This is a pitiful environment which the school workforce and children are condemned to come together in each day. Performance league tables are then publish to name, shame and blame all of the schools. Successive Governments, both blue and red, should be proud of this record!

Surely, everything we ask a child to do should be worth doing. Parents and teachers are saddened by the drive to pass SATs tests and their children used to achieve school, LEA and Government targets. Every time we hear someone talking about a child’s performance, let us remind them and in so doing remind ourselves that we are not ring masters. Children are not performing circus animals. Performance league tables have drawn the spotlight on to social disadvantage and social division within society at great Government and expensive exercise to put the spotlight on and highlight social class division. Performance league tables should be abolished. The money saved would be better spent on actually tackling the problems of social division and funding our nation’s schools and other public services properly. I also say that over-funded quangos which are supposedly in place to support the public sector should also be axed.

For the moment, where does it leave us? It leaves us in schools with a narrow curriculum and limited opportunities for music, art, dance, drama, PE, games and sport. Teaching is now about conditioning children to answer correctly the types of questions they will be answering year on year in these tests, the damned tests! Children have hours of revision to pass English, maths and science tests. We are not teaching English, maths and science, not like we used to. Is the sound of crying children the centre of this Government’s drive to raise educational standards? I have seen seven year olds crying with my own eyes before and during the seven year old tests, often because they are scared and frightened of what they have to do. These tests are not easy. In fact, I think they are hard. They make me cry. They are very stressful and, in fact, unnecessary. Why are they unnecessary? Because they do not actually tell us anything. Abolish performance league tables and spend the millions of pounds of money that will be saved on funding our schools properly. I move.

* The Motion was CARRIED.

Drug prescribing

The President: We now come to Motion 42 on Drug prescribing. I indicate that the General Council supports the motion.

Pradeep Solanki (Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 42 - Drug prescribing)

He said: What I am going to talk about may seem a bit dry but it is an important message for us all. Firstly, we are all patients and users of health care. We all have a responsibility for ourselves. This is often done in partnership with our other health care workers and providers, such as pharmacists, the hospitals and, of course, our local general practitioners as well as others. We recognise that prescription drugs are an absolute necessity as part of our care. Conference, in some instances we are prescribing some health care workers out of jobs due to increasing drug prescribing. This approach takes money away from other budgets and could be used to employ health care workers, and so denying them the opportunity to participate in health care.

Prescribing can be moderated by improved prescribing patterns. It sounds like a simple task but I work with doctors and I know the various pressures they face, and I know how their time can be spread thinly. They have just recently negotiated new contracts, which has been a very time-consuming operating. On top of this, our Health Service has been through more organisational change.

Our local health areas are now called primary care trusts. Part of the structure includes our doctors and GPs who are vital for on-going planning, development and monitoring of services. So by better prescribing our primary care trusts will reduce their over-spends. They would then have better balance and economic control, better able to deliver health care, with less of the so-called robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. This means more podiatrists and chiropodists who will be able to continue to develop the nail surgery, so the need for GPs to prescribe antibiotics is lessened or even eliminated. More podiatrists to treat patients from the foot mechanics aspect, making insoles will thus alleviate foot, ankle, knee and back pain. Far less prescriptions for pain killers would be written.

I recognise that I sit with AHPs who are physiotherapists, radiographers and dieticians and they play an important role in this scenario as well.

With more podiatrists to treat people with diabetes this would avoid a lot of the lower limb complications that can occur with this condition. This has been shown to be an extremely large saving. Do you know, a worldwide epidemic is developing in diabetes.

So there are only a limited number of Peters who can be robbed to pay the Pauls. Congress, I ask the Government to take more of a pragmatic and innovative approach to the delivery of health care and the giving of health care advice as the two go hand-in-hand, as prescription drugs alone are not the solution.

Let us improve the approach to sustain lifestyle changes to help us improve our own health. The GPs alone cannot handle this task. Once that happens, it will enable other frontline health care workers to begin prescribing at the point of care, which will reduce the worry about overspending and improve professional working.

There is a message for our TUC, who can also become involved in the initiatives to improve the health of our members and it need not be too complicated. The Government have promoted the eating of fruit and drinking of more water at schools, but for the majority of our older population we need better involvement of other health care partners. Our local pharmacies could be used more for many minor ailments which do not require prescription drugs. We know that branded drugs can be substituted with others which have the same effect but cost far less. This would be a big cost saver. I look to the Government to better facilitate this within our primary care trusts. I know that a lot of work has already been undertaken but the Government need to give further consideration to this.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has stated that many patients could be on just four types of medication, generally speaking. There needs to be the ability to screen, check and monitor the drugs that patients are taking to ensure they have the optimum medication. We have strategies developing for the management of chronic diseases, but how many patients take all of their medications at the right times?

When a GP has just ten minutes for a single consultation it can be a hard task to do everything. We also need the Government to publish data on prescribing trends and costings. Only then will we take a rational, not a rationing, approach to health care delivery.

The pharmaceutical companies have to look at themselves also. We understand that millions of pounds are spent on research and development but they have more and more markets opening so many more drugs could be cheaper to the NHS. Better management of the drugs budget allows multi-disciplinary care and better out comes for our patients, so at the end of the day the human touch is better.

Congress, please support this motion.

Norma Stephenson (Unison) in seconding the motion, said: Congress, we in the trade unions are often portrayed as the enemies of efficiency and productivity. This motion shows that nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to seeking value for money for the public it is our members who are at the forefront.

Prescription costs in the NHS have been rising sharply for a number of years. In 2002 the cost of all prescriptions dispensed was £6.8 billion, an increase of 11.9% on the previous year. Between 2001 and 2002 the number of prescription items per head of the population rose from 11.9% to 12.5%. We need to be clear that some of this increase is legitimate. The largest proportion of the rise between 2001 and 2002 was due to an increase in the number of prescriptions for lipid regulations drugs, such as statins, drugs that play a key role in the prevention of heart disease and are included in the Government’s new National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease.

Where increases in prescription bills are legitimate we need to be active in demanding that the extra costs are fully-funded by the Government. It is unacceptable that staff and patient services should suffer because the Government have not fully funded their own national service frameworks. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that not all of the increases in prescription costs are legitimate.

Drug companies continue to make enormous profits. In the first six months of this year, GlaxoSmithkline, Europe’s largest pharmaceutical company, announced half-yearly profits of £3.55 billion, which was a 16% increase on the previous figure. This is the same company that recently attempted to award its chief executive a pay package which included a £23 million pay off if he lost his job.

Many doctors continue to prescribe drugs on a branded basis. There are rising concerns about the relationship between doctors and drug reps. Doctors are often aggressively targeted by drug reps and offered incentives to encourage them to prescribe their products. Research published in the British Medical Journal this year suggests that doctors who consult drug reps at least once a week are more likely to prescribe unnecessary medicines. We need to call on the Government to examine the relationship between drug reps and doctors and to launch a concerted campaign to encourage doctors to reduce the prescribing of branded products.

Prescribing practices should be driven by the need to provide patients with a high quality and efficient Health Service, not by the interests of commercial companies.

We are rightly proud that the NHS is the most efficient Health Service in the world, due largely to the efforts of our members. Let us work to keep it that way.

The President: I have no other speakers listed, so I assume that there is no problem with the right of reply.

· Motion 42 was CARRIED.

Bed-blocking

The President: We now come to Motion 43, Bed-blocking, and I indicate the General Council’s support for the motion.

Anne Duffy (Community and District Nursing Association) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 43 - Bed-blocking)

She said: You will all know that one of the major problems facing all hospitals is the shortage of beds. One of the causes of this problem is the lacking of funding for elderly care, or what has become more commonly known to all of us as 'bed-blocking by the elderly'. That is a description that the CDNA opposes.

Such a situation often occurs following the successful treatment for whatever the elderly person was admitted for. Because of some infirmity or other age-related aspect, they are judged not able enough to be discharged, even though they often have a home they can return to, often with an elderly partner, some family members or some really good friends.

Sometimes, of course, they do have no close family to help and assist them. Therefore, they remain in hospital, occupying a bed because of fragility.

Congress, there is a solution. Twenty-four hour, home care provision. It is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds and it already exists in some parts of the country. For example, here in Brighton, an area of excellence in community nursing, CDNA members are part of a team leading the way in the United Kingdom with a 24 hour community nursing service available to help keep elderly patients at home, assisting with their rehabilitation.

What about the rest of the areas? What about Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and many, many parts of England, where a 24 hour service is condensed into, 'If you are lucky there is an 8 hour service, Monday to Friday', where often there is no such thing as a weekend service.

Many NHS trusts are not discharging patients to their homes. Instead, they hold on to patients in wards, preventing admissions, delaying surgery, resulting in patients being blamed as their beds are identified and often labelled as being 'blocked'. Some trusts have even gone as far as purchasing expensive trolley beds so that patients are not classed as being admitted, but left on trolleys in medical admission units until beds become available.

This is awful. This is not good enough. Wouldn’t this money be much better spent on community services? It has cost thousands to buy these trolleys that patients are left lying on. Therefore, in relation to community services, the shift of the resources must happen, and in return we will have better cared for elderly.

We now have not only bed-blocking but trolley blocking. So how did this make our patients feel? As a district nurse, I know how the patients feel. They feel sad, depressed, anxious and very vulnerable to the people who they feel they are depriving of a bed.

Congress, we call upon you to support our plea for funding to supply 24 hour community services which prevent bed-blocking and - this is the new name - trolley blocking, to keep our elderly where they want to be, which is in their own homes, cared for by skilled professional staff. After all, they built the NHS and given each and everyone of us here today our health care system, our education, our lifestyle and most of all our future.

Our elderly population deserves better, don’t they?

John Reid, the Secretary of State for Health, has said that he wants patients to have choice. Well, John. We are ready to give them choice. We want Congress to support CDNA, to look at funding 24 hour community nursing. I know as a district nurse that it is appropriate to admit elderly patients in some instances, but it is inappropriate when given long-term high technical care, but how many times are they admitted unnecessarily?

This is not the first time that we have brought this issue to the TUC’s attention. Taking our facts to more managers in the health care system is what we have to do. We need to drive this forward, just like they have done here in Brighton. Resources need to shift. Instead of buying trolleys, give the money over to the skilled professional community staff who will work with modernising the NHS and keeping our elderly population very happy at home. Please support our request.

Cathy Williams (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) in seconding the motion, said:

An older person may be our mother or father, friend or partner. They may have been an active trade unionist in the past. They will be us in the future. The measure of a civilised society is the extent to which it treats those who need help and support.

Congress recognises the Government’s commitment to older people through the NSF, which sets new standards. An extra £150 million was made available in 2003 and 2004 to support older people. However, there is a difference between policy and practice. Some funding for intermediate care services has not found its way into these services but has been used to support other areas that have traditionally been under-funded.

The King’s Fund and the NHS Alliance feel that about half of the £900 million given by the Government during the past three years has been lost in this way. In the NHS Plan the Government have strongly supported the view that health and social care should work together to support older people and this fact has been enshrined in the legislation allowing pooled budgets of care trusts. However, the Government have introduced a Community Care Delayed Discharge Bill, which will mean that acute trusts can charge social services on a daily rate for delayed discharges. The Local Government Association, an association of directors of social services, the NHS Confederation, the BMA and Age Concern have all registered their worries. This crude instrument is likely to worsen the blame culture and impair partnership working between health and social services. Often the time delays in the system will not be wholly due to social services and taking a whole systems approach to the problem is likely to provide the solution.

Delayed discharges also apply to a range of patients, those with mental health needs or complex disabilities. It is vital that with discharge planning the clients’ views are kept at the centre and the danger with this cross-changing is that care plans that are not in the best interests of patients might be offered as social services will avoid having to make payments to the NHS.

The Government need to focus resources on a whole systems approach which builds on partnership working between health and social services. This includes, crucially, preventative work for older people and proper rehabilitation and support. We need sufficient resources to allow collaborative work to benefit older people now and for ourselves in the future. Please support.

* The Motion was CARRIED.

Tackling Elder Abuse

Jennie Potter (Community and District Nursing Association) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 44 - Tackling Elder Abuse)

She said: Abuse is the misuse of power. Abuse is the control of another person. The elderly are abused by people who they know and trust, people they rely upon for their basic needs. Abuse is not easy to detect. It is hidden, hidden by those who abuse, for they do not want to be discovered; hidden by those being abused for they are frightened and ashamed, blaming themselves for what is happening, fearful that if they do report what is happening they will have to go into an old people's home, or if they are in a home they fear reprisals. To our shame they do not tell anyone for they fear they will not be believed.

Each year over half a million older people are abused and this is just the tip of the iceberg. These are the ones we know about. As the older population dramatically increases each year, the number of elderly people being abused will also increase. The elderly are a group who do not tend to complain, although I have known them grumble. They are the age group that do not question. They accept authority, they are grateful for any help they are given. These are the people to whom we owe a great deal. This generation certainly fought in one world war to give us the country we have today, and it is certainly through their efforts that this trade union Movement that we are proud to belong to has been shaped. These are the people whose suffering and misery we are now ignoring.

Old age is something that cannot be prevented; it will happen to all of us, or at least we hope we will live to enjoy our old age and spend the pensions we have now been guaranteed by Gordon Brown. For the majority of us, old age will bring a satisfying and hopefully enjoyable period in our lives but for some old age will mean poor health and the inability to remain independent, dependent on others for the basic needs in life, the things we take for granted.

The public finds it very easy to believe that those being abused have done something to make it happen to them. The CDNA believe that no one -- and I repeat no one -- deserves to be abused. Abuse has no social, no cultural, no racial or religious barriers. It occurs in every strata of society. We know that our members deal each day with distressing situations. They are called to see patients who have yet another bruise, burn or injury, with no satisfactory explanation. They notice when there is inadequate food or heating, and when treasured belongings are missing. They see old people who are afraid.

Community staff are very privileged. We are invited into people's homes, we get to know our patients, their families, friends and carers, and they get to know us. We are the people who can question; we are the people our patients can confide in. But nurses need education, the knowledge to recognise the signs of abuse. Our members want to help their patients. They are asking for training in the recognition and management of elder abuse. If all community staff are trained to recognise and manage abuse, we know we can prevent some of the misery our elderly are subjected to.

I am asking for your support. CDNA members no longer want to feel shame and disgust at the way our elderly are treated by those they trust. There has been professional training aimed at protecting children for over ten years, but cases of child abuse are still hitting the headlines. Vulnerable adults are not so well protected and there is no professional training to help them. The CDNA is calling on Congress to support their call for mandatory training in the recognition and management of elder abuse, not only for nurses but also for all community staff. We also wish it to be included in all mandatory training schedules.

Without training the plight of the elderly will continue. The education and training of all staff working in the community can reduce the numbers of elderly people being abused. The CDNA call for your help and support with this motion. Can I leave you with a fact? 88 per cent of CDNA nurses reported that they encounter elderly abuse when carrying out their duties weekly. That is a lot of nurses; that is a lot of abuse.

Lesley Mercer (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy) seconding the motion said: I would like to applaud the CDNA for bringing this very sensitive but very real social issue to the attention of Congress. It is not so many years ago that the subject of domestic violence was very much a taboo subject. Now it is fair and square and properly too high on the trade union agenda. Part of the aim of this motion from the CDNA is to start to break down the walls of silence that surround the issue of abuse of older people, abused unfortunately in their own homes as well as in formal care settings. We are talking here about both direct physical abuse as well as the more subtle form problems to do with neglect.

I think all healthcare professionals, as well as nurses, will benefit from the training that is proposed in this motion, but it really does have to be set in context. That context is an acceptance and recognition by society at large that there is a problem of abuse of older people, and fully supporting all public sector workers who have a role in tackling it. So please support this motion overwhelmingly.

· The Motion was CARRIED.

Fire Service

The President : I now call Motion 55, Fire Service, indicating that the General Council is supporting the motion.

Andy Gilchrist (Fire Brigades' Union) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 55 - Fire Service)

He said: May I begin by expressing the most sincere thanks to both the TUC and affiliated trades unions for their tremendous support and solidarity throughout our dispute. Thank you very much. I will ensure ordinary members hear about that.

Our members -- fire fighters, emergency fire control staff -- are still very proud to be part of and working inside the finest fire service in the world. It is still the finest despite the way in which they were treated during the recent dispute. The intemperate, inaccurate and, frankly, disgraceful comments made by Government Ministers and large sections of the media did hurt, but our members care much more about government actions than they do about cheap spin.

Frankly, they do not care much for what they see of the Government's White Paper, rushed out far too quickly as soon as this dispute was settled. If that White Paper is the basis of legislation for the future of the fire service, well I have to say that we are in for some seriously dangerous times. What will follow will not be a better fire service. It might be a bit cheaper. There might be less fire fighters and it might have an effective 24-hour coverage, but it will not be able to match up to the high standards that fire fighters' control staff conform to now.

Let us remember where we start from. The fire service achieves 96 per cent of its targets set out in rigorous national standards. Even the Audit Commission compliments us on being a high performing public service. Remember -- in the last 20 years the work load has doubled, the workforce has been reduced, and deaths from fires have gone down by 40 per cent. Remember -- we do not just put out fires, save lives and develop fire prevention programmes; we attend road traffic accidents, deal with chemical spillages. The list is pretty extensive and I could go on.

Ours is an outstanding record of public service in a rapidly changing environment. Now we are being asked to take the lead responsibility in rescuing people should there ever be a terrorist attack in this country. Our members are happy to take those additional responsibilities, they know the public respect the work they do, but I tell you that we are a bit damned tired of politicians accusing us of engaging in so-called Spanish practices of refusing allegedly to accept change and modernisation. They have a funny way of expressing modernisation. On jobs they tell us natural wastage alone does not count. You can loose thousands of fire fighters over a period of years through retirement. Do not replace them, do not worry, no one loses. That is government modernisation. Systematic overtime, that is government modernisation. Politicians wonder why workplace stress is on the increase.

Colleagues, my members work and provide a can-do service, but we cannot accept excessive overtime, less fire cover for your communities, and we cannot accept the closure of emergency fire control rooms that have decades of knowledge and experience. That is what modernisation New Labour style seems to mean: fewer fire fighters and a greater danger. These proposals set out in the White Paper, frankly, are an irresponsible leap in the dark. They will end national standards of fire cover. In future local fire authorities on limited budgets will decide the weight and speed of response to fire incidents. Today, wherever you live, you can be absolutely sure of the same high level response to life threatening incidents. In future, if these reforms go through, all of our towns and cities will have their own standards. Fire cover by your post code: where you live will vitally influence your chances of being rescued in a serious fire, and the same can be said of the workplace. I say that people working night shifts should have a look at their life insurance cover in the future.

No doubt, despite this settlement reached in June, the government are intent on pressing ahead with the Fire Services Act. That will effectively end free collective bargaining inside the Fire Service for the next two years. Make no mistake, if those proposals for the Fire Service become law, then the very cornerstones of ILO Conventions will be breached.

I want to finish on the Fire Service. The FBU have argued for a new approach. We agree with the government when it says that it wants a decentralised risk-based service, but we think it is irresponsible and dangerous to end national standards. Why could we not have had piloted tests and assessed the costs? What we have actually got from the government is reform on the cheap and change based on prejudice, not evidence.

I heard the two leaders, as it were, leading spokespeople from the Labour Party, give three speeches yesterday. I have to say that I think there is an awful lot of work to do for us in the next few months to save this Labour Government from itself. We are asking trades unions, trades council, to sign up with the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that you are not shortchanged on fire cover. Yes, we need more teachers, more nurses, more doctors, but I tell you what we certainly do need: that is more fire fighters, not less, if we are going to protect people properly in the 21st century.

