2004 Congress verbatim report: Thursday
REPORT OF THE 136TH ANNUAL
TRADES UNION CONGRESS
held in
The Brighton Centre,
Brighton, East Sussex
from
September 13th to 16th 2004
President: Roger Lyons
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Reported by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
Midway House, 27-29 Cursitor Street, London EC4A 1LT.
Telephone No: 0207 405 5010. Fax No: 0207 405 5026.
FOURTH DAY: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16
MORNING SESSION
(Congress reassembled at 9.30 a.m.)
Announcements by the President
The President: I would like to thank Team Brass who have been playing for us this morning. It was a delight.
Congress, one of our tellers, Sonia Kordiak from the EIS, is not able to be with us today. Could you, therefore, agree that Ray Hill of Community be a substitute teller? Is that agreed? (Agreed)
In view of the outstanding business, I want to reinforce to delegates the importance of staying within the time limits, not repeating points already made and being as brief as possible. If everyone observes this rule, then we need not actually seek the changing of time limits themselves and it may be possible that Congress could be finished by one o’clock, but that will require tremendous self‑discipline by everyone concerned.
With regard to unfinished business, I intend to take all the outstanding business this morning after the scheduled business in the following order. After the scheduled business, I will take Motions 74, 75, 76 and 47. On Motion 48, I understand the mover, CDNA, wish to remit. That is acceptable to Congress, I am sure.
Then I will take Motion 49, Composite Motion 16, Motions 70, 72, 73 and 78. After Motion 78, I will call the outstanding paragraphs of the General Council Report on Europe, which are on page 69. Delegates, I inadvertently missed calling paragraph 3.8 on Race Quality on Tuesday. I will be calling that after the Transport debate.
Transport
Bob Crow (RMT) moved Composite Motion 14.
(Insert Composite Motion 14 ‑ Transport)
He said: I ask conference unanimously to support this composite, and also to continue the work that this Congress and the other transport unions have done.
The campaign has brought success to all the rail unions.
Last October the infrastructure of the mainline railways was brought back into public ownership. Some people say that Network Rail is a company not‑for‑profit, but one thing for sure is that when they were in private hands, they certainly were for profit. We could not care less, really, what they want to call it, a not‑for‑profit company. I know this Government does have a problem. It has a bit of a stutter. It will not say the 'N' word, 'nationalisation', so perhaps we should say it here today.
The infrastructure is back. You have heard me criticise the Government on a number of occasions, but I would like to praise the Government for the actions they took in bringing those companies back. The only shame about it is that while they got rid of the Jarvis’s and the Balfour Beatty’s off the mainline railway, they returned the compliment by privatising London Underground and giving the same work to the Jarvis’s and Balfour Beatty’s.
We welcome the fact that some companies have come back into public ownership, but we want the entire lot back. We do not say it in an arrogant fashion: we do not want crumbs or slices of the bread when it comes to the railway industry. We want the entire bakery, everything that goes with it, because the railway network can only be run on the basis that everyone operates together.
Some people might think that train drivers are the only people that work on the railway. The fact is before the trains can run, you need someone to open the train station in the morning, you need someone to sell the tickets, you need someone to maintain the railway for the train to run on, you need signal boxes to operate the trains in a safe fashion and you need cleaners. Each part of the rail network complements the other like a patchwork quilt.
If you bring the infrastructure back into public ownership, then why are you not bringing the renewals? On top of that, South‑East trains is now in public ownership. Why is it that when South‑East Trains is brought back, the punctuality of the services go up and the actual number of complaints from the passengers go down, yet they are still considering reprivatising it?
Our position is quite clear, that South‑East Trains is back, and when the franchises come up for grabs, the keys should be taken off them, just change the overalls and uniforms of the people who work in that company, and bring it all back piece by piece underneath the Strategic Railway Authority. That is the argument.
Someone said the other day in Parliament that when Batman was climbing up on the ropes it was someone from the group campaigning for parents’ rights. I personally believed it was Richard Branson. The reason I thought he dressed up as Batman to try to get into Parliament was that he has made so much money from the railway network that the only thing he did not have were the Crown Jewels themselves! That was the only thing he did not have. That is the reason why I thought he might have been trying to get into Buckingham Palace and privatise that as well!
However, the real basis of it all, at the end of the day, is that unless you can control the industry, then you do not run the industry. Therefore, talks at this moment in time that are taking place are on the basis that Virgin’s franchise is going to be split up and they are talking about re-putting it out.