Thank you for your support.

Karie Murphy (Unison) in seconding the motion said: Supporting comrades from the FBU who may be battered and bruised but certainly not beaten.

The recent industrial action has had a profound effect on the membership of the FBU and on the leadership also. People this week have complained about being bloated with the excess food and drink that we have all indulged in. Can I just draw your attention to the most recent fad diet, the Atkins diet. If I were you I would disregard it and look at the Andy Gilchrist strategy on how to lose weight: get out on strike, clash with the government and lose two stone. But seeing the full effect of the action on comrades within the FBU is tangible. There is a look of despair in many of their eyes, not just because of the settlement but also because of the interference and manipulation of the government.

Gordon Brown, of course, yesterday reiterated his position on inflated pay claims. As public sector workers, UNISON has a lot in common with the FBU: action taken in defence of services, opposition to PFI, a refusal to comply with a strategy that erodes the conditions of service of our members. I am not an expert on the Fire Service, I am a nurse in the Health Service. However, I have every faith in the integrity of the comrades from the FBU. If they do not trust Bain or the Fire Services Bill then we do not trust them either.

Like nurses, social workers and ambulance men, fire fighters have modernised. Enormous changes have been implemented. It is manipulative and untrue to suggest that they have not. It is appalling that the government and the press have used such divisive tactics. UNISON resented the attempts by Labour politicians to turn comrade against comrade. Mr Blair stated the nurses would never forgive him if he paid the fire fighters an inflated rise. Get real, nurses like most of us can see right through you. Then Comrade Mr Prescott -- well, John, any credibility you had in this Congress was obliterated when you attacked the commitment of the FBU. Imposing pay and removing the right to strike is tantamount to slavery. John Prescott should hang his head in shame. Another quick digression: you should also pay Bob Crow his money and move out of his flat!

Trades unions showed solidarity with the FBU throughout the strike, and now we must work collectively within the community to protect the service. Anti-trade union legislation continues to bind our hands, but it can do nothing to diminish the fervent and burning rage that all of us feel when our people are betrayed and demoralised.

So, comrades from the FBU, be assured that Congress recognises the experience you have lived, the tribulations faced and the monumental task you face in resisting the Fire Services Bill. In solidarity, UNISON support.

* Motion 55 was CARRIED.

Address by Rita Donaghy, Chair of ACAS

The President: Delegates, you may have noticed that Rita Donaghy is up on the front line with us, and she is to be our next speaker.

Many of you will know that Rita was the TUC President in 1999-2000 and was a long-serving and distinguished member of the Executive Council of UNISON, formerly NALGO. Rita is now the Chair of ACAS, where she has been doing a fantastic job, sometimes in tense and difficult circumstances.

Rita, it is great to have you back with us, and I am delighted to invite you to address Congress.

Rita Donaghy (Chair of ACAS): Nigel, I do not know if you are going to be at a loose end at the end of your Congress year but have you ever considered being an ACAS conciliator? I think, after managing to break up the atmosphere yesterday just before the Stand-Up Panel, did you call it, I think you have all the attributes of being a brilliant conciliator so you might like to consider a new career.

It is very good to be in the home of trade unionism again, and it has been equally enjoyable to welcome some of you to ACAS Headquarters. Some of you clearly enjoyed our hospitality. We did not expect you to stay for eight weeks but nevertheless it is very good to see you. No longer does ACAS just provide fish and chips and mediation in high profile disputes. We are multi-skilled nowadays. We provide pizza as well, and I am sure you will find the odd Tofu burger along Borough High Street if you look hard enough.

I would like to spend my brief time with you saying how in a world at work, which has changed out of all recognition, two simple messages remain the same: people need help with the rights they have; and dialogue is the only way to achieve good employment relations. We know people need help with their existing rights and obligations because ACAS receives 750,000 telephone calls in a year asking us. One in five are about discipline and dismissal. One in six relates to redundancies and lay-offs. Another one in six concern contractual matters. Just over one in eight calls are about holidays and another one in eight about maternity or diversity issues. Similarly, our website shows us that the main topics inquired after are redundancy, TUPE, maternity/holiday pay, minimum wage, sick pay, discipline, data protection, paternity leave and the Working Time Directive.

I appreciate, President, that one of the key debates at this Congress was about trade union rights and individual employment rights, and it is not my place to comment on that debate. But there is a thirst for knowledge on what rights already exist. The growth of individual workplace rights may not be seen by a trade union gathering as anything but long overdue minimum standards. However, seen as a whole they are substantial: the national minimum wage, although 87 per cent who benefitted were not in a union; and the right to paid annual leave, which was the single largest number of help line calls in the previous ACAS year. Collectively, in addition to existing recognition and representation rights, union learning representatives and information and consultation could together transform our employment relations scene.

The challenges for a trade union juggling priorities and resources might seem overwhelming. It will require a step change in capacity building. All this on top of your day-to-day work protecting jobs, pay, and dealing with individual casework might seem to some of you like the straw that broke the camel's back. How trade unions grasp these existing opportunities may well determine their long-term future. ACAS is keen to respond to the demands of employees and employers by expanding our help line service, and developing areas such as equality and diversity. We live in a wonderfully diverse society and ensuring that diversity is reflected in individual work places brings business benefits as well as justice.

Although the number of applications to Employment Tribunals decreased in 2002/2003, for the third year in succession, discrimination cases have not reduced over all. Organisations need fair and clear equality and diversity policies in place to ensure that they make the best of the labour market skills available, and this will also help employers and employees to steer clear of tribunals. ACAS is well placed to help. Our Race and Equality Advisory Service offers a health check to managers on equality and diversity from assessing and drawing up policies to providing training and making sure they are effective when in place. Equality Direct is an ACAS Helpline service for managers, giving advice down the line on a full range of equality issues, including general employment, good practice, discrimination law, and family friendly policies.

In the spring of this year we ran seminars for small companies all over the UK on the new Flexible Working Regulations. Ten and a half thousand places were taken up on those seminars. We have prepared our 60 senior ACAS advisers to help conduct joint equal pay audits, and this autumn will be running events and issuing guidelines on the new provisions preventing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief which come into force, as you know, in December. So we know people need help, and ACAS is doing its best to meet that demand.

The second point I want to make is about dialogue. ACAS sees the key issue as getting the employment relationship right. It is the most complex relationship outside the family, and more than 20 million of us are involved in it. The dilemma of all governments is how you balance a flexible labour market with job security. The ACAS view is that while compliance, regulation and the law may provide the foundation it is not answer. Rights cannot prescribe the employment relationship or solve all the problems. The answer is good employment relations moving from minimum standards to best practice. It is the factor X in every serious study of successful companies from OECD and the FTSE 100 studies to Robert Taylor's recent series for the Economic and Social Research Council.

The Investors in People Organisation has done a lot around IiP in the private sector, showing that IiP validated firms consistently out-perform non-IiP companies because of their ability to utilise people. A common theme that emerges from ACAS's experience is the critical importance of good communication and effective employee involvement. This is at the heart of best practice and goes hand in hand with improving trust. Over the coming months, the debates on implementing the European Directive on information and consultation in the UK will focus on these issues and ACAS is well placed to contribute through its practical experience and impartial viewpoint.

Our own research among managers and employee representatives who have taken part in an ACAS-run project with their organizations found that improved trust and better communication were top priorities. Our research underlined the need for information and consultation to focus on issues of real concern to the parties. To be effective in the long term participants must feel that their input has some influence over the future of their organisation and of their own future. This includes discussion of the organisation's priorities and both financial and business information. Sustainable solutions add considerably to the build-up of trust in the workplace.

An aspect which cannot be overlooked is training representatives to cope with the new information and consultation role beyond the basic requirements of the Directive. This applies to both sides of industry. These should include how to participate in and facilitate meetings, speaking out, negotiating, meeting behaviours and effective communication. Everyone needs to be clear about their involvement, the issues, the process, and what can be done with the information -- especially information that is confidential to the organisation. ACAS will do its best to assist in the training of representatives on both sides of industry. Information and consultation developments represent the best opportunity in a generation to create or review structures which achieve real dialogue between worker and employer. It is seen by some in the trade union Movement as a threat to existing trade union influence, elevating non-members' representation at the expense of existing collective bargaining structures. If trades unions concentrate on consolidating their existing influence in preference to creating new structures in new areas of influence they will lose out. It seems to me to provide real opportunities to develop collective bargaining and provide real value for money for trade union members and employers.

What happens when the dialogue starts to stutter? Well, on an individual basis you need good disciplinary and grievance procedures. Most of you in this hall will have them already but by October 2004 the government provisions on discipline and grievance under the 2002 Employment Act will come into force. The hope is that the new procedures will cut the number of cases going to Employment Tribunals. This is a key area for ACAS as our Code of Practice is in Employment Tribunals and is regarded by most people as the primary source of good practice, together with our best selling Guide. We will be revising our code to take account of the new provisions, but our basic advice on good practice will by unaltered.

In addition, five months ago we launched an on-line self-teaching package on discipline and grievance procedures based on our popular training events for small firms. Already over 10,000 users have signed on.

If the dialogue stutters even further and an application is submitted to an Employment Tribunal, the ACAS conciliator steps in to find some measure of common ground. In the past year, 2002/2003, 77 per cent of applications were settled or withdrawn, so went no further than the ACAS stage. That is a remarkable achievement by any standards and it is in large part a tribute to our ACAS conciliators that only 23 per cent of applications lead to a Tribunal hearing.

If the dialogue breaks down completely, or did not exist in the first place, we end up with an industrial dispute of regional or national proportions. You might be forgiven for thinking that there are signs of a return to a more confrontational style of employment relations. Over the past year there have been a number of high profile disputes, and ACAS has been involved in them. Always behind the scenes. What is the reality? Last year the number of days lost through labour disputes was 1.3 million, an increase on the year before which was half a million because the local government dispute and the fire fighters dispute involved such large numbers of people. Compare this to 1980 where 11.9 million days were lost or 1979 where 29.5 million days were lost, and we get things more into proportion. The first six months of 2003 show 186,500 days lost which, although provisional, shows a considerable drop. In 2002/2003 ACAS intervened in 1,353 employment disputes. That figure has remained virtually the same for four years. That is the reality.

For ACAS, whether the graph on labour disputes goes up or down, three points remain true. A new generation of political, industrial and media leaders have recognised the importance of an impartial, third party involvement in seemingly intractable disputes. ACAS is still the last chance saloon if you like.

Secondly, in a more complex and shifting world we need more sophisticated measurements to assess the employment relationship than days lost through strike action. The employment relationship has many dimensions -- economic, legal, psychological, social and political. The success or failure of that relationship is always critical to an organisation's performance. Is a strike worse, for instance, than a 30 per cent annual staff turnover or poor attendance, high sickness rates, low trust, demoralised staff, or a neglected skills base? We believe in ACAS that it is the whole employment relationship that matters, rather than the bits which hit the headlines.

My third point is that attitudes to work have changed since most of us here started work, and people are not automatically impressed by institutional representation, either employees or employers. The key characteristics of an effective workplace remain the same as they have always been.

People need to understand the objectives of their enterprise, experience an open management style and a meaningful employee voice, work in an atmosphere which encourages learning and promotes initiative and team working, promotes equal opportunities and adopts tranparent pay and rewards systems. People want to be listened to, respected, and treated fairly. They will not be taken for granted. They are not willing to be class warriors, nor are they willing to be taught a lesson by their employers. If employers or trades unions take their eye off the ball and fail to recognise any or all of these factors it will be to the detriment of both sides. I would not dream of pinpointing an individual dispute in those remarks. What goes on behind ACAS walls will remain secret, so no memoires here I am afraid. Suffice to say that if walls could talk ACAS's Headquarters would be under arrest!

In conclusion, our statutory duty is to promote good employment relations and that is what we do. It forms the majority of what we do. The only time we hit the headlines is when we are involved in dispute resolution, and I am realistic enough to know that will always be where the coverage is, but we are here to help on the whole employment relationship, from the mediation pilots we are running to playing a part in the recently agreed two-tier workforce procedures in local government.

President, Congress, I thank you for giving ACAS the opportunity to address you and emphasise again that we are at your service. Thank you very much. (Applause)

The President : Thank you very much, Rita, for a very thoughtful, interesting, reflective and informative address. One of the things we have greatly appreciated at the TUC is the very proactive stance you have adopted since you went to ACAS a few years ago. You are moving ACAS in the right direction and making a major contribution to the development of an important service.

Thank you very much.

Criminal Justice System

The President : We now turn to Composite Motion 3, which the General Council supports.

Julia Lewis (AMO) moved Composite Motion 3.

(Insert Composite Motion 3 - Criminal Justice System)

She said: The criminal justice system is made up of a complex range of local and national services and agencies which employ some 300 people and spends approximately £1 million a year. The criminal justice system includes the independent judiciary, comprising lay magistrates and professional judges, whose responsibility it is to ensure that justice is done to both defendants and society, yet a wapping £80 million per year is wasted through adjournments, delays, and crashed trials at both magistrates and Crown Courts. Over one half of offenders and 80 per cent of those with five or more previous convictions are returned to court, convicted and sentenced within two years of either starting a community penalty or finishing a prison term, and over one half of the public is not satisfied that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing offenders to justice.

Congress, if there is one thing that there is census on in the justice system it is that it is in need of reform, but there the consensus ends because the recipe for reform is limited and disputed. We in the Magistrates Courts Service are accustomed to change, having been subjected to years of knee-jerk legislation and law and order is undoubtedly a political football. We are currently involved in the creation of a unified courts administration that would bring together the Magistrates, Crown and County Courts in a single executive agency by 2005. This is the kind of reform we need, joining up the areas of justice, but this reform will not work unless it is properly funded and not at the expense of the court staff. We only need to look at the CPS to see the effects of an underfunded agency. The courts and the criminal justice agencies and services need to be sufficiently funded and resourced if they are to meet the demands placed upon them.

We now have the most privatised justice system in Europe with funds rapidly delivered into the private sector hands who design, build and manage our courts, prisons and computer systems all at extortionate costs and most unsuccessfully. For example, Libra, the state of the art PFI project for a courts computer system, was dramatically dumped recently but not before an obscene amount of money was diverted away from the public sector front line services. Currently, we are facing a new area for privatisation, that of the collection and endorsement of fines, with the proposal to contract out the work to private debt collectors, incidentally with a further proposal to introduce a changing method of fines collection whereby offenders can work off the value of the penalty at a rate lower than the minimum wage. What we actually need is investment in non-custodial sentences, support and control of public sector enforcement and the return to the unit fine system where realistic levels of fines are imposed and based upon the defendant's means.

Central to our legal system is the premise of judgment by our peers, not only for the jury system but judges and magistrates too need to be seen to be representative and reflect the communities in which they serve. When Labour came to power they declared that judges should look more like the people they sit in judgment on, yet 78 per cent of senior judges in England and Wales today are white, male, public school and Oxbridge educated and only three out of 36 judges in the Court of Appeal are women. So we welcome the proposals to examine how they are appointed. We welcome the creation of a Supreme Court and the end of the anachronistic office of the Lord Chancellor. However, we need to go further and look to the European models of justice and not the discredited system in America where justice can be bought and sold.

We also reject the proposals to introduce targets and league tables into the justice system. An adversarial system is not the best way to deliver justice. We do not need policies that have been tried and failed elsewhere. League tables belong in football and that is where they should stay. Fragmentation and competition are the underlying problems of the present system. What we need is cooperation between the various agencies across the board.

Finally, we would welcome the creation of a Ministry of Justice that would bring together all those responsible for delivering justice after the point of arrest. We need to see an end to the competition for funding between the Home Office and the DCA and a joint approach to resourcing and planning. We need joined-up justice. My union, AMO, together with the Justice Forum is organizing a series of seminars --

The President : Can you stop right away. We are running up against the deadline for lunch.

Julia Lewis (AMO): I will end there. Thank you very much.

Brian Caton (Prison Officers Association) in seconding Composite Motion 3 said: When you look at your General Council Report, paragraph 1.13, there are 13 lines on the criminal justice system. If you go round the doors, as we all do in our communities, and ask people what they are worried about in society today, among the top three answers will be crime. This Congress should give more than 13 lines to the criminal justice system. We had the Chancellor of the Exchequer here yesterday telling us he has recruited 7,000 more policemen. If 7,000 more policemen each arrest two, those 14,000 get custodial sentences. That is another 14,000 in a prison system that is already over stretched. We currently have 74,000 in prison. That is the largest prison population in western Europe with the lowest resources in western Europe. We also have -- and I would like you to remember this -- the largest private sector prison service in western Europe with 14 private prisons. The privatiers are to get more. If you listened to Digby Jones yesterday one part of the public sector he did mention -- in fact, he is the only speaker who has mentioned it -- was prisons. He wants to privatise all of us and take all of our jobs, put more people in prison so that they can make more money. Remember that.

There is a 54 per cent rise in black young men being sent to prison since this Labour Government took power. Oh to be a black inmate in Britain!

Congress calls upon the Labour Government to invest more resources in the prevention of crime. That is what I want to talk to you about quickly. The POA is not for putting more people in prison. What we are for is prisons working on rehabilitation. Tony Blair and his government said 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'. You do not cure the ills of this country by warehousing people in prisons. The only way the criminal justice system will work is if you invest in professional work in prisons; you invest in prisons; you invest in the young people in our communities who come into prisons.

We have heard talk of the amount of illiteracy. Well, visit any prison in England and Wales and over 70 per cent of those in prison have literacy problems. Over 80 per cent have mental health problems. Over 90 per cent have been touched by drug abuse. Do not forget the criminal justice system in the years we come to Congress.

Judy McKnight (NAPO) supporting Composite 3 said: This morning we have already debated issues around the public services and public service reform, and we have agreed that there are many aspects of public service reform where the government has quite simply got it wrong. But let us be clear, we are not saying we do not want any reform at all. This composite sets out very clearly some ideas of the sort of reforms that those of us representing union members in the criminal justice system are asking to be considered, reforms that we believe will lead to a criminal justice system that could be more effective. Part of our criticism of the current system is that ministers will not let go. They are so obsessed with the tabloid press accusing them of going soft on law and order that they cannot stand back and actually ensure that they are introducing policies that do work, that are effective.

Current policies in the criminal justice system have, as Colin just outlined, led to an ever growing and now record level of prison population, a population that is exceptionally high, 74,000, a level that has been criticised by the head of the Prison Service. It is a prison population which has risen on the back of sentencing policies that even the newly appointed Director of Public Prosecutions has described as grotesque. This motion sets out a whole range of issues and agenda for attacking and tackling the issues of reform in the criminal justice system for the TUC. Please lend your support and your weight to this composite, to the work that needs to be done to make the criminal justice system a fair system, a humane system, a system that is not based on privatisation, a system that is properly resourced. Please support Composite 3.

John Hannett (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers): This is a composite that starts with the professionals, with the prison officers, the probation service people and the administrators within our criminal justice system, people who work in a tough and demanding environment, an environment that, quite frankly, most of us would be pleased to stay well away from. It starts with them but it matters to us all, especially those who represent workers in the front line, dealing today with difficult, aggressive and abusive people -- call them customers, clients, claimants or patients. Workers in the private and public sectors deal daily with the risk and the reality of violence, abuse and assault, whether it is in retailing, the health service, social services, housing, education or elsewhere. Thousands of workers each year are physically and emotionally damaged by their experiences at work, literally at the hands of others. Thousands more live and work in a fear of abuse and assault in and around their workplaces.