Our argument is quite clear. People might argue ‑‑ and we need to dispel this untruth ‑‑ that compensation has to be paid to these companies if you reprivatise it. The fact is they run it as a franchise. It is no different when you visit to a train station and you see Burger King on the concourse. It is a franchise purely on that basis. So when the franchise is up, you get the keys back and you run it for the people. We want the TUC to reaffirm its position on the Race Relations Act, section 9. The position is quite clear. You have heard about globalisation all week, but the fact of the matter is we have no problem whether a worker works on a ship, is black, gay, lesbian or from the Philippines. That is not the issue. It is the system that is wrong, that two workers have to compete against each other for wrong rates of pay. If they work on a British ship, they should be paid British rates of pay and conditions because, if you do not establish that fact, then the bosses get more profits.
I ask you to reaffirm the TUC policy, but also praise everyone here today and our affiliated unions for all the support you have given the railway workers over the last year.
Gerry Doherty (TSSA) : : I am proud and privileged to stand in front of this workers’ Parliament and to call for the repeal of the privatisation. John Major’s Government moved by stealth when it sold off for buttons some parts of the transport industry. As Alastair Darling said, what a dysfunctional way to run a railway.
As far as privatisation is concerned, what matters is what works. There is one thing we know now. The railway industry does not work in the private sector. It has not delivered. The taxpayers of this country are paying £5 billion per annum to support the industry.
As a general secretary of a rail union, of course I welcome public money. Every other country in the world recognises that you do not make money out of your transport industry, in particular your rail industry. It costs money and they support it. Look at France. Look at Germany. Of course, they point to Japan and say, 'Well, that is in the private sector.' Well, it is. The Bullet Train is in the private sector, but there is another part of it that requires public subsidy. The current rail subsidy is five times as much as it was under British Rail - £5 billion! I just wish they had paid that type of money when it was actually in public hands, because we would have been an industry and we would have been a service that would have been the envy of the world.
It has not delivered for passengers. I am one myself. I am a commuter. It is a nightmare to travel around the railway industry today. It has not delivered for employees, not because terms and conditions have been attacked, because Bob, I and ASLEF have stood together and we have defended ours. We did have that attack, by the way, in Network Rail. We did stand together and we kept your pension fund open. We will continue. Any other employer within the railway industry that attacks your pension funds will have the same treatment from us.
As you know, we have had Mr. Darling’s review. What has it done? It shut down the Strategic Rail Authority. It was not strategic and it was not authoritative. It has done nothing else. We are still left with all the train operating companies. We are still left with all the track and rail companies and all of their subcontractors. We are still left with Network Rail. We are still left with ripping off the whole industry and we are still left with the Office of the Rail Regulator.
I know my time has run out and I did take your comment. This is important. We will be back here in two weeks’ time. TSSA is taking to the Labour Party a policy position to bring it back into public ownership. Go back into your constituencies, go back to your members and support the TSSA. Let us get it back where it belongs.
Andy Reed (ASLEF) : I am proud to stand and endorse the comments that have just been made by our colleagues from the RMT and TSSA. First of all, I will support the position of TSSA when we come back in two weeks’ time to the Labour Party Conference to push forward the agenda for the re‑nationalisation of the rail system in this country.
We ask you to support this composite motion today because we say enough is enough. Enough is enough with the substandard safety records within the rail industry, the exploitation of the workers within the rail industry and its associated businesses. We have seen a number of incidents in the rail industry that have caused the cost of life and people are walking away with no blame attached to them. We believe it is through the penny‑pinching of those various companies and the profit system that they are operating in that is endangering the country and the travelling public. The fact of the matter is the Government need to know that the reality is that 10 years after the start of privatisation, the railways are in more difficulty now than when they were under British Rail.
If the Government is seriously to undertake a review and seriously undertake a thorough look at the operations, then public ownership must be a major part of that thinking. We are proud of our campaigning record in ASLEF, along with our sister trade unions within the transport sector.
Take Back the Track has been a successful campaign, and the campaign to drive down the hours. It has all been done through the awareness of our members and the endeavours of other people. We would like to place on record our thanks to those people who have taken part in those campaigns and been victimised in the workplace whilst doing so.
On the eve of privatisation, my union, ASLEF, warned the Tory Government that the new structure would be indifferent, bureaucratic and expensive. Today, we stand here to say that it has been proved so. The time has now come to do what the RMT have just said. That is to take the keys back from the privateers when the franchises cease. It will not cost us any money for doing that particular issue. The money that they are pouring into these various companies can then be redirected into a national rail system for the good of the country, for the good of the commuters and for the good of the workers that are working in that particular industry. Please support the motion and please support us when we get to the Labour Party.
Paul Maloney (NUMAST) supporting the composite motion said: I am speaking on the last two paragraphs. Here is the Red Ensign, the proud symbol of Britain’s Merchant Navy; a flag which, at one time, flew from the stern of almost 50 per cent of the ships around the world. How things have changed.
Two decades of Tory rule destroyed Britain’s merchant fleet. During that time, the volume of shipping flying the Red Ensign slumped from 50 million tons to 3 million. Even worse, the number of British seafarers were slashed by more than two‑thirds. When Labour came to power with John Prescott at the helm of transport policy, we had high hopes of a new era for British shipping.
The Government are chartering a new course. The policy package implemented in 2000 was designed to rebuild our industry and safeguard our seafaring skills. However, four years on, we are now facing the sorry spectacle of our once proud flag joining the sordid ranks of Panama, St. Vincent and Cambodia as a flag of convenience.
Why? Because so far the Government’s policies have failed. While they may have delivered more ships, they have failed to deliver more jobs for seafarers. Today, despite the Government’s bold words, we have seen a further 1,000 Merchant Navy officer jobs lost in the last two years. We continue to face the sacking of our members and their replacement with lower cost seafarers.
Let us be clear. Our industry is the grandfather of globalised industries. We have had a long tradition of multinational crews, but a global industry needs global rules and global enforcement if it is to avoid lowest common denominator standards and a race to the bottom.
Today we face the very real prospect of the Red Ensign joining and encouraging this race to the bottom. NUMAST believes that the British taxpayer, which now subsidises our industry, would rather see the British flag as a flag of excellence with the best quality, safest ships and the best quality safest seafarers covered and protected by employment law serving on them. So we call on the Government to ensure that if ship owners want to fly the Red Ensign and benefit from tax breaks, then they must have in place plans to train and employ the best quality seafarers. It is time our Government faced up to the problems that our industry faces and recognised that the terms and conditions applied to seafarers serving on UK vessels is a matter for them.
In supporting this motion, I must, however, comment on the final paragraph. NUMAST recognises the argument for the full repeal of section 9 of the Race Relations Act, but we must also ensure that this is replaced with a proper mechanism for safeguarding seafarers’ terms and conditions in an international industry. National laws do not always solve international problems.
Britain needs ships and we need seafarers. We need the Government to continue the work started in 2000 so that the Red Ensign becomes a centre of excellence and not a flag of convenience.
James Undy (PCS) supporting the composite motion said: In welcoming the White Paper as another small step along the agonising path to renationalisation of the railways, we want in PCS to draw attention to yet another group of our members facing an uncertain and difficult future. That is our members, along with those of the TSSA, who work in the Strategic Rail Authority and who now face a concern about what their future is, whether they are going to end up with Network Rail or with the Department of Transport.
Throughout this week, and we have been very grateful for the support we have received, PCS has sought to highlight the jobs crisis in the Civil Service. We are not going to lose 100,000 jobs because PCS, as you will have gathered, is not rolling over, but we are also not going to lose 100,000 jobs because some of what you are about to see is the kind of statistical trickery that leads to the SRA staff not being civil servants but being public servants, so they do not count against that frightening head count of civil servants that causes such terror in the hearts of politicians.
One of our fears is that more and more quasi state bodies, like the SRA, like OFCOM, like POSTCOM, will emerge to do jobs that should be done by properly accountable civil servants. You might ask us why that matters, because the type of body may not make a great deal of difference to the way we deliver. I can say, on the basis of my experience of two years working at the strategic rail authority, the kind of body that turned out to be; a body headed by an ex‑Virgin accountant whose management philosophy was summarised in the papers as 'fit in or F off'; a man who employed Stephen Norris, who was at that time challenging Ken Livingstone for the Mayor of London, a post with responsibility for transport, employed him as a consultant to brief him before a Select Committee; a body that cowered before the Rail Passenger Committees; supposedly the voice of passengers, a voice that is silent on the central question on who owns and runs the railway; an anti‑union culture that saw a reaction amongst senior managers at the SRA to the result of the ASLEF general secretary election that was wholly inappropriate for people who were supposed to be politically neutral, public servants.
In asking for railway workers to run the railway and civil servants to do the policy‑making and the regulatory work, we are saying something very simple about the kinds of jobs that we do on your behalf. We are saying that we want public services delivered by people who are on your side. PCS is on your side. It is on the railway union’s side. We ask you to support Composite 14 and support our campaign to defend jobs in the Civil Service.
Simon Hester (Prospect) supporting the composite motion said: I am supporting the paragraph relating to rail safety regulation. The well‑known train disasters of Clapham, Ladbroke Grove and all the rest of them came in the wake of privatisation.