The facts are that an increasing proportion of those attacks are perpetrated by people themselves afflicted by alcohol and substance abuse problems. The composite addresses this head on. We have a growing problem, and it is not just out there somewhere, somewhere distant or somewhere marginal; it is not a rare event. It is close to home and it is close to work. It is on the streets, in and around our shopping centres, our town centres and our urban and rural communities.

Congress, there is a delicate line to tread here. We are calling for further investment in drug and substance abuse programmes. We are calling for a full debate on the issue of mental health and crime, but we are not in the business of demonising or stereotyping people within the labour Movement or the Daily Mail. We need an informed and progressive debate on substance abuse, on mental health and crime, not finger wagging from a distance but inclusive and intelligence debate. It matters to the criminal justice system and to the people who work in it and it certainly matters to those people who are suffering mental health and substance abuse problems. It matters to everyone who rightly wants to live and work in a decent safe and civilised society.

USDAW is proud to support.

Glenys Morris (Public and Commercial Services Union) speaking in favour of Composite 3 said: I speak on behalf of the thousands of PCS members in the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the new Department of Constitutional Affairs. However, we would rather represent these members in just one department, a Ministry of Justice. Our members know from first-hand experience what the criminal justice system needs is cohesion. We support the government's vision that the criminal justice system should be fair but effective and deliver swift justice, but the current arrangements simply stop this from happening. PCS have long argued for a single Ministry of Justice, not only because of the current mismatch of functions that in the Home Office alone includes asylum seekers, dangerous dogs and gambling laws.

At the moment there is no structure in place to ensure that the same information is given across the system. A unified system would give much needed stability and increase consistency and better access to justice for those at the point of arrest through to the post-sentencing process. Just to add to the confusion, at the moment there are no less than five Permanent Secretaries dealing with justice. In my opinion that is four too many, but PCS members' other concern is that there should be no room for the private sector in any reputable justice system. The British justice system is the bedrock of our unwritten Constitution and over the years has remained immune, more or less, from political interference. We do not want to sacrifice all this to commercial gain, putting profit before justice.

Privatisation of the criminal justice system threatens to damage not just access but would fatally undermine it by the drive for big profits. This is a real threat. We know from the current Courts Bill, which as first written allowed the Lord Chancellor to privatise most functions without consultation with anyone. A union campaign saw this off, but there is no room for complacency. Just imagine all of our prisons run by Group 4, the probation service run by Railtrack and our courts being sold off to become themed pubs! I do not know about you, Congress, but to me this vision of the future is not a pretty sight, so please support the composite.

* Composite 3 was CARRIED

Trades Union Councils

Bernard Roome (Communication Workers' Union) speaking to paragraph 10.5 of the General Council's Report said: Over the period of this Congress we have heard in the racism debate -- and also Andy mentioned it this morning with the FBU - of the work that the trades councils are doing in supporting and fighting racism, but to be able to do that first of all they have to exist. If comrades go back just a couple of years, to when first we started having problems in Oldham and we needed to go into the community to try and defeat racism and fascism and attack the BNP, unfortunately Oldham Trade Union Council no longer existed. We had to start from scratch again and re-build that trade union council. I am glad to say that it flourishes and has it first Asian woman as President of a trade union council in Britain. That is something the trade union Movement can be proud of.

The trades council Movement deliberately held its Conference in Bradford last year so that we could stare racism in the face quite clearly. Bradford Trades Council, quite rightly and proudly, were actually congratulated yesterday for the work they carry on. For many, many years now trades councils have been left neglected and sometimes laughed about. We can no longer allow that to happen. If we do believe that the only way to beat racism and fascism is to attack it in our communities, then we must have vibrant trade union councils. This is not what the Romans can do us; it is what we can do for you as far as the trade council Movement is concerned. We desperately need people to start getting active.

If you see the report, we must have trade union councils that really reflect their communities and if you look at the attendance I am quite sure that most of our communities are not made up of white, male, heterosexuals in their thirties, forties and fifties. If we are going to be relevant to young people coming into the Movement and to black, Asian and other ethnic minorities we have to reflect that. There is an old famous saying that says 'It is better to be shouted out from the tent than shouted in at the tent'. Please help us re-build the tent.

The President : You will remember that yesterday it was reported that the Bradford City Council was allowing the BNP to use a council building for their meetings. I told you that we were writing on your behalf to the Bradford City Council to urge them to think again. We now understand that this approach has been successful and the council have now told the BNP that they cannot use their facilities.

Council adjourned until 2.15 p.m.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION

(Congress re-assembled at 2.15 p.m.)

Address by Terence O'Sullivan, Vice-President, AFL-CIO

The President : Good afternoon, delegates. We now move to the address by Terence O'Sullivan, Vice-President of the American AFL-CIO. It is my pleasure to introduce to delegates Terence O'Sullivan who was General President of the Labourers International Union of North America.

Terence O'Sullivan exemplifies America's newest generation of labour leaders dedicated to innovative and sometimes radical approaches focused on growing the significance and expanding the reach of organised labour. Since becoming General President of the more than 800,000 member union on 1st January 2000, Terence has re-shaped it into one of the most active, assertive and progressive affiliates within the AFL-CIO.

We very much look forward to hearing your address, Terence and I now ask you to address Congress.

Terence O'Sullivan (Vice-President, AFL-CIO): Thank you, Nigel, for those generous words of introduction and thank you all for your warm welcome. It is an honour and a privilege to be here today with my brothers and sisters of the TUC. I bring heartfelt greetings of solidarity on behalf of AFL-CIO President, John Sweeney; Secretary-Treasurer, Rich Trumpka and Executive Vice-President, Linda Chavez Thompson as well as the 13 million proud and strong members of the AFL-CIO.

Looking at the motions before this Congress reminds me of the many similar issues and challenges we are facing in the United States: The loss of manufacturing jobs, the fight against privatisation in four equality public services and the rights of immigrant workers; the protection of civil liberties; health and safety laws; education and training; pensions, healthcare and so much more.

To underscore the importance of our historic and close relationship with the TUC, all three of the top officers of the AFL-CIO have come to address you in recent years. This is because of the respect, the admiration and the solidarity we feel for the TUC and the working men and women of Great Britain. Indeed, this past year has seen several major changes in the leadership of the TUC. Our great friend John Monks, with whom we, at the AFL-CIO, have worked so closely, moved on to become the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation and we offer John our congratulations on his new post. His is an extremely important position for the international trade union Movement and we all know that he will do an outstanding job.

Of course, we have known for some time and greatly appreciate the working leadership Brendan Barber has demonstrated in service to working families here as well as internationally as General Secretary. Our sincere congratulations to you, Brendan. We look forward to working with you in the TUC, the ICFTU and the ILO. Your leadership on workers' capital has been invaluable in advancing a dynamic new approach to develop pension fund power as shareholder activism internationally for working families.

We also applaud your focus on organising new trade union members, especially women and young adults. The work of the TUC Organising Academy is not only impressive but critically important to the future of not only the British trade union Movement but to organised labour throughout the entire world.

I must also say that yesterday, when I heard that Brendan got 96 per cent of the votes when he was elected General Secretary, I thought that I would like to borrow him next year for my election because I need a good campaign manager!

I would also like to convey special congratulations to Frances O'Grady -- the first woman in the history of the TUC to become Deputy General Secretary -- and to Kay Carberry on becoming Assistant General Secretary. On behalf of the American trade union Movement, we look forward to working closely with both of you in the years to come.

Brothers and sisters, the report I bring you from our side of the Atlantic is not a good one. In the United States the Bush administration has been a disaster for working families, for our economy and for our trade union Movement. President Bush suffers from the arrogance of power and the ignorance of history. We, in the US labour Movement, feel like we are trapped in a time warp. It is the first time since Herbert Hoover was President of the United States in 1928, that the Republican Party has been in control of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court all at once. Unfortunately, we all know the results. While we are not on the edge of a depression, our situation is certainly depressing. The recession ended nearly two years ago. But workers' wages are stagnating again. Employers are laying off tens of thousands of employees every month and are squeezing more out of the workers left behind.

We have a national job crisis of, literally, historic proportions. In fact, some 3 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office -- a record job loss for a so-called recovery. More than 2 1/2 million of those lost jobs were high-paying, good benefit manufacturing jobs. They were good union jobs. At the end of July of this year, a total of 15 million of our workers were either unemployed, too discouraged to job hunt or working just part-time. If that was not enough, we are also facing a relentless assault on job standards, on wages and healthcare, on retirement, on job safety and on workers' freedom to form unions to improve their lives.

The biggest current threat is to our overtime pay standards. At the behest of corporate supporters, the Bush administration is proposing so-called reforms that will cut 8 million workers out of overtime pay benefits. President Bush gave away our National Treasury with enormous tax breaks for the rich. Because of that, we do not have enough money to pay for our social programmes and safety nets. And because our Federal Government has passed mandates for programmes at the state level but not provided any funding, most of our states are suffering huge budget deficits. Forty-six out of the 50 states have severe budget deficits, led by the state of California, the fifth largest economy in the world, which has a budget deficit of $38 billion. Meanwhile, our unions continue to suffer a decline in membership. We cannot seem to organise new members fast enough to offset those lost to the economy.

We have about 13 million members in AFL-CIO affiliated unions. But a recent poll showed that more than 40 million Americans would join a union if they could. The biggest block to their joining is the determination of employers to violate both the spirit and the letter of our labour laws to defeat union campaigns. Some of those are employers from other countries.

Even some British employers engage in union-busting activities when operating in the United States. Our brothers and sisters in the teamsters union, for instance, are facing a bitter anti-union campaign adopted by National Express Group plc. In Great Britain National Express is heavily unionised. It speaks proudly of its relationship with the affiliated unions of the TUC. In our country, the company has refused to agree to union security for school bus drivers, has failed to provide reasonable healthcare and has provoked decertification petitions among its union employees.

Another example is a giant Swedish retailing firm, H&M. Throughout Europe, H&M is unionised. In our country H&M is resisting all efforts by one of our affiliates, UNITE, to organise distribution as well as retail workers. The company pays rock bottom wages; provides little or no healthcare benefits and regularly discriminates against women and workers of colour.

When confronted with an organising drive, employers in our country do everything they can to delay union elections and to delay certification once the election is held. They stall for months and even years on bargaining a first contract and they stop at nothing to frighten and intimidate the workers who want to organise.

How do union election conditions in the United States measure up against the rights and conditions of human beings at work? The group Human Rights Watch, based in the United States, compared our union election practices to the ILO standards and concluded: "Workers' freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States and the Government is often failing its responsibilities on their international human rights standards to deter such attacks and protect workers' rights".

This past weekend, organised labour in the United States celebrated Labour Day by launching three national campaigns simultaneously: the first to defend the freedom of workers to join our unions; the second to reverse our horrific job losses under the administration and leadership of George W. Bush and the third to implement the most aggressive voter registration and get out the vote campaign our country has ever seen in order to defeat President George Bush in next year's election.

Our Voice at Work campaign is designed to educate and mobilise our members, law-makers and the public to reclaim the basic human right to form unions in America and we very much appreciate the help we get from all of you, the affiliated unions of the TUC.

Our jobs campaign will demand that policymakers at every level respond to the needs of working men and women. We intend on making the job crisis the number one political issue in America. Community by community, we will be spearheading job-creating economic development. Our Industrial Union Council will take our message into every town, every city and every municipality in the United States. We will bring unemployed and under-employed workers from every state together in an effort to focus the entire nation on the job crisis.

Later this month, we will join with our affiliate unions in an immigration workers freedom ride. Buses will be crossing our country on behalf of workers' rights in fairness for immigrant workers in the United States. We will end up with giant rallies in Washington DC and in New York City to show our support for far-reaching and effective immigration reform.

Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you that the immigration reform fight in the United States is like no other. We have approximately 8 to 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States that, for years, have contributed to our society, have contributed to our economy, have contributed to our country and who the Federal Government today wants to abuse day in and day out and not allow the same rights and protections that all other US workers have, need and want.

It is unfair, to say the least, that those that contribute greatly to our country are the very group of workers that are abused. The United States is a great country, but we have a history of discrimination. In America, other than the native Americans, we all came from somewhere else -- from other countries. We have a history that when workers land on our shores, unfortunately, they have been abused. They are undocumented immigrants. The immigrants of today are the same. They are being abused in alarming numbers -- exploited day in and day out.

I honestly believe that the US labour Movement will be defined by the stand that we take for workers in their time of need. That is why immigration reform is one of the major priorities of the AFL-CIO and of my particular union, to make sure that we stand up and protect that we remember how the trade union Movement was formed upon workers in their time of need. Certainly, for the immigrant workers in the United States this is their time of need and it is critically important that we, in the house of labour, stand up for them and fight for the same protections that all US workers have.

On December 10th, which is designated International Human Rights Day, we will mount a massive public demonstration against the suppression of workers' rights, not only in the United States but also around the world. But we are not stopping there. We are also forming a new organisation called "Working America" -- a new national union that will reach out to workers who are not members of organised labour to give them a way to join in the effort to create more good-paying jobs and to protect the ones that we have.

There are millions of working people who would like to be part of the AFL-CIO's efforts for social justice and who want a voice to speak out, to change the direction of our country. Working America will give them that chance. We will recruit for Working America communities nationwide. We will go door to door to build support for an even bigger push for legislation and policies which help working families. Then we will organise the largest political mobilisation of working people in our history to hold elected officials, including President George W. Bush, accountable for their inaction on the trade and job crises and for the war that the President has declared on working families and our unions since the day he took office.

In concluding, let me note that tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. On that day our nation and the American people changed forever. All those who believe in democracy and decency, who respect and value human life, felt the horror, the helplessness, the anguish and the anger of that day. It lives on in our national memory, not only because of the terrible loss of human life but because of the inspiring heroism of so many: the fire fighters, police officers and rescue workers who sacrificed their own lives in order to save others.

The wounds of September 11th are still with us. But so is the memory of your strong solidarity and brotherhood in those dark days for America. On behalf of the AFL-CIO, we thank you, the members and leaders of the TUC, for standing with our nation and our members through this national tragedy. Together, we must continue to work and urge our leaders to carry out this fight against terrorism through the United Nations to ensure the broadest possible coalition with the strongest international legitimacy be organised.

As I end, brothers and sisters, I want you to know that the bonds that tie the AFL-CIO and the TUC are strong and long-lasting. These are tough times for us all. We face hard battles and real challenges; obstacles block our way and enemies lie in wait. But when we work together we are unbeatable; when we speak together we cannot be silenced and when we stand together we cannot be stopped.

So, my friends, as I depart this beautiful city in this great country, I leave you with this: Let us never forget where we come from. Let us never forget where we are going and let us never ever forget that where we go, we go together. Good luck, God bless and solidarity forever. (Applause)

The President : Thank you very much, Terence, for a very inspiring and, I think, reassuring speech. You did actually begin your address by referring to Brendan Barber winning 96 per cent of the vote. We were rather worried as to how he managed to lose the other 4 per cent!

I said that you gave a very inspiring and reassuring speech because I think we all need reminding in this country that all Americans are not Republican Bush supporters. I know that myself because I have good reason to be deeply indebted to the American nation -- I had the good luck to marry an American girl. We spend most of our Augusts in Minnesota and we meet what seem like many relatives. I never came across one of them who was in any way sympathetic to the dreadful way Bush is behaving in respect of Iraq. When you come along and give the sort of address that you have today, I think you do us a great deal of good because you do reassure us that Americans, by and large, are wonderful people and really I think the whole country has been hijacked by Bush and his supporters.

Terence, I do not know whether you heard on the news last night -- you may not have done so, I know that you were extremely jet lagged -- but at the same time as the country is undergoing the economic difficulties you described so well, Bush is going to Congress seeking another dollars 78 billion to conduct operations further in Iraq. I think that says it all.

Terence, thank you very much for coming this long distance to address us. It is my great pleasure and privilege to be able to present you with the Gold Badge of Congress and also a little present as well. Thank you very much.

Presentation was made amidst applause .

The President : I just offered to post that on because he might have difficulty getting through security with that strange parcel!

Equal rights

The President : Delegates, we now return to Chapter 2 of the General Council's Report, Equal Rights, on page 16.

TUC equality audit

The Assistant General Secretary, in leading in on Chapter 2 of the General Council's Report said: President and Congress, when you are working on equality issues there is never a dull moment and, in the past year, the four TUC Equality Committees have been extremely busy. The General Council's Report to Congress sets out the highlights of their work.

Yesterday, this Congress united in the determination to fight against the evils of racism. Today, we are turning to other equal rights areas. We are looking at the new raft of legislation that is coming on-stream, we are reflecting on our own ground-breaking work on equal pay and on work/life balance, and we are looking at how we can get better rights for disabled workers and our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender colleagues. There are important motions on the agenda covering some of these issues and they all have the General Council's support.

There is something new and different on the agenda this year, and that is this report, the one covered in pebbles. This report is the first ever TUC equal opportunities audit and it is the first ever account of just where the trade union Movement is when it comes to making equal opportunities a reality. I think this is a moment in our Congress when we can give ourselves a bit of a pat on the back -- not a very big one, but a bit of a pat on the back.

A couple of years ago, Congress approved a rule change that gives us all a duty to promote equality and you agreed to report back to Congress on this every two years. Since last year's Congress, you have spent months examining everything you do and measuring it against equality principles. You had to own up to where you are not doing enough, but you also got the chance to show off what you are doing best.

This report is the result. It is the distillation of all the information that all the unions here today have sent in to the TUC, and there is a section on the TUC itself. I think it tells a good story. In every section there is news of progress and pioneering work: in collective bargaining, union services, internal structures and practices, education and training, campaigns, publicity and in our own employment practices as well.

I was encouraged to see that it is not only the more established work on women's equality and race equality. More and more unions are stepping up their work on behalf of disabled members and on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members and young members. Perhaps the most encouraging thing about this report is that it shows us the majority of unions are planning to do more. Most have got equality priorities planned for the next two years whether it is doing an equal pay audit, reserving a seat on the National Executive for a lesbian or gay member or launching new anti-racist campaigns. This shows that the increased attention paid to equality over the last few years is not just a passing fashion. It is here to stay, right in the centre of everything we do. But, of course, if you do an audit -- if you honestly measure what you do -- you expose gaps. You find out what you are not doing. That is why we have to see this report as a first step; something to measure ourselves against.

We all now need to build on this foundation. We all need to do more and to do it better. Because, Congress, there is still a long way to go to achieve equality for the working people of Britain. We represent, here today, some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged members of the workforce. They depend on us and there is so much more to do. Just take a few examples: the continuing scandal of the gender pay gap. Yes, over the past two years we have trained up a small army of trade union equal pay reps but now we have to make sure that they are using their skills and that they are getting employers to do equal pay audits; inflexible and long working hours. Now we have the right for working parents to request flexible working, it is now up to us to see that our members know about it, use it and get redress if the employer does not take it seriously.

The poisonous threat of the BNP. We have to mobilise to stop this evil making further inroads into our communities, particularly in next year's local and European elections. Then, there is the harassment and discrimination that is a daily reality for our disabled and LGBT members. We need to step up the campaigns and get better legal rights for these workers.

These are just a few examples among the many challenges we face and we will meet these challenges if we keep equality at the heart of everything we do so.