All the resultant public inquiries made many, many recommendations which are well‑documented. One of them, a key one, concerned the Rail Inspectorate, the safety regulator. At the time, the Rail Inspectorate was criticised for being too close to the industry and too reluctant to use enforcement powers.
Lord Cullen’s major report endorsed the earlier decision to move the Inspectorate from the Department of Transport and into the Health & Safety Executive. He strongly rejected the argument of the Association of Train Operating Companies. They wanted a regulatory body resembling the Civil Aviation Authority with strong investigative powers but little power to enforce.
Lord Cullen believed that the move to H&SE would sharpen up the railway inspectorate by being part of a wider regulatory authority with experience across the whole of industry and by integrating it into the H&SE enforcement strategy.
Only three years after that report was published, just three years, Alastair Darling’s rail review has reversed the process. The Cullen Inquiry on that particular point is being reversed. The Railway Inspectorate is being moved back into the Department of Transport in the Office of the Rail Regulator. They have buckled to the argument of the Association of Train Operating Companies and against the advice of the Health & Safety Commission.
Why is this a backward step? Firstly, the Office of the Rail Regulator will regulate the financial health of the railway companies as well as the management of health and safety. There is a massive potential for a conflict of interest, not because of the individual inspectors or even collectively the Inspectorate, but because of the organisational structure that they will be working in. One of the duties of the ORR, for example, would be to ensure the profitability of the companies.
However, this problem is going to be magnified greatly. The Office of the Rail Regulator is going to be the organisation doling out billions of pounds of public subsidies to the rail companies. Where is that money going to go? New trains? New track? Safety measures? Staff training or dividends to shareholders and a Knickerbox on every station?
Here is a quote from Lord Cullen’s report in 2001: 'If the Safety Regulator is to discharge its function properly and give the public notice that it is doing so, it is essential that it should be independent of the industry and be clearly seen to be independent of it.'
There is a bigger picture, which I am not going to have time to finish, but the train operating companies have fronted a big public attack on the H&SE using the arguments of the railway industry. For example, the Daily Telegraph in August called for the Health & Safety Executive to be shut down. The Daily Mail, that well‑known bastion of liberal values, called Bill Callaghan, the Health & Safety Commissioner, 'the Health & Safety fascist' ‑‑ very rich coming from that paper which had the headline in the 1930s as 'Hooray for the Blackshirts'.
Last year, Gordon Brown said: 'Health and safety is a mark of a civilised society'. We say to him: 'Put your money where your mouth is. Do not cut the jobs and put more enforcement powers into the Railway Inspectorate and the H&SE in general.'
Janet Seymour (Amicus) : When you ask disabled people what affects them most, what stops them from being part of the public and an active participating member of society, they say it is inaccessible transport. If it is inaccessible transport that stops them from getting to work, keeps them away from any leisure centres and activities ‑‑ even those who are able‑bodied are known to refuse or decline an offer of a job due to their being no transport at the time they need it or to the area they need it in ‑‑ what is missing out of this motion is not the request but the demand for more accessible transport and at those times needed to get to and from their workplace.
Another recommendation to the Government from the Scrutineers’ Committee in looking into the draft Disablility Bill that was not accepted was their suggestion of the final date of the running of inaccessible trains to the disabled public. It was recommended to be 2017, not the ridiculous date of 2025. If they did this, the Government would be opening another means of transport to those disabled people who want to work. It is the only type of transport that has no end date applied to it.
So I, on behalf of Amicus, call upon the TUC to support disabled people. Add this item to your campaign on transport by getting the Government to stop dallying and finally make a decision on what the end date will be. The Government wants more disabled people into the workplace, off benefits, they say, yet do not seem to assist us in achieving this. So what do we want? Accessible transport. When do we want it? Now, not in 2025.
The President: I have no further speakers listed. The General Councils supports Composite Motion 14.
· Composite Motion 14 was CARRIED.
Maritime Security
Alan Graveson (NUMAST) moved Motion 61.
(Insert Motion 61 ‑ Maritime Security)
He said: Fellow workers, three years ago this Congress was abandoned. A great deal has taken place since. The real test of a tolerant and mature society is its response to the difficult challenges it faces. This test has been failed in many parts of the world. Basic rights and freedoms are coming under pressure as a creeping paranoia starts to cripple democratic society.