So I want to commend the equality audit to Congress and pledge the TUC's continuing commitment to promoting equal rights. But as we press forward on equality we look for Government to support us. There is no doubt that the people we represent have already benefited from having a Government that understands equality. Our Labour Government has put resources and time into promoting equality. They have expanded child care and helped parents pay for it. They have given new rights and benefits to working parents. They have promoted equal pay and they have helped us in the TUC train equal pay reps. They have introduced new equality laws, including bringing positive duties into the Race Relations Act.

All this and more we have warmly welcomed. But there is still unfairness, discrimination and injustice. Still we see the legions of low paid workers on insecure contracts with no benefits. Still we see women being sacked when they tell the boss they are pregnant. Still we see racial discrimination going unchecked in workplaces up and down Britain. Disabled workers unemployed; same sex partners treated unfairly in occupational pension schemes. All this and more we, in the unions, are tackling. But the Government can do more to back us up. They must get the sexual orientation regulations right. They must fulfil their promises to disabled workers. They must bring in compulsory equal pay audits and they must give us a new single Equality Act that gives all employers a positive duty to promote equality. And we need to be able to kick racists out of our organisations without landing up in court.

So when we come back in two years' time with our next equality audit, let us tell a better story. Let us be well on our way to our ultimate goal: equality for all our people. Thank you.

The President : Thank you, Kay. Before I go on to Composite Motion 4, I would just like to re-welcome another guest who, although she was welcomed last Monday morning, was not actually on the platform at the time. It is Kitty Roozemond, Vice-President of the FNV in the Netherlands, and I do so at this moment because Kitty has been particularly active both in her country and also at the European level on the issues which we are now discussing. Welcome, Kitty. (Applause)

Equal pay and maternity leave provisions .

The President : I now move Composite Motion 4, equal pay and maternity leave provisions, indicating the General Council's support for the composite motion.

Mary Turner (GMB) moved the following composite motion

(Insert composite Motion 4 - Equal pay and maternity leave provisions)

She said: : President, yesterday we heard from Gordon Brown. He did not say much about equal pay. Although he could have claimed more credit for some small but significant steps that the Government is taking towards creating a more equal society; like better maternity pay and longer paid maternity leave.

But on equal pay the sad truth is that we are not making even a snail's pace progress towards closing the gender gap. Full-time women workers earn an average of 19 per cent less than men who work full-time, and the gap is even wider among part-time women workers. To adopt the Grecian Peter's phrase, "It's a mile wide ditch that the doctors just can't stitch" -- especially the spin doctors.

Gordon Brown's favourite person is Prudence. He has been talking about her since before he became Chancellor. Prudence has an older sister -- a much older sister -- whose name is Patience! For decades women have pushed for action on equal pay and been told, "Patience, child. Patience. Your time will come. We want what you want. Just wait for the Equal Pay Act to take full effect".

Thirty years later and where are we? Still where we were!. We have not got justice and justice is what we want. It is time to take the waiting out of wanting as far as closing the gender pay gap is concerned. There is plenty that unions can do to push equal pay higher up their bargaining agenda, but ultimately unions cannot substitute for vigorous action by Government and that is what we are lacking in Britain today.

Unions must campaign for compulsory pay audits. Fewer than one in five employers are conducting pay reviews. The GMB Birmingham Region wrote to 80 employers encouraging them to conduct a pay review, and none of them would agree. That is the reality of life in Digby Jones' old stomping ground. That is how the CBI members really treat their staff. They say in their adverts and their letterheads that they are an equal opportunities employer. Most of them would not know an equal opportunity if they fell over it or it lifted itself up and bit their arse! They may need their behinds kicked.

We do not need lectures from Digby Jones. Digby, look in your own backyard first before you come here and tell us how we should conduct ourselves. Some local authorities are no better. Liberal controlled Islington last week decided to privatise, for 25 years, the residential homes. Seventy women -- our members -- are going to lose their pension rights because the Liberal Council said, "No, you are not staying in your local pension fund". That is the girl, Sarah Tether, who is going to be standing for the Brent East seat next week. I hope my members out there who are going to vote will not be conned because we are opposed to privatisation.

The sell-off of public services has contributed to unequal pay for our members. That is why we are not going to wait much longer for the two-tier workforce legislation because Patience, Tony, is getting a little angry about the waiting. We are not going to wait another 30 years.

We must press the Government to make pay reviews compulsory. The GMB has drawn up a petition to this effect. We call it the "I've had enough of not having enough" campaign. Plenty of people have signed already, members and non-members alike. You can sign it by visiting our stall -- stand 73. By signing the Equal Pay Petition this week members can celebrate the formation, 100 years ago, of the unions of women's suffrage.

Unions must also lobby for fair pay and compliance measures -- two of the most successful mechanisms in raising women's pay -- with the fair wages motion obliging public project contractors to pay fair pay and schedule 11 obliging employers to observe the proper pay for the district. We should share information. Employers who refuse to carry this out should be named and shamed.

Colleagues, I will leave you with this. We, in this hall, must unite and not divide. If we unite, we will win. We do not need to wait for employers to go kicking and screaming. We must look at the part-time working conditions, qualification for benefits, access to bonuses and overtime shift and I am telling the employers out there: Beware because the GMB and Patience are about. Thank you.

Joanna Brown (Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists) in supporting the composite motion said: President, I want to specifically on point 9 in the composite about maternity pay.

John Monks and, indeed, Gordon Brown, have pointed out this week that the Government does have a very good record on equal opportunities and family friendly policies. Paternity leave and paternity pay have been introduced, there are new rights for flexible working and dealing with domestic emergencies and maternity pay and maternity leave have been vastly improved. The improvements in maternity leave and maternity pay are particularly welcome, giving women the right to a longer period of maternity leave as well as better rights to maternity pay.

Unfortunately, the Government have not taken into account the effect of the longer period of maternity leave upon the reference period for calculating maternity pay. As a result, thousands of women who exercised the right to take 12 months maternity leave are effectively stripped of their right to maternity pay if they become pregnant again in the maternity leave period. I hope you are with me so far, because this is a bit complicated. But, trying to put it simply, the reference period for computing a woman's right to maternity pay is a period that ends 14 weeks before childbirth. For women who exercise their statutory right to take 12 months' maternity leave, the first 26 weeks are paid, the next 26 weeks are unpaid. This means that, for women who become pregnant again shortly after the birth of a child, the reference period for calculating the amount of their maternity pay falls within the period of their unpaid maternity leave. That means -- earning nothing in the reference period means -- that there can be no maternity pay in relation to the second pregnancy.

The majority of members of the society are women. Many of them are young women and, in the last year, we have had to deal with several cases where members have been denied maternity pay because of this technical flaw. We do not believe it was the intention of the Government to deprive women of their right to maternity pay in relation to a second pregnancy in this way. If the problem is relatively simply, we think the solution is as well. The Maternity Pay Regulations and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act need to be amended so that the reference period for calculating maternity pay does not include any period where a woman's earnings are adversely affected by taking maternity leave. Please support the composite.

Sue Jarvis (The union of choice for senior managers and professionals in public service) in seconding the composite motion, said: President and fellow delegates, the FDA is pleased to support the call to the Government to make pay reviews compulsory. It has done so already for its own employees. In 2001 the Government declared that it was "committed to taking the lead in addressing the pay gap" and instructed all departments and agencies to review their pay systems, measure gender inequality and prepare action plans by April this year. Many departments were slow to act and, when they did, many found that their pay and personnel data were inadequate.

Finally, pay reviews have been completed in organisations covering 98 per cent of the civil serve. That is almost half a million employees. These reviews revealed on average a gender pay gap of 5 per cent in favour of men. They suggested a number of reasons, including historical pay advantages for men, allowances for what are regarded as "special skills" in jobs predominantly done by men and the effect of career breaks on women raising families.

So we do congratulate the Government on pushing through these reviews for its own employees and for its commitment to reduce the unacceptable pay gap revealed. But we want more. We want pay reviews in the civil service to be repeated at regular intervals. We want pay reviews to go wider than gender and include ethnicity and disability. We want the Government to fund the steps necessary to remedy the pay gaps revealed by the reviews and we want the Government to move beyond putting its own house in order and insist that all employers do the same. As Mary said, the first step in driving a pay review wedge into the national gender pay gap would be to require all companies on Government contracts to undertake equality pay audits.

The Government gives well over pounds 13 billion a year to private companies under contract and it would be simple to require good employment practice including equality pay reviews as a condition of those contracts.

We have been told, in the context of the pay reviews in the civil service, that it is Government policy to ensure that pay and conditions of service are fair and free from any form of gender bias. We must press the Government to put some muscle behind those words. Please support the composite motion.

Sevi Yesildalli (Public and Commercial Services Union) speaking in support of the composite, said: Over the last 18 months PCS reps and officers have been closely involved in the equal pay reviews in many organisations. What has become clear during this time is that, even in an organisation where there is an obligation to carry out a review, a history of equal opportunities policies and a fairly open pay system, there is often still a great reluctance to conduct an equal pay review. Sometimes this is because of complacency, 'We have always had equal pay.' Sometimes there is a concern that expectations will be raised. Sometimes it is fear of what might be revealed, and often, once the commitment has been made, the inadequacy of the data and the need for better equal pay skills slows the process down. Despite having had plenty of warning of the deadline for their completed action plans, many government organisations had still not submitted their reports to the Cabinet Office by April 2003.

What has been revealed by the reviews carried out is that there is a common structural problem across the whole Civil Service where women and part-time workers are concentrated in lower grades. There are also inadvertent barriers to progression and there is a need to look at pay in relation to worklife balance options, and their effects. The continuing gender pay gap appears to be a result mainly of inherited progression systems, traditional gender segregation, and broad pay bands. The reviews in the Civil Service have also pointed out the need to improve the way in which data is collected, presented, and analysed, and he importance of extending reviews to include ethnicity and disability and the advantages of incorporating equality audits into the overall pay process.

The Government’s policy of delegating pay arrangements to departments and agencies has over the last ten years also resulted in pay differences arising from workers doing the same jobs in different government organisations. Differences have also been highlighted by the equal pay review data. PCS is campaigning for a return to national pay bargaining for the Civil Service. The recent judgment in the Robinson v Lewisham employment tribunal case, which ruled that the Crown is the same employer for equal pay purposes, has reinforced the opportunity for making equal pay challenges in government departments.

Union expertise and union pressure is essential for ensuring employers meet their obligations to the workforce. Equal pay is not an optional extra. The pay inequality between men and women is an issue for the whole Movement and is why PCS gives its active support to Composite 4. Please support.

Jan Shortt (Unison) speaking in support of the composite, said: Unison is pleased to support this composite but would like to concentrate on two specific points. These are about extending equal pay audits beyond gender and highlighting large groups of women who cannot access maternity pay. What we earn today impacts on the return we can expect when our working life is over so it is important that we take the opportunity now to ensure that equality at work is a reality for all our members.

Equal pay audits must include the issues of disability and ethnicity, not to do so is unthinkable and excludes huge numbers of our membership. Employers must be strongly advised to undertake equal pay audits that include all aspects and groups of their diverse employees. I wholeheartedly agree that these equal pay audits must become compulsory. Whilst we acknowledge the improvement in maternity rights, there are still large groups of women who get nothing at all. These women work part-time or term-time contracts. To access maternity pay we all know that certain conditions need to be met. For women who work part-time or term-time, this is often difficult to achieve. If you work term-time and your employer analyses your pay, you may not reach the National Insurance threshold, so no stamp, no pay. Other term-time workers may be paid at a higher rate but then do not get holiday pay for six weeks of the year. Unless this period is credited to the National Insurance stamps, then once again it affects the level of maternity pay. Women who work part-time earning less than the National Insurance threshold are in exactly the same situation.

Congress, if we as trade unionists truly believe in eliminating child and family poverty we must continue the campaign for improving access to such benefits. This week we have listened to motions on pensions, the minimum wage, and fairness at work. All of them have been about improving working life and sustaining quality of life in retirement. Gordon Brown yesterday gave a pledge of making sure pension poverty comes to an end. He also pledged to implement equal pay sooner rather than later. I would ask the General Council today to make sure he keeps those pledges.

Yes, we have had the Equal Pay Act for more than 30 years but my name is not patience, I ran out of it a long time ago. Women deserve justice and a fair rate of pay for jobs well done, as do all our members. Support Composite 4 but more than that, go away from Brighton and do it. Thank you.

Rachael Maskell (Amicus) speaking in support of Composite Motion 4, said: President, Congress, yet another generation of women have passed through their employments since we have had the Equal Pay Act without ever getting equal pay. As unions we all know how the pay divide between men and women is still one of our greatest injustices causing hardship to women now, and pensioner poverty. Amicus has vigorously campaigned to challenge employers to undertake equal pay reviews. We have trained our reps and we have had our successes. However, discrimination in pay continues so we will continue to build our campaigns not only on grounds of sex but we must make the case against all forms of discrimination. Why, because over the last 30 years, since we have had the Equal Pay Act covering sex discrimination on pay, race, age, and disability discrimination have also become entrenched.

The figure comparing earnings along the lines of race are most startling. Black and minority ethnic workers are paid 20 per cent less than their white counterparts. Black and minority ethnic women earn a further 20 per cent less than black men. Worse again, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women take home 56 per cent less than white men doing their job. In a telephone poll of a large sector of Amicus it was demonstrated that pay systems are closed, not open and transparent, which we probably knew, but most importantly many workers were given the understanding, or told directly, that they were not to discuss their pay, and often received threats. With 75 per cent of black and ethnic minority workers being in the latter category, the culture of fear being built creates yet another barrier to achieving equal pay. The sex discrimination in pay systems cannot be singled out; all pay discrimination must go, but it does not stop there. Black and ethnic minority employees face double discrimination, the lack of training, promotion, and access to discretionary pay awards resulting in segregation in grading throughout the pay system. We only have to look at those in management grades to see the lack of diversity with black African and Caribbean women least likely to get their ability recognised.

Congress, we need to continue to push our employers to face up to and address the inequalities in their pay system. We need to continue to organise workers to seek justice in pay, to eradicate race, sex, and all forms of discrimination in what is a basic right. TUC, we need you to prioritise your resources to escalate this campaign and, Government, it is time we had the statutory powers to do our job, mandatory equal pay audits. We want appropriate equal pay legislation, we want equal pay and, most of all, we want equality for all. I support.

The President: Thank you very much, Rachael. There are no further speakers, no opposition, and no problem with the right of reply, Mary, I assume? (No reply) We move to the vote.

· The composite motion was CARRIED.

TUC Equality Audit and Report

Mary Davis (NATFHE) speaking to Paragraph 2.2, said: We wanted to raise a point about the TUC equality audit. Do not worry. It is not highly critical. It is because we regard it as so important that we think it should not go through this Congress without any comment whatsoever. It is an extremely welcome document. We understand it is ongoing. What I am going to say also is based on the understanding that the TUC cannot instruct anybody to do anything. However, we have to acknowledge that the response rate was very poor, only half of all affiliates actually replied. If the FBU could have replied to this during their dispute, I honestly think that all other affiliates who did not reply could have probably done so. I really do think that. I know you cannot make anybody do anything but somebody should say that from this platform.

The other worrying thing that I could note from this document is the employment practices of all affiliated trade unions and the TUC do mirror the racist and sexist practices and the anti-ageist practices that we see in society as a whole. We have owned up to it, although I must say it is very difficult to analyse the figures. From what I can see, and it is openly acknowledged, this is a problem that must be dealt with. We cannot go bargaining with employers when we do not put our house in order.

I also think it is worrying that there is very little race and gender monitoring of shop stewards and branch officers. We do need to know this and if we do not monitor we will not find out. What is our lay structure like; again, I know you cannot instruct unions to do this kind of monitoring but it would be very helpful indeed.

Finally, I think it is a shame that there are no recommendations, despite the paragraph. The paragraph does say that the report includes proposals to provide assistance to affiliated unions and I think it would be very useful if the TUC did more pushing in the right direction. If we are going to do this every two years, it is extremely important that this does not become a paper exercise and an audit trail, in other words, that all our gloss of equality is not really just hiding the fact that actually not an awful lot is being done. We can pass motions until the cows come home but this, I think, is a very very important initiative. It must be taken seriously by everybody and if it is not then it is not worth doing. It must not be a chore for people to do, it must be a regular part of every single trade union’s work, otherwise what we are seeing in this debate is meaningless; it is fur coat and no knickers. I tell you, if we do not do this properly, we should not do it at all

The President: Thank you very much, Mary. Pat Hawkes, and the TUC General Council lead on this issue, has indicated to me that they will be more than happy to take on the points that Mary has made.

I will now move to Composite 7, Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003, and indicate that the General Council will intervene David Lascelles to give an explanation of the attitude of the General Council.

Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003

Brian Shaw (Public and Commercial Services Union) moved Composite Motion 7 on behalf of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Conference.

(Insert Composite Motion 7, Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003)

He said: I am proud to be moving Composite 7. I think it is important, first of all, to welcome the new regulations on sexual orientation. They are long overdue and will for the first time offer lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers recourse to the law if they are harassed or discriminated against at work, a situation regrettably all too frequent, in my experience.

The campaign, however, to widen the remit of the regulations to include goods, services and social provisions needs to continue. Harassment and discrimination of lesbian, gay and bisexual workers does not stop the moment we leave the workplace. The Government has also refused to establish a sexuality commission to publicise, educate, and facilitate claims under the regulations. We will have to wait for a single equality body for that. The trade union Movement needs to be there to support lesbian, gay, and bisexual members to use the new regulations. It is an ideal opportunity to recruit new members.

This leads me to the regulations, or 7.3 on religious belief in particular. This regulation will allow religious organisations to continue to sack lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers because of their sexuality or, indeed, perceived sexuality. Tony Blair inserted this at the last minute following a meeting with church leaders. Religious bigotry lives on. The Select Committee with responsibility for reviewing EU regulations was right to point out that regulation 7.3 is outside the remit of Parliament to pass. Lord Lester QC, spoke in the Lords’ debate and placed his legal reputation on the line stating that regulation 7.3 is outside the European directive. Let us prove him right. On pensions, again legal opinion has been received that the allowance of discrimination on the grounds of marriage is outwith the EU directive. I love my partner and I should have the right to live free from discrimination and harassment, and that must include the right to ensure that I can leave him financially secure through a survivor pension should I die before him. I see that as a basic human right. No, to the Government: civil partnership is not the answer that will satisfy the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community.

There has been much in the media on the so-called TUC 'awkward squad' not upsetting the Government. On this, we have no option. We have to say loud and clear to the Government, you are wrong on regulation 7.3 and you are wrong on the exemptions on pensions. If that upsets the Government, I say, tough. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community feels betrayed and angry by the Government’s actions. We have to launch legal challenges as a matter of urgency, led by the TUC and underpinned by money from every affiliate.

Brendan Barber said on Monday, equality is the number one priority. Let us see the General Council and the trade union Movement put their money where their mouth is. To do anything less will be a betrayal of every lesbian, gay, and bisexual trade unionist. Support the motion but more importantly go back to your unions, get behind the legal challenge and, just as importantly, train your reps as PCS does and educate your members on the positive parts of the regulations. I move.

Steve Wharton (Association of University Teachers) in seconding Composite 7, said: President, Congress, Brian has been very eloquent in covering the main concerns that we all have but I would just like to go back very briefly to section 7.3. Yes, it was introduced after lobbying by the Church of England but I think it is important that Congress know that that was essentially after the consultation period had closed. It was not just a case of informing and consulting, it was a case of going behind people’s backs.

This provides a get-out clause for religious organisations, especially right-wing evangelical groups. We know that they have something to fear because they undertook a particular campaign of disinformation claiming that the regulations would oblige them to employ LGBT people against their will. This is complete and utter nonsense. Instead, as we have already heard, the proposed exemption will enable those organisations to sack employees with impunity if they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, or if they are perceived to be. Because they are regulations and they are not enacted through primary legislation, there will be no guidelines or codes of practice to advise employment tribunals. We can imagine what is going to happen there.

President, Congress, all being well today is the day that sees the repeal of that hateful piece of Tory legislation known as section 28 of the Local Government Act, an Act which has for so long contributed to homophobia by talking about the promotion of homosexuality and pretend family relationships. Congress, to allow the bile and prejudice of the nature of section 28 to remain through the exemption provided by clause 7.3 does not provide equality, it allows bigotry and prejudice to remain and to flourish. Any legislation or regulation proposing proper protection and inclusiveness for the LGBT members of our society must not contain exemption clauses. Any that does must be challenged, campaigned against, and those clauses must be removed. I second the motion.

David Lascelles (General Council), Chair of the TUC LGBT Committee and speaking on behalf of the General Council, said: The General Council supports this composite. However, the General Council wants to give a brief explanation on one aspect of the motion, that is, the suggestion that if the Government does not alter the regulations the General Council should mount a judicial review.

There are two issues here both concerning the question of whether the Government has legally transposed the EU Employment Framework Directive: on the one hand, in the exemption, in the sexual orientation regulations for religious organisations, and on the other the question of whether the directive permits occupational pension schemes to exclude survivors' benefits to unmarried partners. This is particularly an issue for public sector pension schemes. The legal issues are not clear-cut, though we understand that at least two unions have sought legal advice on both of these matters and are considering mounting legal challenges. The matter is being considered also, we understand, by voluntary organisations.

In all of these circumstances, the General Council believes that the best way forward would be for the TUC to play a coordinating role rather than mounting a separate legal action. I can tell you that from an earlier discussion with the head of the department, Sarah Veal, there is likely to be as part of that coordinating role a letter going out to all General Secretaries for a meeting to be held on 22^nd September at Congress House on just this subject. In this context, the General Council note that any judicial review has the potential for appeals and referral to the European Court of Justice and that if unsuccessful would involve paying the Government’s costs. This would amount to a considerable sum. Having given that explanation, the General Council would urge you to support this motion. Thank you.

Bev Miller (Unison) speaking in support of Composite 7, said: It has never been right to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. That is why this new legislation is a welcome addition to the anti-discriminatory regulations that already exist. For the first time lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, will be given protection against the discrimination and harassment they have faced because of their sexual orientation. It has been a long time coming and is long overdue. The regulations will fundamentally change the current law. They cover all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, transfers, training, dismissals and discrimination by trade unions and professional bodies. Employers will be liable for acts of discrimination carried out by their employees, and the grounds may be perceived or actual. For example, if harassment occurs because of having a lesbian daughter, the regulations will be enforced through employment tribunals, county or sheriff courts for vocational training to question their procedure, and in addition to this the burden of proof will be on the employer. This means the employer has to prove they did not discriminate rather than the worker having to prove that they were discriminated against.

Unfortunately, there is no specific body such as the CRE to enforce these regulations so the unions have an important part to play in publicising these regulations and organising members to know their rights. Clearly, this legislation can only be effective if members are aware it exists. All representatives need training so that they are able confidently and competently to recognise and challenge discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. No one should go to work knowing they are going to be harassed or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This regulation seeks to address this issue and is generally comprehensive in the areas it covers, and the protection it offers to LGB members.

Part of the reason we are here and why we have joined our various trade unions, is to fight for equality for all workers. The rights of one worker should not infringe the rights of another. Regulation 7.3, if it remains part of the sexual orientation regulations, will allow religious establishments to discriminate against LGB workers. We must fight against the inequality of this exemption and we will do this whether it is by asking for better laws or clarification of existing regulations, and proper enforcement of them. As unions we must work together if we are going to achieve equality in the workplace. Let us continue to support and promote the equal rights of all our members and show we are not in favour of discrimination on any grounds. There cannot be any circumstance where this would be acceptable. Please support the composite and your LGB members who are finally going to have the protection they need against discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Tim Lucas (National Union of Teachers) speaking in support of Composite 7, said: President, Congress, we also welcome such progress as the employment regulations offer. However, as you have heard, there are some big reservations. Different governments have adopted a number of mechanisms in order to implement the European Employment Directive and incorporate its requirements into their own domestic law. Some have simply written its text directly into their legal code. The National Union of Teachers, along with many other unions, and the TUC LGBT Committee, believe that the way our government has sought to implement the directive, quite apart from missing the opportunity to go further than its requirements and extend protection to the provision of goods and services, is deficient and defective. The religious exemption clause goes well beyond anything reasonable and, given the number of LGB workers in faith schools (there are 100,000 people in all who work in them and who are potentially at risk of even greater discrimination than hitherto) we believe the regulations must be challenged by means of judicial review.

In their evidence to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of both Houses of Parliament, senior civil servants from the DTI, including their legal advisers, pointedly refused to support ministerial assurances that the exemption was narrowly focused. They said that they did not know how the employment tribunals and the courts would interpret the regulations as written. The Joint Committee warned the Government that the regulations might be ultra vires; to you and me, well out of order. In response the Government simply pushed them through.

Congress, faith schools are almost entirely funded through taxation, taxes which we all pay. We should be able to expect nothing less than equality in every aspect of the employment of teachers and support staff in these schools, like all other schools. The NUT has therefore taken steps to seek a judicial review of the regulations and that will be pursued vigorously.

Congress, LGBT rights at work are part of the domestic agenda to which the Prime Minister is supposed to be returning. It is certainly part of my domestic agenda. It would therefore be much better for the Government to think again. Instead of repeating the 'too little too late' history of legislation on other equalities issues, it should do as much as it can to progress the equalities agenda and not as little as it thinks it can get away with. However, I will not hold my breath. Personally, I do not want to be voting in the next general election for the least worst next government on offer but rather one that is enthusiastically delivering on these issues.

President, I have cut my speech. If you read this book, and I hope I can advertise it, the conclusion in Chapter 3 will tell you all you need to know. We welcome the composite and believe it will give the General Council a good framework to progress this vital issue of LGB equality. Please support the composite.

Maria Exall (Communication Workers’ Union) speaking in support of Composite 7, said: Congress, here in this hall sometimes we talk of equality as if it is a given but the reality in our workplaces is different. Recent surveys done by Stonewall and not least the TUC back in 2000, have proved lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees need the new rights that are coming in with the sexual orientation legislation. We know, though, as trade unionists that we cannot depend on employers to deliver equality at work. They take up equality issues and then they drop equality issues. Their agenda is very different from ours. Too often, they actually use issues of equality as a stick to beat members with at times of redundancy and, as we know, during disputes. I cannot resist having a little dig at Digby. Equality has been touted as one of those areas, those ideas, where there is more that unites us than divides us, but this has proved false every time employers complain of red tape when a new right at work is proposed. There can be no partnership on the equality agenda when our human rights are perceived as burdens on business. We cannot rely on employers to deliver the new rights under the sexual orientation regulations. It is up to us, those of us here, trade unionists, to make the new rights work. We welcome references in the composite to regional briefings for trade union officials but that is just the start. When our lesbian, gay, bisexual members know their rights, when trade union officers and organisers know the law, we can reach out to the many lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees who are unorganised in our movement.

Congress, we should be celebrating the new legislation but we are not quite celebrating. Getting employment rights, yes, that is brilliant but what about the rights to goods and services, and why are pensions excluded. It is a massive injustice, especially in the public sector. Then, of course, why are there religious exemptions; it is not so much that the Government listened to lobbying from the churches, it is the fact that they only seem to be listening to the most reactionary forces in the churches.

Congress, it is great the TUC is prepared to coordinate the judicial review of the regulations, the judicial review that has been brought in by individual affiliates, but it is very important that the whole movement is seen as being behind that review; an injury to one is an injury to all. Congress, new legislation will benefit not only lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers but it will also benefit all workers in workplaces that are more tolerant and fair. We need to be making this point very firmly. Diversity is what makes unity real and whole, and unity is strength. Congress, we support.

Stewart Brown (Fire Brigades’ Union) speaking in support of the composite, said: After years and years of campaigning, lobbying, fighting for rights that are justifiably ours over issues that have cost basic -- and I emphasise, basic -- human rights and essentially basic employment rights, we have now reached a possible pinnacle in that fight as we see the new regulations come into force, at the very last opportunity to the UK government as they could have implemented them earlier. Statutory protection in employment for lesbian and gay people sounds like discrimination on these grounds will come to a halt. I have enormous doubts and I am sure you will, too; doubts because we do not seem to be getting the message through to this Labour government. Are they really listening to us? Why can the churches manage to persuade government ministers that the regulations should be watered down? The power of the churches is mighty but the power of the worker is mightier. So here we have the first doubt, the one that gives religious organisations the power to continue to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, and the power for the church to continue in its theme of disgusting timeless bigotry. They continue to highlight themselves in all faiths as being fathers of discrimination. Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transsexuals in this country now outnumber the diminishing number of worshippers across all faiths and their fight to gain equal rights and fairness will prevail.

My second and most worrying doubt is critical within the public sector, that is the issue of the pensions exemption in the regulations. We in the Fire Brigades’ Union only four months ago settled one of the most bitter disputes in the history of our movement ending in a reasonable deal. What we did not bargain for, as has already been stated, was the continued onslaught by a so-called Labour government who are hiding behind job cuts, a massive overhaul of the highest performing public service and they call it modernisation. We have fought for many years in the FBU through organisations like the TUC and Stonewall to end discrimination in public sector schemes. Less than one third of public sector schemes recognise unmarried partners yet over 90 per cent of private sector schemes do. Ministers also last year changed their schemes to recognise married partners. Fairness? I think not. It is time we embraced the new regulations and the Fire Brigades’ Union will embrace them also. There are a number of exemptions. The TUC must embrace the changes, and we will, too. We must stop this discrimination and we must stop this drip-drip effect in terms of giving us a little bit of equality at a time. We have campaigned long and hard and deserve to be treated with respect. Please support Composite 7. Thank you.

The President: Thank you very much, Stewart. I cannot take any more speakers. No problem with right of reply, I assume? (No reply) I will move to the vote.

· The composite motion was CARRIED.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Right

Lesley Mansell (Amicus) speaking to paragraph 2.6, said: President, Congress, on paragraph 2.6 there are three items, but I would like especially to acknowledge the work of the equalities team. What you see in these few paragraphs is just the tip of the iceberg. Kay, Peter Peart, and all the rest of the members of the team, you were brilliant. They are always willing to help, and they are always busy. Could I just say a special, thank you, to Keith Faulkner. I asked him for a rainbow and he has produced one. Is it not gorgeous ?

We also had a lot of commitment from the General Secretaries. Ed Sweeney at the start was our first committee chair, and Pat Hawkes, and more recently Mick Rix, who has done some sterling work on Protocol 12, not forgetting my own General Secretary, Roger Lyons, who supported us for a long long time, and thanks also to our other General Secretary, Derek Simpson, who is also supporting our issues, and this time he is not joking.

I would like just to pick up on section 28 because back in 1988 I seemed to be on the streets every day campaigning against it, along with thousands of others. It really did help politicise our community. If it had not been for your support, we would not have got rid of it. It has taken a long time, and the work starts now.

Also, on trans issues Amicus has led a campaign to include trans people in the work that we do, and we welcome the new legislation. In Bristol there is a large well-known manufacturing company that has at least five trans people. They are just the ones we know about. They have huge issues regarding people when they come out and how they deal with it. Amicus is looking to put together something on the new regulations, and also some good practice around that that you can all have a look at.

The last thing I wanted to pick up on are the new regulations themselves. They really really are important. Congress, how would you feel if your sexuality was regarded as suspect or told that you can only have a job if you do not have sex. What about if we applied that criteria to general secretaries of the trade union Movement? How would we police it? Is it appropriate? Would it be acceptable? Of course not. We spent a long time campaigning on this. Amicus has been in the forefront but you are there with us. I encourage you to send more of your members along to the annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Conference. To the unions that have not been before, do try and send delegates. Keep up your support. Thanks for everything.

The President: Thank you, Leslie. I think I would have retired years ago if that was the case. Paragraph 2.6 is agreed. I now call Motion 26, Employment for Disabled People, indicating the General Council support the motion.

Employment for Disabled People

Phil Davies (GMB) moved Motion 26 on behalf of the TUC Disability Conference.

(Insert Motion 26, Employment for Disabled People)

He said: Could I pay special tribute to the TUC for all the work that they do for disabled workers and their families throughout the UK, with special thanks to the TUC Disability Forum.

Congress, there are well over 6.9 million disabled people of working age in the UK but only around 3 million are in paid employment; 2.7 million are on state benefits and the Government claimed that up to one million disabled people on benefits want to work. Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed. Three out of four blind people from 85,000 are not in any paid employment and rely on state benefits and poverty. The Government has forgotten all about these people. Every single person attending this Congress can acquire a disability through illness, or accidents at work. Accidents at work not only cost money but they destroy whole families. Around 700,000 workers each year become disabled and do not work again.

Colleagues, disabled people are discriminated against in employment. Two few employers are prepared to look at the ability of the disabled people. We are not yet in a position in the UK where employers welcome with open arms disabled people into the workforce. We therefore need a well-funded, well-organised, supported employment programme, and well-paid and decent jobs through a supported employment programme should be the right for those disabled people to choose. Only 23,000 people are employed on the Government’s Work Step programme and many of these jobs are low-paid and unskilled. The cost of running the Work Step programme is less than £200 million a year, the cost of around four cruise missiles. It is only those working in supported factories under that scheme, and members of trade unions, who have decent pay and conditions, and they are the only ones who really benefit from the scheme.

We want to see an increase of choice for disabled people to enable more disabled people to enter the Work Step programme. We want to see all job centre frontline staff undergo disability training and any disabled person moving from incapacity benefits to job seeker’s allowance should be entitled to a place within the Work Step programme. We want to see more investment in supported employment factories.

Congress, some of us remember in February 2000, with your help, we stopped the closure of 17 Remploy factories. Since then we have seen a change of directors, higher paid, with the fat cats getting even fatter. I have to say these directors are less effective when it comes to employing disabled people. The changes in Remploy have not been for the better. The choice of entering a Remploy factory under a Work Step programme is now being taken away from disabled people. We now have less disabled people in the factory employ than we did in February 2000. The GMB and the other Remploy unions will be campaigning to give back the choice to disabled people.

Congress, this is the European year of people with disabilities who have the right to a decent job, have a right to join trade unions, and we demand more government help to enable that to happen. This can best be achieved by expansion of the Work Step programme. We must make our Labour government increase the number of disabled people in work, in decent employment, and stop discrimination in the workplace. Congress, I ask you to support overwhelmingly Motion 26.

Joe Mann (ISTC, The Community Union) in seconding the motion, said: It is significant that the Disability Conference now attaches such a high priority to employment issues that this resolution has emerged as the most important in the disability world at this time, and rightfully so. The Government also places high priority on employment and has put in place many positive mechanisms to enable disabled people to become economically active and play a contributory role within our communities. The New Deal, Access to Work, and a supported employment programme are genuine mechanisms to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, it is not all good news; far from it. Disabled people are still two-and-a-half times as likely to be unemployed as non disabled people, a statistic that stubbornly refuses to change in a world where employers still cannot be persuaded of the benefits of offering jobs to disabled people. When good jobs exist it is hardly surprising that disabled people and their unions will campaign vociferously to maintain them.

This has been the situation for years now within the supportive employment programme where major changes have been implemented and the programme becomes known as Work Step. Much of the intention of the programme is positive, new training and development opportunities to give disabled people the skills they need, and also help in job search. The difficulties we are finding is that the funding changes have coincided with many employers making the decision to cut jobs. Many of the women here will know Ann Babb, our blind branch secretary at the General Welfare of the Blind factory in London, who has spoken at the Women’s Conference now for about ten consecutive years. Ann loves her union. Ann loves her job in the factory but Islington Council has suddenly announced they are cutting funding to 15 of the 70 jobs there, which are now under threat. Ann and the members are campaigning to save their jobs and we are giving them everything they need in support of their campaign. They deserve your support.

That is just one example of a plethora of problems and job threats we currently face. You would have thought that severely disabled people had enough to cope with without this constant threat to their jobs in factories they have told us they want to keep. The programme is for 22,000 places only. It needs to be expanded, and where disabled people clearly express a choice to work in the manufacturing industry, in factories where they make a huge range of high-quality products, then that choice should be respected and supported by their union, the Disability Conference, and this Congress. Our disabled members only have their unions. This Congress has always supported them. We have never let them down and we never will. Thank you.

Iain Montgomery (Unison) speaking in support of the motion, said: The motion states that the move over the last six years to move disabled people out of supported employment has failed. If they had only been trying for six years that would certainly be a failure but my father was placed in a sheltered workshop in 1953 and even then what he experienced was not training for employment, it was just therapy. In too many cases this is still happening.

We have on the platform today a General Council member, Mark Fysh, who was sacked by a sheltered workshop. Why was he sacked? He was working too fast for the production line. He was too good. In 20-odd years of trade unionism I do not ever remember having to defend a member from that kind of accusation; perhaps Amicus has but I doubt it. If the Work Step programme has failed, we should not be calling for more of the same. With current resources, or increased resources, we have to ensure that Work Step achieves what is really required. Supported employment should create opportunities for our trade union colleagues to move to mainstream employment, employment which is skilled and pays the rate for the job.

For too long disabled people have been marginalized, marginalized in workshops, some of which pay £1 an hour to stuff airline tickets into envelopes, marginalized in workshops where we can be told that members have been in the one workshop, in the one job, for 30 or 40 years, marginalized in recruitment where employers will not shortlist them because they cannot provide the support required at an interview, marginalized in recruitment where too many employers think disabled is the same thing as less able, marginalized in workplaces where we are called health and safety hazards and separated from non disabled colleagues, and marginalized in workplaces where reasonable adjustments are seen as perks or as an additional expense, just an inconvenience. I can be bloody inconvenient if it suits me.

Support this motion by signing the petition on the bill of rights, which you will find on your tables, campaigning as trade unionists for potential and current trade unionists for real jobs with real wages. Thank you.

Sue Jarvis (FDA, the union of choice for senior managers and professionals in public service) speaking in support of the motion, said: I spoke earlier this afternoon about our experience in the Civil Service of recent pay reviews to expose the failure to deliver equal pay to women, but compared with our disabled colleagues women in the workforce are very fortunate. We will go on fighting to get women through the glass ceiling but for the disabled that ceiling is almost at floor level. If we are to make progress in securing the equal rights of disabled people in employment, we need to know more about how many disabled workers there are and how they are treated by employers’ pay systems.

In the pay reviews undertaken in the Civil Service, which concluded this year, factors other than gender were not compulsory. Some departments and agencies also looked at ethnicity and disability but many did not. Of those employers who did look at disability, few were willing to disclose their results. It was claimed that attempts to discover accurate numbers of disabled employees were undermined by low response rates and that reported numbers were too low to be statistically significant. We do not accept those excuses, and the FDA will continue to press for Civil Service pay reviews to incorporate disability as well as gender.