Transport workers are very much in the frontline fighting on two fronts, facing the risk of death and disablement from unlawful acts and restrictions made by misguided authorities that see them as a potential problem rather than part of the solution. Crews of aircraft on 9/11 were amongst the victims. There is a constant litany of incidents involving either trains, planes, ships or buses, with transport workers subject to acts of terror. Major incidents involving the public are widely reported where workers alone are victims and the motive of the perpetrators is unclear. There is barely passing comment in the media.
We hear a great deal about violence in the workplace. I will tell you what violence is. Over the past decade, there have been more than 2,800 incidents of piracy and armed robbery against merchant ships; more than 2,500 people have been held hostage and at least 330 murdered, limbs severed, seafarers bound and fed to the sharks. That is the swimming variety of sharks.
A major incident involving serious loss of life or catastrophic environmental damage is going to happen. Why? Because this is a government, like many others, that is willing to go to war for business rather than protect and provide the minimum protection to the workers, the seafarers that I represent.
Seafarers are being sent into the frontline armed with little more than a booklet. This booklet is what you get from Government. Not much else. That is what you get. What do you get from the ship owners? Yes, a nice coloured one. That is what the two‑legged sharks will give you! With crew levels so low and the statutory minimum of 91 hours per week frequently exceeded, these ridiculous suggestions in relation to this booklet are impossible to implement. A major incident is certainly going to happen.
In a number of countries, seafarers are treated like criminals, imprisoned on their ships and denied the opportunity to go ashore. Some ports and terminals have refused access to ships by trade union officials and port chaplains have been denied entry to ships. Seafarers are being victimised twice over, victims of attacks and also victims of ill‑thought out responses by officialdom.
Governments, especially those with the resources to do so, must protect shipping, the main artery of world trade; the trade that this island nation depends upon. Ninety per cent by value, ninety‑five per cent by volume, comes into this land. So let us stop using seafarers as scapegoats for the shipping industry security shortcomings. Start treating them as the professionals they are. Let us enjoin in partnership and let us look for a rational, sensible and effective regime.
Congress, we have received little media attention this week. We need debate. We need debate on issues such as this. I ask the General Council here to my left and I ask you to support this motion.
Graham Fowler (BALPA) seconding Motion 61 said: BALPA fully supports the enhancement of security measures at ports, both sea and air, around the world. We should not overlook the need for robust security measures in the railway industry too, as our colleagues in Madrid know only too well.
Whilst security standards have improved at airports post 9/11, much more needs to be done. If security is to be taken seriously, those employed to undertake it have to be properly trained and remunerated. Too often measures have been introduced by governments, which, far from making transport more secure, undermine it. This can only be avoided if those employed in the industry, seafarers, train and air crews alike, are fully involved in the development of appropriate security procedures and are kept aware of threat levels and countermeasures around the world.
Please support Motion 61 and help make sea, rail and air travel safer for us all.
Gordon Rowntree (PCS) supporting the motion aid: The motion draws attention to the failure to achieve a compliance with the July deadline for the introduction of new security measures agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. PCS represents those staff in the Transport Security Directorate of the Department of Transport, known as TRANSEC. These are the people who deal with port security.
The whole area of security was under‑resourced until the events of 9/11 forced the DfT to re‑evaluate the position. However, most of the new posts were allocated to aviation and not to maritime security. PCS, Prospect members and TRANSEC have worked hard to deliver Government and IMO policy, but these members are under extreme measure.
PCS has been telling you this week about the job cuts in the Civil Service, but TRANSEC is so severely under‑resourced that it has even been excluded from the Gershon Efficiency Review, which led to the vicious cuts in every other part of the Civil Service. Additional resources and recognition by the government are not only necessary but essential in order to for us to be enabled to meet our UK and international obligations.
Ship security is covered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the MCA, and all UK flag ships have been inspected by MCA’s security inspectorate. Together with coastguards, MCA’s civil servants have played a major role in maritime safety, security and standards. As is the case for TRANSEC, sufficient funding and resources are needed to assist the MCA in addressing maritime issues and the issues facing MCA staff.
The President: The General Council supports the motion.
· Motion 61 was CARRIED.
Transport
Robert Monks (United Road Transport Union) moved Motion 62
(Insert Motion 62 ‑ Transport)
He said: May I start by taking just a minute to offer heartfelt thanks to all those involved in helping to secure my union’s return to the TUC? Particular thanks go to my comrade at the T&G, Tony Woodley, and to the hard work put in by Brendan Barber. As is so often said, it is good to be back.
Ninety‑four per cent of all goods are delivered by road. As I look around the Brighton Centre today, whether it be at the stage here, the seats you are sitting on or the lighting, I know it would have been delivered on the back of a truck driven by a professional lorry driver. Drivers of large goods vehicles are the backbone of our country and it is high time their voice was heard. Without them, our economy would grind to a halt.