It is not necessary to ask complex questions about the nature or severity of disability in order to examine pay inequalities. Doing so only deters disabled staff from responding as they struggle to classify their own condition into one of the proffered tick boxes. Only one question is necessary: Do you consider yourself to have a disability? If surveys do reveal low numbers of disabled employees we cannot accept that a weakness in statistical significance absolves the employer from examining differences in pay levels. That is like an employer saying, 'Because my recruitment and employment policies tend to exclude disabled people, I cannot be bothered to look at whether my pay system also discriminates against those disabled staff I do have. Of those employers who did look at disability, few were willing to disclose their results. It was claimed that attempts to discover accurate numbers of disabled employees were undermined by low response rates and that reported numbers were too low to be statistically significant. We do not accept those excuses, and the FDA will continue to press for Civil Service pay reviews to incorporate disability as well as gender.

It is not necessary to ask complex questions about the nature or severity of disability in order to examine pay inequalities. Doing so only deters disabled staff from responding as they struggle to classify their own condition into one of the proffered tick boxes. Only one question is necessary: Do you consider yourself to have a disability? If surveys do reveal low numbers of disabled employees we cannot accept that a weakness in statistical significance absolves the employer from examining differences in pay levels. That is like an employer saying, 'Because my recruitment and employment policies tend to exclude disabled people, I cannot be bothered to look at whether my pay system also discriminates against those disabled staff I do have.

It is not surprising that in areas of the Civil Service where we do have reliable data there seem to be extremely significant differences in pay on the basis of disability.

Congress, disabled workers are not 'other people'. Disability can happen to any of us at any time. As our employers adopt the 'work till you drop' mentality, more and more of our members will suffer from stress-related physical and mental conditions.

The Campaign for Equality Pay Reviews, supported by Congress in passing Composite Motion 4, can also support the campaign for a better deal for disabled employees if we fight to have disability included in those reviews as well as gender. Please support.

Richard Rieser (National Union of Teachers) speaking in support of the motion, said: Colleagues, I want to concentrate particularly on the general employment issues and the directive to 'those employed by councils', which is a fairly general term - I think it means local authorities - actually to do more to improve the employment of disabled people.

The mover of the motion told you that there are 6.95 million disabled people in the potential workforce. I want you to think about that for a minute. That is 18% of the potential workforce in this country, but 50% of them are not working. 50%! If we had a situation of 50% of the entire workforce not working, we would think it was a major issue. Because they are disabled, it is seen that that is okay. Well, it is not okay. What we are talking about here is a three tier workforce. We have heard a lot about the two-tier workforce. But beneath the second level of the exploited, mainly women groups, is a third tier who do not even get into the workforce. What this motion is about is to get all of you in your unions to really start taking this issue seriously. It applies, as it is written, in the last paragraph, to councils, but the first paragraph applies to everybody. It is not good enough to retain those who are there. Many of the workers who are there will not come out about their impairment. They will not say, 'I am a disabled person' unless we create a culture in every workplace where it is okay to be a disabled person and you have the protection of your trade union and your employer recognises your right to be there, to be promoted, to be trained and not to do the lowly paid jobs.

There is no reason why disabled people cannot go through the system and be promoted in exactly the same way as everybody else.

Amongst those 50% who are not working, I can give you a couple of other statistics. Only 17% of those who have had a major bout of mental health issues in their working life go back to work. Only 17%! Listen to me. One in four of us has a major bout of mental health, so we are not doing very well by our colleagues there, are we? Another one involves mainly people who never got to work in the first place, and it is those with learning difficulties. Only 13% of those adults with learning difficulties in this country are working. That means that 87% of adults with learning difficulties are not working. That is a disgrace! It is not about their impairment, just as it is not with any other disabled person. It is about the attitudes of society. It is about the barriers in practice, policies and procedures, and it is about the environments that we work in. We all have to develop audit tools as part of our trade union armoury to make sure that in every workplace disability equality becomes a right, not a privilege. I am not interested in patronising privileges. Anyway, 22,000 are in Workstep. Even if we doubled it, it is not going to deal with the problem. It is about everybody’s workplace, and that is how we have got to work for disability equality.

· The Motion was CARRIED.

The President: Colleagues, before moving to the next debate, I would like to draw your attention to a survey on trade unionists which is contained in the Congress wallets. The survey is part of a project that the TUC has been working on with the Department for International Development. So, please, spare five minutes of your time to complete and return the survey to either the TUC stall, the registration desk or the DFID stand.

International

General Council Statement on Middle East

Roger Lyons (General Council) in leading in on Chapter 6 of the General Council’s Report, said: Congress, the situation in the Middle East and, in particular, the war in Iraq has dominated the General Council’s international work this year. Last year set down the markers. An over-arching concern was the need for the international community to maintain a united stand. After the unanimous resolution adopted by the Security Council 1441 last November, we had high hopes. The General Council pressed these arguments repeatedly with the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister and they agreed with us.

John Monks and President John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO raised the issues with Tony Blair and President Bush. I must here pay tribute to our American colleagues for taking a principled stand in the face of a reaction that sometimes seemed reminiscent of the McCarthy period. As we all know, in the end the best diplomats the world can offer failed dismally and catastrophically. There is quite a wide spectrum of views represented in the General Council, but they have taken a united position following their numerous discussions during the year. The debates were lengthy, detailed and serious. There was give and take. The issues deserved nothing less. In that spirit, the General Council agreed their Statement of 19^th March. Today, Congress, we support Composite Motion 18. This again recognises the primacy of the United Nations. It calls for moves through the world community that will enable the withdrawal of our forces and for the Iraqi people to determine their own future.

We need to look forward. There is practical work to be done to rebuild Iraq, not just from the consequences of the recent war but from the decades of State terrorism that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam.

However, to be able to conduct practical work the right conditions must prevail. That means, in particular, that the governance of Iraq needs to be conducted in line with international law and standards, including labour standards. The United Nations has become the punch bag. It is not only the UN as an institution but its officials, including Iraqis, who have paid the price with their lives. The killing of UN Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and many of his colleagues, including Iraqis, was a profound loss to the world community. The car bombing in Najaf, which left over 80 dead, including the spiritual leader Ayatollah Mohammad Baker Al-Hakim, was another atrocity committed by people who will stop at nothing to bring destabilisation and anarchy. They should not be allowed to succeed.

That is why talk of bringing back the troops just like that, without the maintenance of an international force, would be doing a great disservice to the Iraqi people. These outrages reinforce our view that the United Nations has an indispensable role to play in the reconstruction process. Even America hawks are coming round to the realisation that it is necessary to build peace so as to bring security. And that is much harder than prosecuting war. They are starting to look for an international input into Iraq.

The question, of course, is under what terms. The United Nations must be given a genuine role. Let us hope that that is the outcome of the meeting of the UN Permanent Members called by Kofi Annan for next Saturday.

For trade unions, of course, the key international institution is the International Labour Organisation - the only tripartite body in the UN system. It has the experience; it has the means and it has the will. All it needs is the opportunity. Yet from what is reported to us from inside Iraq, there is reluctance, not to say hostility, to the regulatory approach embodied in the ILO of tripartism and dialogue.

The US Authority in Baghdad seems intent on turning Iraq into a privatised union-free zone, a fertile field with rich pickings for the client corporations.

Paradoxically, by its refusal to help build independent unions, the Authority is allowing the old Ba’athist transmission belt organisation to maintain its formal position as representing Iraqi workers. This is quite an outcome, given that the former leader of this organisation ranked fifty-first in the famous American deck of cards!

The TUC is pressing the issues with the Government. We have assurances from Jack Straw that the Foreign Office will help us, as part of the international trade union Movement, to engage in fact-finding in Iraq. That will be the first step towards enabling Iraqi workers to set up and develop their own independent free and democratic organisations.

Congress, the situation in Iraq is not the only international issue about which the General Council has been concerned with during the year. In the time available, it is not possible to detail all our international work. There is the work on trade and labour standards; work on immigration issues and migration issues; and the practical work that we have been carrying out with our colleagues in our extensive international trade union network.

I would, however, briefly refer to some particular issues of concern. We have followed closely the situation in Israel and Palestine, which composite 18, which is supported by the General Council today, also covers. The objective, as the composite motion puts it, is to ensure a political settlement that establishes an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and a just and lasting peace throughout the region.

The General Council welcomed the publication of the Road Map to Peace, which is essentially a tool to bring that objective about, and ensure compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions, especially 242 and 338. This must be moved forward.

It is imperative that goodwill, as well as basic humanity, is shown by all sides to bring it back on course. For a start, all murders and assassinations must stop. The further bombings yesterday, leaving at least 16 people dead, is another tragic twist in the cycle of violence. To Nawaf Massalah from Histadrut, who is on the platform behind me, I would say that we grieve with you and your colleagues.

The General Council support the Histadrut in Israel and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions. Trade unions can help bridge what sometimes seems like intractable divisions. The TUC is soon to visit the area to discuss with the two federations how we can best help in a practical way.

Colombia remains the most dangerous place on earth to be a trade unionist. One hundred and eighty-four of our trade union colleagues were killed last year, and the murders continue week by week. The General Council has worked closely with the ICFTU and the Global Union Federations on the Colombia campaign. We have pressed strongly the Colombian authorities for an end to vilification of trade unionists by their government, which only serves to increase the likelihood of attacks by paramilitaries. There must be effective protection against these attacks. I put these demands on behalf of the TUC directly to the Vice-President of Colombia on his recent visit to London.

The referendum currently proposed by the Uribe Government aims to undermine further labour rights, public services and democratic structures in the country. With our Colombian colleagues we have opposed it. We have also opposed British military aid.

Colombia must bring its legislation into line with the ILO conventions. The continued denial of collective bargaining rights in the public services is wholly unacceptable, as is the plan to privatise the public utilities. At the practical level, Congress, our respite scheme will enter into operation within weeks, and I would like to thank all the unions that are contributing to it.

On Burma, the General Council are deeply concerned at the state of health of Aung San Suu Kyi. She is being kept incommunicado by the region there, and we join with the international community in demanding her immediate release.

The use of forced labour by the Burmese regime has been roundly condemned by the ILO, and we urge all companies to disinvest now.

In particular, the TUC today supports the initiative of the International Foodworkers, the IUF, who last week presented a complaint under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises against British American Tobacco for their continued activities in that country.

The grave situation in Zimbabwe has also been of concern to us. The regime there will stop at nothing to browbeat the population into submission, withholding food from the starving so as to get them to vote for them. Well, in the recent local elections even these extreme pressures failed, and the regime was soundly beaten.

The TUC has been continuing to provide assistance to our colleagues in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.

We have been pressing all these issues, and many others, with the Foreign Office. It has now been agreed that a TUC/Foreign Office Consultative Council will be set up and meet regularly. This will enable us to raise issues of political concern, as well as discuss how we can help develop independent trade unions throughout the world.

As well as setting up a structured dialogue with the foreign Office, we have also made much progress in our relations with the Department for International Development. You will have all received information in your wallets about the Strategic Grant Agreement to help enhance awareness about development issues amongst our members.

Congress, as these examples show, the General Council seeks to complement their work at the political level with practical approaches to defend and enhance international trade union organisations based on independent and free trade unions worldwide. That is our contribution to peace and democracy. It is the contribution that only unions can make.

On behalf of the General Council, I move the report.

Middle East

Tony Woodley (Transport and General Workers’ Union) moved the following composite motion:

(Insert Composite Motion 18 - Middle East)

He said: Brothers and sisters, I was extremely proud to stand before more than a million people in Hyde Park on 5^th September to say, very clearly, that this war is wrong, that the attack on Iraq was wrong because it was illegal and flouted international law, wrong because it ignored the role of the United Nations and wrong because it was based on exaggeration and misinformation of the threat to Saddam Hussein with its dodgy dossiers and its 45 minute threat that was not there. Above all, it was wrong because it led to the thousands of needless deaths. If ever I had any doubt that I was wrong, I just looked at that BBC Agi Humar position last week with five children in one family in a village in Iraq aged from 2 - 10 massacred by a cluster bomb that was not supposed to be used. Those were totally unacceptable and needless deaths of innocent Iraqi children. It cannot possibly be right, colleagues. We have to make sure that such illegal and unjust wars are never fought in our name again. The occupation, clearly, is not working and the Iraqis, quite rightly, want to run their own country in their own way. Furthermore, I do not want to see British soldiers needlessly used as pawns to back up a US Administration of the right who are war mongers in their makeup.

If I was the Prime Minister of our country, misled by Bush, with no weapons of mass destruction, with the Iraqi people clearly telling us that they do not want us there, with innocent deaths of civilians and British soldiers alike, I would turn round and review my position and apologise to this country because we should not be there. It is as simple as that, and things will get worse.

There can be no peace in the Middle East without justice. What I mean by 'justice', is justice for the Palestinian people, and I do not mean the assassination of their leaders and I do not mean concrete walls keeping people away from each other. I mean real justice.

Again, do you remember, as I do, that 12 year old boy against a wall in Palestine with his father pleading for life, who was shot by Israeli soldiers and murdered in the name of what? Peace! I don’t think so. Again, that is unacceptable behaviour.

Colleagues, we must include and implement the United Nations’ resolution, and we have to make sure that the Israeli Army is out of the West Bank and Gaza. The best way to do that is under the leadership in talks with the true leader of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat, and nobody else.

We live in a dangerous world. Some of those dangers are new ones - terrorism, nourished by poverty and despair, by a burning sense of injustice. Millions of people around the world are alarmed by the American policy to have war any time, any place and sometimes without even notice. War, I believe, must always be a last resort, not a first choice, as an incident of its policy. The case for it must always be made clearly and honestly. I do speak as a Labour Party supporter and as a person who believes in our Labour Government. I believe in the values of an ethical and honest foreign policy which reflects our values, and one that gives people the freedom and right to speak like Cook and Short did. Now we see a situation where George Galloway is lined up for suspension by our own Party in a witch hunt which is unacceptable and completely unjustified.

I say to colleagues, including any trade union colleagues who may be on that witch hunt panel, let’s think what we are doing and why it is being done.

The message in the composite is very clear. The message, which must go out from this Conference is clear. There must be no more wars against Iran, Korea, Cuba, Syria or wherever. There must be no return to the bad days of colonialism. Put the UN back at the centre of international politics and let the Labour Party, our Party, stand for peace and work for a real peaceful world. (Applause)

Bob Crow (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) in seconding the composite, said: Let me take you back 12 months when we were in Blackpool debating this subject when people were saying that we needed to give the issue more time. Speakers were saying that we needed more time to consider the United Nations’ position. All of a sudden, people were reminded of the dangers that Saddam Hussein had caused in his regime as we were going to war.

My members have been out there now for more than seven months in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. People said to me when the war started, 'Shouldn’t we be out there supporting our boys and girls?' The best way to support our boys and girls is to get them out of that illegal war and bring them home to Britain as quickly as possible. Of course, we were accused last year by certain people of coming from the Baghdad TUC. Obviously, some people were speaking on behalf of the Camp David TUC or the Washington TUC when they were putting their position over. I ask this question of everyone. Since September 11^th, since the attacks on Afghanistan, since the attacks on Iraq, ask yourself, with your hand on your heart, are you in a more safer world now than what you were 12 or 24 months ago? I would say that we are living in a more dangerous world now than ever before as a result of the attacks.

When you ask these people why are terrorist attacks taking place, they say that they are doing it in retaliation to attacks from America, not the other way round. It is marvellous when they cannot find any weapons of mass destruction. In fact, they must have searched everywhere. I am talking about the so-called CIA and MI5 services. The only thing they never got right when they attacked Iraq is that they never had a special unit to plant the weapons of mass destruction so that they could find them in order to say that there were weapons out there. In fact, I was hoping to see the Prime Minister on Monday about Royal Mail trains coming off. I thought the reason they were taking Royal Mail trains off is because weapons of mass destruction might have been found on them instead of mail that should have been circulated around Europe.

The reality of life is that we are totally against terrorism - terrorism in Palestine, terrorism in Israel by the Israeli terrorist attacks on Palestine, and we do not want any more terrorist attacks in Iraq, Korea or anywhere else. Let’s start using those billions of pounds instead of destroying society to start constructing society. That is where the money should go and that is the reason why you should pass this resolution unanimously. (Applause)

Sheena Wardhaugh (Educational Institute of Scotland) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: President and Congress, I am sure we all agree that the Iraqi people have the right to self-determination. We share concerns about the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and we support, strongly, the stance that the provision of food, water and shelter is an absolute necessity. Medical and humanitarian aid is also absolutely vital and it is a matter of extreme concern that the aid agencies are being hindered in their work because of the lack of security currently in Iraq. The attack on the UN headquarters was appalling and we are advocating the primacy of the United Nations.

As far as education is concerned, we must remember that what happens to youngsters now will inevitably affect the future of the country. That is why re-opening and re-equipping schools and providing sufficient resources, both in terms of trained teachers and materials, is so important. The EIS would strongly support a call on the international community and, in particularly the United Kingdom and the US Governments, to be generous in giving immediate aid to achieve this.

At the beginning of the 1980s Iraq had one of the best education systems in the Arab world. Gross enrolment rate for primary schooling was 100% and higher education, especially in scientific and technological institutions, was of international standard, staffed by high quality personnel. The first setback was the Iran-Iraq war, and following sanctions in the 1990s the quality of the education system was dramatically affected. In 2002 the literacy rate amongst females in the 15-45 age group was only 45% and for males 71%. Buildings dedicated to schools had decreased, whilst the country experienced a demographic growth from about 17 million in 1990 to 26 million in 2002. During the same period, however, there was nothing like a similar growth in the number of pupils enrolled in primary education.

In the centre and south of Iraq the oil for food programme has improved to some extent the learning and teaching environments, but there is a problem and a disparity in investment in the assistance level between the northern, centre and southern areas, which must be addressed.

Even where schools have re-opened, for example in Baghdad, attendance rate is affected by insecurity, absence of teachers due to lack of fuel and confusion about the curriculum. To take the situation forward, schools must have water and sanitation facilities restored, areas must be cleared of explosives learning materials must be supplied. It may require a mobilisation campaign to encourage students, teachers and management back to education.

Finally, the involvement of the international trade union Movement will be vital to maximise aid and assistance to the people of Iraq. Please support.

Andy Bain (Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association): This time last year we had a passionate debate on the then possible US/UK war in Iraq. A TSSA amendment opposed war, even if the UN Security Council was to be brow beaten into supporting it. The General Council opposed this. During the vote, the Chair declared the amendment carried on a show of hands. We called for a card vote, which was narrowly lost. We have moved on since then.

The fantastic Stop the War Movement came very close to stopping British involvement and a firmer TUC position a year ago might just have made the difference.

George Bush heard about our card vote and he quite liked the idea, so at the end of a recent Senate discussion on the full number of reasons for war, he held up his card. (Card shown) 'George, George', said Condalesa, 'it’s upside down'. (Card shown amidst applause and laughter) More seriously, thousands of trade union activists were tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein, some with the help of his yellow trade unions.

The second paragraph of the composite is about the importance of new democratic trade unions developing in Iraq as part of their civil society. This is vital, but they will have many enemies, with US and UK multi-nationals heading the list. The Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement has made a brave start, having set up 14 industrial unions so far, despite having almost no resources and in very difficult conditions. The WDTUM representative based in London, Abdulla Mushien, is with us today. He is in the balcony, and I would like you to give him a warm welcome.

(Applause) Also, take the opportunity to talk to him when you can.

As Bob said earlier, at last year’s TUC the only belligerent speaker accused the TSSA of acting like agents of Baghdad’s Trades Council. Well, we would now be proud to be seen showing solidarity with the new Baghdad Trades Council, and I urge you all to help them directly. Do not want for the Foreign Office. The TSSA amendment this year calls for support to be given to Histadrut and the Palestinian PGFTU in their efforts to promote peace in the Middle East.

At a fringe meeting yesterday, Histadrut’s Nawaf Massalah gave positive news of improving links between the two federations. We welcome this and note that Histadrut faces the same struggles as we do with government and transnational corporations. However, the main problem in the Middle East, in addition to the rebuilding of Iraq, is the military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians are being collectively punished and daily millions are being deprived of their water.

I would like to finish by saying that Nawaf spoke yesterday about his Palestinian cousins. Congress, if you support the intent of this composite maybe it will not be long before Histadrut and the PGFTU can call each other 'brothers' and 'sisters'.

Steve Kemp (National Union of Mineworkers) speaking in support of the composite, said: I speak with particular reference to Palestine. If I was coming to this rostrum to attack what was once known as the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, I would be doing so with the full support of Tony Blair, George Bush, Sharon and probably every other leader in the western world. As it is, I am here to express my Union’s profound disgust at the inhumane apartheid wall which is twice as high as the Berlin Wall which is currently being built in Israel. It is currently referred to in Israel as the 'Security' or 'Separation Fence'. It is nothing but, in reality, an instrument of apartheid, theft and transfer. In places the wall is eight metres high and dotted with watch towers. In other places, it is a massive barbed wire and electric fence flanked by security roads. When completed the wall will be a thousand kilometres in length. The wall does not follow the green line which demarcates the division between Israel and the West Bank. It cuts deep inside the illegally occupied territory annexing the settlements all of which themselves are illegal.

The eastern section of the wall, approved in May, will complete the encirclement of the Palestinians in the West Bank. The wall divides the West Bank into disconnected cantons, and as such will render any Palestinian state non viable which directly violates the Road Map plan. Fourteen thousand people are marooned between the section of the wall already completed and the green line, cut off from support such as the West Bank and without Israeli resident papers these people are extremely vulnerable. There exists the potential for a new refugee situation. The wall is completely encircling the once thriving commercial centre of Qalqiliya, cutting the town off from the surrounding farmland and allowing only one access point guarded by two check points. Israeli troops destroyed water pipes leading to the city and the price of trucked water has increased by 80%. Economic life is at a standstill and poverty and unemployed are skyrocketing. The wall - make no bones about it - is creating a ghetto of East Jurusalem, making it impossible for the city to become a Palestinian capital. The wall is strangling the city of Bethlehem, killing off the tourist industry on which the city’s economy depends.

Congress, this situation is dreadful. What is needed is meaningful dialogue between both sides, a dialogue which both Palestinians and Israeli’s can work together where they can operate in peace and tolerance with each other, side by side. Kneejerk reactions, such as those pursued by the current Prime Minister of Israel, seemingly backed by the US, will only ensure more deaths and atrocities on both sides in an endless war.

Finally, we should never forget the thousands of Israelis who are appalled at the treatment of the Palestinians in Palestine at the current time. We should never ever forget that. Support the rights of the Palestine people and composite 18.

Keith Sonnet (Unison) in speaking in support of the composite motion, said: Just twelve months ago we said that military action against Iraq could not be justified without the specific authority of the United Nations. We said that evidence had to be produced that Iraq was an immediate and specific threat to its neighbours and ourselves. We said that thousands of innocent people would be killed alongside the troops. We said that war would make the world a less safe place and increase terrorism. All that has happened, given the worsening situation in the Middle East, we have to, as Composite 18 does, state very clearly that we condemn the decision of the British Government to wage war in Iraq. It was a major mistake and history, I am afraid, will not forgive us. We must also condemn the deceit, manipulation and downright lies used to justify war. We must condemn the hypocrisy of successive British and American Administrations who for years supported and sold arms to Saddam Hussein whilst ignoring his brutality. We also condemn the absolute obscenity of American corporations being handed huge contracts in Iraq as paybacks by Bush to his friends.

Congress, we also pay tribute and support the millions of people in this country who demonstrated against the war, particularly in the historic demonstrations on 15^th February in London, Glasgow and Belfast and also in every town and city. We also congratulate the Stop the War Campaign for the tremendous job they did. I hope everybody in this hall and all trade unions will support the demonstrations being organised on 27^th September, and I hope the General Council will send a speaker to that demonstration.

Composite 18 is about the future. It is about how we move on. First, we demand that all British and American occupying troops leave Iraq with a clear programme and timetables agreed by the United Nations and the world community, and the UN need to oversee the transfer and control of Iraq and its assets back to the Iraqi people.

There must, secondly, be a massive injection of investment to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. It is absolutely scandalous, is it not, that six months on the Iraqi people still have no guaranteed supplies of electricity and no guaranteed supplies of water. The hospitals are overwhelmed and lack resources.

Thirdly, our Government must seriously work towards a settlement in the Middle East, one that creates an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. As my union demands, we should stop selling arms and supporting Ariel Sharon. Saddam Hussein has gone. Good. However the war was not about weapons of mass destruction or threats posed by Saddam Hussein. It was all about the need for oil and the self-interest of American capitalism. We have to make it perfectly clear that the British trade union Movement will not accept the British Government supporting future targets by American Administrations and taking actions against countries such as Cuba and elsewhere. Congress, we should not stand shoulder to shoulder with right wing Republicans in Washington. We should stand shoulder to shoulder with the suffering people in Iraq and with the Palestinians in their struggle for freedom, peace and justice. Support composite 18.

Val Salmon (Fire Brigades’ Union) speaking in support of the composite motion, said: My trainers were one of the hiding places for the weapons of mass destruction. I had to remove them at the airport and have them searched.

Most of the points have been made by the previous mover but there are just a few things that I would like to cover. One of the things is the Iraqi people’s right to self-determination. Part of these rights, significantly, must be the removal of sanctions immediately. I do not think that anybody so far has mentioned that. They need to be lifted so that the Iraqis can at least help themselves. We have all focused on Iraq, but I do not want us to forget Palestine either.

United Nations Resolution 194. The right to return compensation, first moved in 1948, reaffirmed a staggering 135 times, still has not been enacted. I am very concerned that we have got international and national conventions that are not being operated. What is the point in making policies if they are not forced through.

Not content with building an apartheid wall twice as high as the Berlin Wall in Palestine, the Israeli Government has now declared open warfare on the Palestinians with a shoot to kill policy. That is unacceptable.

Comrades, it is time to put your money where your mouth is. Dig deep into your pockets and pledge money which the Iraqi trade unionists desperately need. The FBU and some of us have already started this. As mentioned before, speak to Abdullah. He is in the balcony.

In closing, I would like to refer to a quote from one of this morning’s newspapers: 'People like championing the underdog, but the second it becomes a dog with four legs that looks healthy people will start to chop those legs off'. Let us make our efforts sustain. Carry on supporting.

Fawzi Ibrahim (NATFHE, The University & College Lecturers’ Union): The Government may be excused many things and Prime Ministers may be allowed the odd fib here and there about what is his favourite pop band, but when it comes to issues of war, lies cost lives. By God, Blair’s lies have cost lots of lives. They have cost the lives of dozens of British soldiers and the lives of thousands of Iraqis.

When one considers the enormous amount of money spent on the war -- £4 billion and rising - one begins to look at one’s own community. What a tiny fraction of that amount will do to a community like mine in the London Borough of Brent. Brent contains some areas of the highest unemployment and rates of crime in west London. It suffers from social and economic deprivation. If you are unfortunate enough to visit the accident and emergency unit of the local hospital, you could wait as long as nine hours before you are attended to. I speak from personal experience.

The war in Iraq, President, has become an embarrassment to the major political parties, so embarrassing that it is hardly mentioned in the run-up to next week’s Brent East by-election. You can mention anything, but don’t mention the war. You can mention broken pavements, Post Office closures, but don’t mention the war. The Government are imploding in front of our eyes because of the war, but don’t mention the war.

President, anybody who knows Iraq and knows its people and rich history will know that it is not a country that tolerates occupation by a foreign power or the rule of a puppet regime. Today’s occupying forces are hated and the civil administration set up by the United States is derided, and they have the cheek to call those who bravely defend their country by attacking the occupying armies as terrorists. What a travesty! What an abuse of the English language! Let alone common sense and logic.

Evidence shows that Blair has deceived Parliament. With such a deception by the Prime Minister, there is a good case for surcharging Tony Blair just as Dame Shirley Porter was surcharged for mis-using public money. The people of Britain have been deceived and they are waiting for an opportunity to denounce Blair, to pronounce on his war, to give him a message, to give him a slap, so to speak, for cheating his way to war. This opportunity may come much sooner than one may expect. It is not that we want a different Government but we want a good Government. We want an end to arrogance, smugness and spin, and we want an end to war-mongering. Thank you.

Glenroy Watson (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) speaking to paragraph 6.3 of the General Council's Report said: I am saddened to have to come here and raise this issue because the General Council clearly takes a very positive position about supporting Composite 18. However, I want to ask the question: how can we accept the General Council's Report where it states that 'Once the decision was made and action was embarked upon, it was important to build the maximum unity of purpose.' Whose unity? Whose purpose? Are we talking about supporting the illegal activity? Are we talking about standing back and allowing them to continue?

It seems to me that since George Bush stole the American election he feels it is OK to go around the world and steal other things. He seems to be going out of his way to teach other people how to steal and lie to their own nationality.

I ask that Roger Lyons, on his return for his right to respond, would explain if we are expected to agree to the illegal path on which the government have embarked us. It was illegal before it started, it was illegal during the time it was there and it remains illegal. We want that to be a position that this organisation takes; we want to be proud in making that very clear.

· Composite Motion 18 CARRIED.

·

The President : I will call on Roger Lyons to respond to the point made on paragraph 6.3.

Roger Lyons (General Council): The point raised was about the position that the General Council took after Parliament had approved the sending of British armed forces into war, as well as the civilians and the Reservists who were supporting them. The General Council, as you know, argued strongly with the government over this process and argued for the UN to be the agency. Once Parliament had decided to send our troops into action, we continued to disagree with the politicians but we did not feel that our armed forces should be denounced by the TUC. This is a position that has been taken before by the TUC in circumstances where politicians have been told by the TUC, 'You are acting wrongly, you are out of order; the TUC cannot agree with you, the politicians, but we do not believe that the members of our union, including my own and the RMT, should personally be denounced for the action of the politicians'.

I hope that clarifies the position. It is the politicians; no, we do not denounce the troops.

Safety for Media Workers

The President : I now call Motion 82, indicating that the General Council supports the motion.

Paul Hardy (National Union of Journalists) moved the following motion.

(Insert Motion 82, Safety for Media Workers)

He said: Journalists and other media workers sent to conflict zones are not there simply to fill pages or airtime, although they are. They are there to inform us, as citizens, of the facts and background to conflicts. So attacks on journalists are attacks on our rights too, on our right to know, our right to form opinions and our right to protest. Yet the targetting of media workers -- often by those most insistent to their devotion to the cause of freedom -- is decreasing.

NUJ member James Miller was shot dead in Gazza on 2 May. Video evidence shows that the shooting was deliberate, systematic and made in response to no threat all. I want to emphasise very clearly that James Miller was not involved in a crossfire incident. There was no crossfire. There had been no shooting in that area for an hour. There is absolutely no doubt that he was deliberately targetted by the Israel defence force. The question is only whether shooting journalists is now the policy of the Israeli military or merely the policy of a single demented officer.

I hope that Congress will back the NUJ's call for a criminal investigation into our member's death, one conducted by civilian authorities, not military, either in Israel or internationally. We demand justice for James Miller.

NUJ member Terry Lloyd was killed on 22nd March near Basra, when we thought his car was fired upon by the US Marine Corps near Basra. Even this is now in doubt, as readers of The Mirror will have read today. The Pentagon responded to Terry Lloyd's death in the most astonishingly cynical way. They accused journalists like Terry Lloyd -- who refused to imbed himself with troops and thereby subject himself to military censorship -- of putting their own lives at risk. They called on media organisations to show restraint. I think the US Marine Corps should have shown restraint that day.

It is clear that the American military, the Israeli military and plenty of others want to prevent independent reporting of war and occupation, and they are far from alone. We must have an independent investigation urgently into the killing of media workers in Iraq. This trend goes way beyond the Middle East. I could talk about the slaughter of journalists in Colombia. I could talk about the bombing of broadcasting facilities in Serbia four years ago -- the killing of those military targets, make-up artists, and closer to home the still unsolved murder of Martin O'Hagen, Secretary of the NUJ in Belfast. You do not have the time, and, frankly, I do not have the heart.

Defend media workers, defend your right to know. Vote for Motion 82.

Roger Bolton (Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union) in seconding Motion 82 said: The presence of the media allows us to witness events in conflict situations quite often from the safety and the comfort of our armchairs in our living rooms. The media seek to report the news, they do not seek to become the news. In reporting the news in conflict situations, they themselves face great personal dangers and great risks. They are often in a position where they are seeking to report events that either our own government or other governments would rather we were not told about.

We are not just talking about journalists, we are talking about all media workers. There needs to be a code of conduct; it needs to be fought for internationally. Media workers need a special status in conflict situations. There also needs to be more responsibility taken on by UK employers who employ media workers and send them into conflict situations. They need to take just a bit more trouble to ensure that they are sending their staff into a situation that is safe for their staff to work in.

* Motion 82 was CARRIED.

Asia and the Pacific

Burma

Brenda Warrington (Amicus) speaking to paragraph 6.6 of the General Council's International Report said: Burma has not had a democratically elected Government since 1962. The current military regime seized power in 1988 and human rights abuses have now become the norm in Burma. In 1988 demonstrations for democracy were suppressed, thousands of people killed and put into detention. In 1989 Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the most popular opposition party, the National League for Democracy, was placed under house arrest. When she was released two years ago we thought this marked the beginning of a change in Burma, but sadly this is not so. Whilst on tour last year, Friday 20 May, she was brutally seized and many of her supporters were massacred. She is once again in detention.

It is vital for us to support our brothers and our sisters in Burma. It is critical that Aung San Suu Kyi gets immediate support from the international community, by campaigning for disinvestment in Burma, by challenging the horrific human right abuses that occur on a daily basis. Those human rights abuses have attracted many critics. The ILO charges Burma's military regime with crimes against humanity for the persistent use of forced labour. Trades unions are forbidden; no collective bargaining exists.

As Roger said earlier, last week Ron Oswald, the General Secretary of the IUF, submitted a complaint to the OECD that British American Tobacco is involved in a joint venture with the Burmese military. BAT is a UK-based multi-national company where Amicus has hundreds of members. We enjoy good relations with BAT here in the UK and value the benefits that this relationship gives for our members, but we have already made representations to the company urging them to cease their commercial activities in Burma and to comply with their principles of corporate social responsibility. The company's response so far is that they are reviewing their position. Amicus will continue to raise this issue with BAT, as well as with other employers who continue to operate in Burma. We cannot support the actions of multinationals where they prop up undemocratic regimes.

We must press the British Government to put much more pressure on the regime and to demand the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters and to lift the ban on free trades unions in Burma.

Delegates, I ask all of you, if you have not already done so, please visit Stand 31 downstairs, the Burma Campaign UK. Please familiarise yourself with the issues. Buy the T-shirt and sign up to the campaign for economic and investment sanctions to be introduced.

Campaign for Core Labour Standards

Nigel Gawthrope (Graphic, Paper and Media Union) speaking to Paragraph 6.9 of the General Council's International Report said: We in the GPMU appreciate the international work of the TUC. We are pleased with, and proud of, the vast amount of activities the TUC has undertaken in the last year, as indeed the international report shows. However, we did notice that there was no reference in the report to the Fair Trade Campaign, and we thought it was worth bringing this campaign to the attention of Congress.

The Fair Trade Campaign seeks to get a better deal for marginalised and disadvantaged producers, and it does so by looking to get big retail outlets to stop products from developing countries. People in the developing world involved with the Fair Trade organisations can now afford to educate their children and enjoy an improved standard of living. It has been a very positive and successful campaign. I am pleased to report to Congress that I moved a motion to our Conference earlier this year. That motion was passed, thus committing the GPMU and its members to support this campaign. We would like to urge other unions to do exactly the same.

Finally, we also notice that there is not a great deal of reference in the report to campaigns by TUC affiliates for global agreements on labour standards in multinational companies. This is another important area of activity that is growing fast. We again thought it just worth bringing it to colleagues' attention. The GPMU is currently involved in campaigns in four companies and we would urge other unions to have a look at these types of campaigns as well.

Thank you, President, and thanks to the TUC for its international work in the last year.

World Trade Organisation

Christine Howell (GMB) speaking to paragraph 6.9 of the General Council's International Report said: The GMB welcomes the General Council's focus on world trade this year, particularly this week when world leaders are sat at a meeting in Cancun for the World Trade Organisation.

Global institutions have an increasingly powerful role in the lives of every one of these members, yet these institutions remain distant and undemocratic. If we are to redress the attack on global working conditions it is important that the lobbying and policy work laid down in the General Council's Report is supported and encouraged. Last year the TUC endorsed the campaign run by War on Want called Just Trade, a campaign run through post cards highlighting what trade means for the lives of working people in the developing and developed world. For example, privatisation of basic services, multinational takeovers of food and other means to sustain life, the increasing corporate control of world trade and the race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions, not to mention a lack of freedom of association.

It does not have to be this way. Trade can be used to reduce poverty and raise working standards across the world, but this is only going to happen if people rather than corporations are in control. The TUC's endorsement of the War on Want's campaign is a vital step in empowering the ordinary working people in regard to trade.

A good platform that individual trades unions can support is to join the Ethical Trade Initiative, which aims to improve the life of workers and their families in global supply chains, by applying internationally recognised labour standards, especially fundamental human rights. Companies are coming under increasing pressure from trades unions, non-governmental organisations, consumers and investors to ensure decent working conditions for the people who supply the goods they sell.

On a personal note, I would like to thank the General Council for moving forward the cause of the child labour issues that I have raised from this rostrum for the past six years. Congress, it is still sad to report there are still over 200 million children enslaved throughout the world, 5 million in the garment industry alone. We must put an end to this obscenity. We must never take our eye off the global trade ball. We urge the General Council to move forward during the next year with the same commitment as last year.

Ethical Trade Initiative

Steve Bottlemuch (Public and Commercial Services Union) speaking to Paragraph 6.15 of the General Council's International Report said: I am slightly thrown by the GPMU raising fair trade under the paragraph on labour standards, but I would like to talk briefly about applauding the work the General Council has done on working with DEFRA, working with the Trade Justice Movement and their continuous work on ethical trading.

In PCS over the past year we have also stepped up our work on ethical and fair trade issues. We have initiated a comprehensive review of all our purchasing policy to ensure we are putting our money where our mouth is. All our campaign materials are now produced in conjunction with Ethical Threads. We have worked with War on Want, Oxfam and others to raise awareness amongst our members on these issues.

On fair trade, many civil service workplace canteens are now stocking fair trade products and our own headquarters’ building now uses these goods. I will not talk any more about fair trade because the GPMU have, but some retailers are now sourcing fair trade in their own products. The Co-op and Sainsbury's are doing a lot of good work on this issue and we call on market leaders like Tesco and Asda to follow suit on this issue. PCS knows that poverty in developing countries will not be solved by fair trade alone; it will take major changes to world trading systems, access to markets to developing countries and major changes at the WTO, but supporting and buying fair trade is something everyone here can do.