I am sure all delegates will be able to recall the chaos that was caused when professional petrol tanker drivers do not work for just three days in this country; yet, you may be surprised to learn that the logistics industry in the UK is in deep crisis. There is a vast shortage of professional lorry drivers. Some estimates place the figure as high as 80,000 drivers. With the impending implementation of the Working Time Regulations on mobile workers in transport, this crisis is likely to get worse before it gets better.
Why is there a shortage? The plain truth is that for too long the logistic industry has been abused by too many employers who have done nothing but take and have consistently failed to reinvest in their biggest asset, the driver behind the wheel. Terms and conditions of employment are poor. Experienced men and women have left the industry in droves. Young women and men are choosing not to enter the profession in sufficient numbers. There is a time bomb ticking out there waiting to go off.
To ensure that this exodus stops and the numbers of professional drivers increase will require a monumental commitment of all groups within our industry. My union has been campaigning to ensure that any action that will alleviate this problem is implemented and done so quickly.
In March of this year, the large goods vehicle licence renewal fee was abolished; a positive step in keeping drivers in the industry. Motion 62 seeks to support the General Council to lobby the Government to seek to have the large goods vehicle licence medical examination fees available to professional drivers through the NHS at no cost to the driver.
When a professional lorry driver reaches the age of 45, or the first renewal after their 45th birthday, and thereafter every five years, he or she has to renew their vocational licence. In order to do this, they must pass a medical. In a recent survey of professional drivers undertaken by my union, it was found that doctors charged lorry drivers as much as £120 for such a medical. The BMA advisory figure is £67.50. With approximately half a million vocational licence holders in the UK, this would amount to about £3 million per annum at today’s prices.
The abolition of the vocational licence fee was a start. Action by the Government on this motion will continue the good work in ensuring that encouragement is given to professional drivers to renew their licence and removing yet another obstacle within the industry.
The worth of professional lorry drivers to the UK’s economy is incalculable. Their value is so often underlooked. I urge you to support Motion 62 as amended.
Graham Stevenson (T&GWU) : I am the national organiser for transport. Every year, some 3,500 people are killed on Britain’s roads. It is a case of at least one 9/11 annually. Fatigue at the wheel has now overtaken drink/driving as the cause of road traffic accidents. It is the main factor in 10 per cent of all incidents, yet professional drivers who spend their lives on these dangerous roads are employed in a long hours culture that puts profit before people.
The Government put up signs advising motorists to have a rest every two hours. We wish professional drivers had such a luxury. It is time to change course. It is time to give every professional driver, whatever the type and weight of the vehicle, the full protection of regulations on hours of work and driving time. No fiddling about with stand‑by time, waiting time; no tweaking the figures; no clever accounting and no tweaking of the rules. This issue is not about barriers to business. It is about lives.
It is also time to tackle the rising tide of violence suffered by transport workers. Nobody goes to work to be knifed or spat at; nobody deserves to live in fear of a brick thrown through their cab window; nobody likes to hide behind plastic screens for protection. However, that is the situation that the bus and rail workers, cabin crew and check‑in staff and many other transport workers find themselves. It is terrorism on wheels.
A Glasgow bus driver was only recently saved from certain death when a knife aimed at his heart stuck in his T&G pocket diary. It is not comical, I assure you, when you are on the receiving end, but I know that the T&G always came through in every set of circumstances.
The fear of assault, the near incidents and the threats all pile on the stress as transport workers try to do their job. Companies are too quick to terminate employment of those on long‑term sick when their minds and bodies tell them not to go back to work to be terrorised. Safety and security at work is the most difficult health and safety issue of all because the problems are rooted in the myth that the free market will ultimately resolve all problems.
The violence emerges from our arguments about complex and high fares, late and early running and the decaying fabric of our transport infrastructure. Road, rail, air and even sea rage is not caused by transport workers, nor should they carry the can. Congress, support the motion and the amendment.
* Motion 62 was CARRIED.
TUC Organisation
The President: We turn to Chapter 12, TUC Organisation, page 150. Could I draw your attention to appendix 6, page 167 of the General Council’s Report, which is the TUC accounts. Our auditor is present on the platform. Does Congress accept the accounts as set out in the Appendix? (Agreed) That completes Chapter 12. Thank you.
Economic and Industrial Affairs
Justice
Prison Overcrowding
The President: We now return to Chapter 5, Economic and Industrial Affairs, and the section on Justice, Motion 74, Prison Overcrowding. The General Council support the motion.