Finally, it is with regret that I raise a complaint about Conference. Why is it that with all this support for fair trade within the trade union Movement when we come to Congress the coffee bar still only sells products from companies that exploit the poor producers in developing countries? The Kenko and Maxwell House on sale here come from parent company Kraft. In 2001 Kraft made $1 billion on sales of beverages and related products. In 2002 Kraft's net profits increased by 80 per cent. Coffee farms are critical to Kraft's success and yet they are not paid a decent price for their beans. While Kraft shareholders get richer, coffee farmers are struggling to buy food for their families, send their children to school and buy basic medicines. Let us stop helping the fat cats and start helping the poor by buying fair trade. PCS calls upon the General Council to use its purchasing power and its considerable negotiating experience with the conference centres to ensure that this does not happen again.

The President : Thank you very much for raising those points. I am sure the General Council will take those points and act on them as much as they possible can in so far as they can affect these matters, which obviously are partly determined by others as well.

Disarmament

The President : I now call Motion 86 on Disarmament indicating that the General Council supports the motion.

Mike Nicholas (Fire Brigades' Union) moved the following motion.

(Insert Motion 86, Disarmament)

He said: Congress, as you know, we live in dangerous times. Wars and weapons of mass destruction proliferate. The United Nations is deliberately sidetracked by the world's only superpower and, unfortunately, this is encouraged by our Labour Government in our name. Of course, these are deeply political questions, but no trade union card survives a nuclear holocaust. It will be our members who will be in the front line of rescue services should we not halt and reverse the policies ot Blair and Bush. So these are very much trade union questions on which this Movement should have clear views and campaigning priorities.

Comrades, many of our current problems, both at home and abroad, stem from our government's failure to respect the international rule of law. Our supposed ally, the United States, has the firepower and is attempting to police the world. In their little world there is only one right, one way of doing things, and finally one way of enforcing compliance. Might is right. All this dovetails very neatly with the economic and strategic interests of the giant international conglomerates which, of course, are mostly American companies.

In 1945, after the defeat of Hitler, it was recognised that the world needed institutions to enshrine universal values and to resolve conflicts peacefully. For decades the principles enshrined in international law were strongly supported by all wings of our British labour Movement but now, with no discussion, no democratic debate, most Labour Ministers seem prepared to ignore the international rule of law completely. Once again thank you, Robin Cook, and, rather belatedly, Clare Short.

Iraq was a prime example of this recklessness, and at home we now see John Prescott being prepared to impose settlements to undermine collective bargaining in blatant contravention of ILO's Conventions and the European Social Charter. Comrades, the Iraq war was supposedly justified by the need to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to enforce previous UN resolutions. Of course, there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found. Six thousand, and counting, civilians have been killed and many, many more thousands maimed and scarred for life.

There are more honest, civilised and Christian ways of enforcing arms control than mass killings and colonial type occupations. Remember that the overwhelming majority of weapons of mass destruction are not held by supposedly unstable Islamic or totalitarian regimes; they are held by the United States. They were used with devastating effect in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; they were used to kill and maim in Vietnam. We remember napalm, we remember Agent Orange, and let us also remember this: most weapons of mass destruction are made and supplied by US and British firms. Britain is the second biggest arms dealer after the United States of America, in an industry worth an estimated £5 billion. Most of Saddam's weapons were resourced and mainly sourced in this way. Remember, friends one day can be your enemies on another and is it not ironic that the liberated people of Iraq are now enemies of freedom?

If we are serious about non-proliferation we must also become much more serious about controlling arms sales. We know that British manufacturing is in trouble, but does anyone truly believe that we can rely on arms manufacturers to see us through their particular crisis as a whole? Of course not. Indeed the skills, the education, the training of thousands in the arms industry are desperately needed to make our civil sector more competitive in world markets.

Far from respecting the terms of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and undertaking nuclear disarmament, the United States and Britain are attempting to impose their will on the rest of the world. Congress, no progress towards a more secure world will be made until this strategy is effectively challenged and ultimately defeated. This, of course, puts a particular responsibility on us. We have to join with others to convince this Labour Government to change course before the electorate changes this government. Immediately this requires the British Government to argue for the United Nations to supervise the election of a new Iraqi Government and for the oil wealth of Iraq to be controlled by the Iraqi people. It means taking unilateral measures towards nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

These are challenging times. There are millions of people, particularly the young, looking for answers. They reject the Bush imperatives, they reject by and large the superficial values of New Labour. They would respond to a lead from our labour Movement. They are our main hope for a third-term Labour Government committed to disarmament and social justice at home and abroad.

Jimmy Elsby (Transport & General Workers' Union) in seconding the motion said: There is a major crisis in the world today. That crisis is the spread of the use of weapons. Nuclear proliferation is still a major danger that has not gone away. In a world where death and destruction are at horrific levels we must make a stand. We must reaffirm our support for the United Nations Charter. We must reaffirm our support for the ILO conventions. We must work with other nations for disarmament. We cannot work alone, nor dance to the tune of the US.

Conference, we can all see the results of the Bush stand in Iraq, a stand which sought to sweep away all objections from other democratic countries, a stand which wanted to dictate not negotiate. It is the job of all of us in this hall today to negotiate; we know damn fine that dictation does not work. We live in a very dangerous world. Weapons that can destroy thousands of people at a stroke still do exist. Remember, as my colleague from the FBU said, there is only one nation that has used weapons of mass destruction, not once but twice. We also know that the Middle East situation has been made more dangerous by the actions taken in Iraq. International terrorism has grown, not contracted. The roll call is chilling: New York, Bali, Casablanca, Kenya, to name just a few of the sites of terrorism.

But America cannot and will not be the world's policeman. Have they learned nothing from Vietnam, a small nation with a determined people who were never going to be defeated? The Bush administration can never force other nations to bend to their will. They can destroy buildings and bridges but they will never win hearts and minds. We must strengthen the United Nations. Our Labour Government must work with and through the United Nations. We cannot line up with Bush and ignore the wishes of all other democratic nations. This calls for a political will, not empty talk that only encourages nuclear proliferation. We must not claim to be seeking weapons of mass destruction where they do not exist and yet do nothing to bring about real tangible disarmament when it is so crucially needed. Conference.

Support the FBU's Motion 86 and ensure that our government goes back to the UN and assists them in setting out a real strategy for disarmament to rid this world of all weapons of mass destruction.

* Motion 86 was CARRIED.

Cuba

Doug Nicholls (The Community and Youth Workers' Union) moved the following motion.

(Insert Motion 83, Cuba)

He said: Most youth workers have a contractual obligation to arrange international exchanges for young people to help them understand the wider world. Our members have organised a number of professional and trade union exchanges to Cuba. Some members studied the provision for young people and found a culture and infrastructure of support services that we would be proud of here. Some studied community work and found in Cuba an active civil society with dynamic community organisations representing workers' social interests and a level of participation in political processes that we aspire to. Some looked at the trade unions and found, as others have done -- notably UNISON and NUT in their reports -- that there is a bone fide mass trade union Movement organised for the CTC that plays a central and valid role in managing the economy. The so-called called independent trades unions exist on the letterheads of one or two individuals. No trade unionist in Cuba has been killed or persecuted for their trade unionism since the Batista regime was overthrown.

Compare that with what it has been like for so many of our brothers and sisters in most Latin American countries. The strength of trades unions in Cuba means that amazing agreements can be won, which put us to shame. For example, Cuban women are entitled as new mothers to a full one-year maternity leave on full pay with the right to return to their job. Cuba's care for the developing nations is legendary. They provide more doctors to developing countries than the World Health Organisation. They export only compassion and social justice. Their internationalism is grounded in, and made possible by, their great care for their own people. Where Britain has one general practitioner for every 20,000 citizens, Cuba has one for every 600.

Cuba has achieved what it has achieved because of its independence and despite the 44-year old blockade and aggression against it. We should be proud, as British trades unionists, of all the work that our members and the Cuba Solidarity Campaign have done to oppose this, and proud too of the great humanitarian efforts of Salud International to break the blockade with container ships of essential supplies collected by our unions, many employers and public organisations.

We put this motion this year regardless of any views your union or ours may have about the Cuban Government because Cuba is under a new and more dangerous attack from the United States. Regrettably Britain has been leading the European Union to join in with this. Our government and others are encouraging the EU to impose its own sanctions and restrict Cuba's trading potential. In Florida, where George Bush's brother is Governor, thanks in no small part to the fiercely right-wing Cuban exile population, which also holds a key swing vote in the Presidential elections, the car bumper stickers say, 'Iraq today, Cuba tomorrow'. You do not need a Joint Intelligence Committee Report of any sort to know that the US is geared to invade Cuba in a matter of minutes and that it possesses the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the history of the world. We know too that it is trigger happy in using its military strength, regardless of international law and the UN. In this sense it is the US that is the most dangerous rogue state in the world and we as a country should have nothing to do with its crimes against humanity.

Over recent months the US has provoked Cuba and tried to undermine its democratically elected government, and has been funding terrorists there. Cuba has historically faced more organised terrorist attacks than any other nation, and now the dollar is funding the hijacking of planes and boats and a propaganda war to isolate the island further. Britain should not fall for this, nor should the EU. Our General Council has a vital role in making sure they do not.

Bush has sent James Casson to the US Interests Office in Havana to coordinate foreign and domestic subversion against the people of Cuba. The usual bribery of criminal elements has followed. Those arrested have been tried for treason, as they would anywhere, and through due process, open and transparent, have been sentenced. Hardly surprising that Cuba has just been elected unanimously to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Congress, we see the devastation of Iraq today. There are voices that are prominent amongst those of the majority of British people in opposing that part of the world war. We have an awesome responsibility this time to ensure that they are listened to in relation to Cuba. We do not want to get to the point of a mass demonstration when it is too late. This time we say in the cause of peace and internationalism, before the die is cast, break with the EU's and Bush's warmongering and hands off Cuba now.

Peter Skinley (Fire Brigades Union): George Bush does not like Cuba; neither did apartheid South Africa. Most Latin American, right wing political and religious leaders are not very keen either. At first sight it is strange how a small Caribbean island of 11 million people can arouse such opposition, bordering sometimes on pathological hatred. When we look deeper we begin to understand that Cuba's socialist policies threaten the wealth and privilege of many of the leaders in the third world, and we can see that Cuba's socialism inspires millions of the dispossessed in the struggle for emancipation and liberation from poverty. This, plus some narrow electoral considerations, is why Bush hates Cuba.

No, Cuba is not a workers' paradise. Whilst trades unionism is fully supported by the Cuban Government and foreign investors are required to recognise unions, the relationship between the state, the party and the unions has been criticised by the ILO. Cuba remains a poor, third world country struggling to provide its people with the necessities of life, but what makes this all the more difficult is the US blockade. Developing democratic pluralism becomes impossible when you know that every opportunity will be used by the US to infiltrate organisations and to finance internal opposition. For example, many of the so-called independent unions have recently been exposed as US finance frauds, without members or elected leaders.

Despite all this, Cuba remains a beacon for progress. It provides for its people the best education and health service in a developing world. Its literacy and child mortality rates are better than some states in the United States. These are the tangible benefits of socialist planning and of the efforts of a people overwhelmingly loyal to their country and proud of their political independence. Internationally, Cuba is respected -- particularly in southern Africa. Cuba continues to export cigars, sugar and rum -- by the way, it is Club Cabana and not Bacardi. It also exports medical advice and personnel. Thousands of Cuban doctors are working in the slums of Venezuela. More than half a million Cubans have carried out international missions, as combatants, teachers, technicians, or as doctors and healthcare workers. There are currently 3,000 specialists in comprehensive general medicine and other healthcare personnel, working in the most isolated regions of third world countries.

The British Government, to their credit, have not been entirely subservient to the US interests in their dealings with Cuba. They have pursued cultural bilateral trade agreements in recent years but in recent months this position has changed, apparently in response to the Cuban Government’s harsh treatment of hijackers and dissidents in the pay of the United States Government, carrying out activities harmful to Cuba. The European Union, with British support, is withholding aid. It is apparent that Cuba is constantly under threat from the United States. Castro could end that threat tomorrow by announcing an end to socialism in Cuba and signing up to a long-term trade and aid agreement with the United States. That is one option. Another option is to continue to proclaim the right for the people of Cuba to self-determination and sovereign rights with the full support of the people to build a socialist society. Surely it is the second option that a Labour Government should be supporting. We should also be supporting a delegation to Cuba from the TUC.

Denis Doody (Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians) speaking in support of Motion 83 said: I support the sentiments of the previous speakers. There has been a concerted campaign by the Bush administration to align European Union governments behind a sanctions regime to undermine the Government of Cuba and to encourage the political transition. Democratic sanctions have been imposed by Italy and Spain, and the British Government is coming under similar pressure. The Iraq war has changed the international context. Regimes that do not fit in with the American economic interests are being isolated.

A series of hijackings earlier this year is being used as a pretext to encourage sanctions against Cuba. As a response, ten Mexican journalists issued the following manifesto that has been endorsed by a broad range of intellectuals and writers and which we ask Congress to endorse.

'The international order has been violated as a consequence of the invasion against Iraq. A single power is inflicting grave damage to the norms of understanding, debate and mediation amongst countries. This power has invoked a series of unverified reasons in order to justify its invasion. Unilateral action has led to a massive loss of civilian life and the devastation of other cultural patrimonies of humanity. We only possess our moral authority. We wish to appeal to world conscience in order to avoid a new violation of the principles that inform and guide the global community of nations. At this very moment a strong campaign of destabilisation against a Latin American nation is being unleashed. The harassment against Cuba has served as a pretext to invasion. Therefore, we call upon the citizens and policy-makers to uphold the universal principles of national sovereignty, respect of territorial integrity and self-determination essential to a just and peaceful coexistence amongst nations.'

Conference, support the motion.

Mike Murray (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) speaking in support of Motion 83, Cuba, said: I do not intend not to repeat any of the points that have already been made. Although the proposition is one of the shortest worded propositions on the agenda paper, it concerns an international issue that has been with us for a very, very long time -- indeed, over 40 years. The issue is that of the United States maintaining an economic blockade for such a long time.

Therefore, Congress it is important for us to ask why. Why is that being maintained? The reasons for the economic blockade, as I understand them, are two: one, I understand the President of the United States believes that there is a danger from Cuban foreign policy. OK, what danger? Do we know what the danger is? No, we do not. Two, it is alleged that there is a danger from Cuba's military capacity. OK, what danger? Do we do know? No, we do not because there is not a danger from Cuba's military capacity.

Earlier this year I spent a number of weeks in Cuba and travelled extensively throughout the country. I do not pretend to be any kind of weapons expert or anything of that kind, but there was no indication whatsoever of any military capacity anywhere on that island. In fact, there is a great deal more military capacity that I see day-by-day in my own home in Stafford. I saw nothing whatsoever in Cuba, but I did see that they have a great medical system, even without having to incur prescription charges. I saw that there are far more doctors and nurses per head of the population than we have in the UK today.

At this time I would ask Congress a question and I would like some help here from Congress. Are the allegations about Cuba's military might being made by the same person who believes that the French have not got a word for entrepreneur? Is that the same person who believes that Cuba has military capacity that is a danger to the United States, etc.? Is this also the same person who also believes that the Duke of Hazzard TV series is a documentary programme? That should give you some idea of the level of intelligence of an individual who is the most powerful man in the world and who has sanctions of this sort as a constraint against a nation that are not at all warranted.

Congress, all trades unions should support Motion 83, which calls on the General Council to make representations not just to the United Kingdom Government but also to the European Union to oppose any closer identification with the United States President's hostility towards Cuba. I urge Conference to support Motion 83 unanimously.

* Motion 83 was CARRIED.

Colombia

Gerard Kelly (NATFHE) speaking to paragraph 6.5 of the General Council's International Report said: I recently came back from a higher education delegation -- organised by War on Want and Justice for Colombia -- comprising the AUT, the NUJ, NATFHE and UNISON. When we got to Colombia we immediately saw the militarisation of education. It put questions in our head as to why was Colombia militarised, why was the education system militarised? It is because they do not want students to think independently; they want to create a system of automatons where these people are not capable of independent thinking because then, in the future, they can support the fascist regime that exists at the moment in terms of Colombia.

It is no coincidence that one teacher is killed every week in Colombia. There were 184 trades unionists killed last year. That is one every two days. That is a shocking, appalling abuse of human rights and abuse to our brothers and sisters in Colombia. The General Council here would not be here in Colombia because they would be shot. Some might think that is a good thing but I do not. Well --! But as a comparison, in Colombia there are 45 million people but only 800,000 trades unionists. In this country we have 56 million population, and six million trades unionists. That gives you a comparison. It is all around privatisation. It is around the IMF, it is about America and it is around natural resources that Colombia has and is rich in, including oil.

The abuses there are massive; there are absolutely massive abuses. People have their heads chopped off and used as footballs, etc. A woman’s foetus was ripped out while she was alive and thrown into the river, and her body was then thrown in there afterwards. Alongside that, the abuses of political prisoners in the prisons is beyond doubt.

But what can we do? What can we do today? Well, I will tell you what we can do. We can do the following. We can affiliate to Justice for Colombia, which is TUC policy. We can write letters to Bill Rammell, Minister for Latin America, and condemn Uribe's government, in line with TUC's policy. You can come to the fringe at 5.30 and see the atrocities and talk to mad people like me about Colombia. You can do that as well. You can buy the video and show it to your branches and your regions and get mad people like me to come and speak to that too. But also what you can do is congratulate the TUC, congratulate them on their work in Colombia, congratulate them that we now have Frances O’Grady and Brendan Barber as Vice President and President of Justice for Colombia. Finally, Congress, you can congratulate our comrades in Colombia who face this trade union struggle that we will never experience.

If you can do anything turn to the back, stand up -- or do not but look - and you will see 'Peace with Social Justice'. That was our May Day banner. I want to show our solidarity to our comrade colleagues.

Dave Tyson (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) speaking to paragraph 6.5 said: International issues are at the forefront of the trade union Movement in which ASLEF has played a very positive role. If there was a front line struggle for free trade unionism today it is Colombia. The struggle between our brothers and sisters and the employers and their state in Colombia has been for some time a bloody one.

For trades unionists Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to operate. Fighting for the smallest step forward workers risks kidnap, torture and often death, with over 600 trade union colleagues assassinated in the last three years alone and around 3,000 murdered since the 1980s. The government's logic is simple: destroy the trade union Movement and put an end to collective bargaining, demands for decent living conditions, health provision and proper housing. This should be a concern for anyone interested in supporting international human rights, peace and democracy.

The United States is backing the campaign of terror through its military support of Colombia's right wing government. We welcome the support the TUC has given to Justice for Colombia and the campaign established by ASLEF and its sister trade unions in its solidarity work with our Colombian brothers and sisters, and we also welcome the support that has been given to us by Brendan and Frances. We can do more. I would like from this rostrum to urge every trades unionist here in their trade unions, and every trade unionist in the country, to support the Justice for Colombia campaign and affiliate to the organisation working in partnership with the TUC, to support the TUC's campaign to extend the hand of solidarity and respite for our Colombian comrades who are being persecuted every day, and for our brothers and sisters who need it most to support the Justice for Colombia fringe meeting that has actually started in Room No.1 in this very building.

Conference adjourned at 5 35 p.m.