Steve Gillan (Vice-President, POA (UK)) moved Motion 74.
(Insert Motion 74 - Prison Overcrowding)
He said: Before I move this motion, Congress, and with a bit of licence from the President, I would like to thank Brendan Barber for his assistance (who I notice is not on the stage this morning, at the moment) in resolving a dispute surrounding prison officers’ safety in Northern Ireland. Let me tell you, Congress, that if that dispute had not been resolved then the Prison Officers’ Association would have shut down every gaol in Great Britain in order to resolve it. We believed the health and safety of our members was in serious danger at that time, and irrespective of us not having the ability to take industrial action because of the restrictions under the Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994 we would have broken that law, and we would have criminalized the National Executive Committee. It is about time the Labour Government honoured their pledge given when in opposition to return our full trade union rights; we wait for that to happen as quickly as possible. Please do it soon.
Congress, prisons are again at crisis point. Overcrowded prisons are a recipe for disaster. There are now over 75,000 prisoners in the system. The strain on some institutions is blatantly evident. We are locking up not only the bad but the sad, and the mentally ill, in ever-increasing numbers. At the same time, this Government is continually demanding further budget cuts. They are market-testing the service, privatising parts of it, and we now face the prospect of some of our most modern successful prisons under the guise of contestability being packaged up and handed over to the private companies based here, but predominantly abroad.
Let me remind you of what was said in 1993: 'I believe that people who are sentenced by the state to imprisonment should be deprived of their liberty, kept under lock and key by those who are accountable primarily and solely to the state.' -- Tony Blair, 1993. 'A prison sentence is the most severe form of punishment in this country and it should be the duty of the state to administer it.' --Jack Straw, Shadow Home Secretary, 1995. 'It is morally repugnant for private companies to profit out of incarceration.' -- Jack Straw, Shadow Home Secretary, 1995.
What was morally repugnant in 1995 is morally repugnant in 2004. The effects of this scurrilous strategy and the continued under-resourcing of the service place our members and the offenders they care for at greater risk. Studies have found that 90 per cent of all prisoners have shown evidence of personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse, or drug dependence. This is the indication of the level of difficulty our members have in the care and rehabilitation of offenders and yet the Government expects the service to make efficiency savings through staff cuts. These cuts have consequences: violence against staff is at the highest level. In the last five years, almost 10,000 staff have been assaulted whilst at work. Over the same period, there have been almost 40,000 incidents; assaults by prisoner on prisoner are higher than ever. In the last five years, over 434 prisoners have taken their own lives in prisons in England and Wales. Only last month we saw the largest ever number of suicides in one month in our prison system, 14 prisoners took their own life. The Howard League for Penal Reform reported last year that the reduction in staff prisoner ratios is making it increasingly difficult for staff to provide the quality of care necessary.
I can tell you now that one of the main fundamental reasons for this is the sustained levels of overcrowding and penny-pinching by the Treasury. We seek the support of Congress to bring an end to a prison system that is now being driven by the market economy to keep the privateer fat cats happy. It is preventable if we have legislation to make overcrowding an unlawful act under European and international law. Please support the motion.
Judy McKnight (NAPO) in seconding the motion, said: Congress, prison overcrowding is wrong, immoral, obscene, expensive, and actually does not work in protecting the public. There are two points: why does it not work and why is it happening?
Why does it not work? First of all, public protection, real and effective public protection, is not just about locking larger and larger numbers of prisoners away for longer periods of time. It is self-evidently about taking action to try and reduce re-offending. Consider that 80 per cent of prisoners have a reading age of 11, 60-70 per cent of prisoners were using drugs before imprisonment, over 70 per cent suffer from at least two mental disorders, 20 per cent of men and 37 per cent of women prisoners have attempted suicide in the past. The implications of prison overcrowding are self-evident when considering those examples of the causes of offending.
Secondly, why is it happening? It may not be headlines in the tabloid press but actually crime has fallen by 25 per cent over the last five to six years. During that period there has been no increase in the numbers appearing in court. What has happened is that a greater proportion of those who have appeared in court have received gaol sentences as opposed to non-custodial sentences and most of those have received sentences for a longer period of time. Unfortunately, the statistics show a direct link between politicians talking tough and the rise in the prison population. Politicians, we know, of both the Labour Government as well as obviously the Tory Party, cynically court popularity by the tactic of cheap populism with a view to talking tough on law and order. We can expect to see more of this cynical approach in the run-up to the General Election.
Congress, help us get the message over to the Government that such cheap populist tactics do not have the support of the TUC. Help us to get the Government to tackle the growing crisis in prison overcrowding, and please support motion 74.
The President: The General Council support Motion 74.
· Motion 74 was CARRIED.
Criminal Sentencing Policy
Brian Caton (POA (UK)) moved Motion 75.
(Insert Motion 75 - Criminal Sentencing Policy)
He said: Crime in our society is identified as one of the major causes of concern for all of our citizens, a major concern that should be, of course, with our members, trade union members, who are also victims of crime. Many of your members will have suffered at the hands of criminals and many will be very very disenchanted about the way in which the offenders were dealt with. So much crime is committed against working-class people. The days of Victorian times with Raffles crawling across the rich people’s houses to take the jewellery is long gone. Equally, I believe that those Victorian criminals very rarely hurt people. Criminals nowadays do hurt people. When they break into your house, when they mug you on the street, when they attack and rape young children, they hurt not only the victims themselves but their families and society as a whole. We should not hide from the fact that victims of crime want punishment for offenders.
Politicians continue, as you heard from NAPO, with this horse race of who can lead in being the most harsh on crime and being tough on criminals, and sending more and more people to prison. But I would ask you to think on a little bit further than that. A sentence when handed out by the courts should be multi-faceted, it should deal with the actual offenders themselves. Yes, it should punish but it should also look at rehabilitation of the offender and make sure that that offender does not commit a similar or any other crime on release, and certainly should not commit offences whilst in custody or against those trying to help. It should be about rehabilitation and training, and education, and there should be sufficient time to ensure that these behaviours that are so abhorrent are adjusted.
Sentencing should not be an end in itself and it certainly should not end at the prison gate, either when they are going in through it or coming out of it. It should not even start at the prison gate, or on release. Sentencing of criminals certainly fills our prisons to overcrowding but something else it does currently is put huge amounts of money into the pockets of those profiteers that have come to this country because of the lack of civil society and the privatisation of prisons; so, it is in all our interests to insist that we have a good criminal sentencing policy.
We insist as trade unions that we are in the forefront, as professionals, not only to assist government in making sure that their policies are correct, but also to assist society with our professional knowledge. Currently, this is not the case. Government have agreed basically where they want to go but they ignore our views on how we are going to get there. We ask you to support our full involvement if not for our sake as professionals then for the sake of society. If we do not do that, if we do not tap into the knowledge that exists within the criminal justice system, our members and our trade unions, if we do not do that Britain will continue to be seen by observers as the European centre for ineffective penal and criminal policy.
May I finally make clear that our prisons are overcrowded but I say to Bob Crow and to the NUM delegation that we will always find a place for those who are guilty of corporate killing and corporate manslaughter, even if - even if - we have to go against our own policies. Thank you, Congress.
Rob Thomas (NAPO) in seconding the motion, said: Building more prisons is popular but raising the extra billions in taxes needed to fund them is unpopular. Nearly everyone agrees that we need more drug treatment centres in our communities, except if it is in their neighbourhood. How do we solve these conundrums? What we need is a government, as has already been pointed out by the POA, that is brave enough to tell the voters that what works best is effective non-custodial penalties rather than what the tabloids tell us is right. If a Labour government is re-elected, then it is going to have to change its tack significantly on both sentencing policies and its attitude to the operation of community-based penalties.
Since New Labour came to power in 1997, it has adopted a justice model based on retribution and punishment. This in turn has led to a record prison population with the UK now having the highest rate of incarceration in the EU. I am sorry that fact is often repeated but it needs to be. Throughout the last eight years the message from ministers on the use of custody has been inconsistent. This has fuelled the view that the Government wishes to see more people in prison; indeed, between 1997 and 2002 New Labour created over 650 new criminal offences. Despite the lessons of the Lawrence Inquiry, the Government has failed to tackle racism and discrimination within the criminal justice system. Young black people are more likely to be remanded in custody for a first offence than their white counterpart yet half are acquitted. Between 1999 and 2002 the gaol population rose by 12 per cent but the number of black people being gaoled rose by 50 per cent. If that is not blatant racism, I do not know what is.
There are now over 4,000 women serving prison sentences in England and Wales. The numbers have doubled in less than a decade. The main reason for this is an increased severity in the courts but there has also been a sharp increase in the number of drug-related convictions. The vast majority of women should not be in prison. They would be better off on community programmes that offer educational skills, mental health support and, if appropriate, one-to-one counselling.
On drug misuse there should be a national debate on whether drug use should or should not be decriminalised. It is essential that the Government begin to approach illegal drug use from the perspective of health and treatment rather than criminal justice and punishment. There is an urgent need for a national programme to promote community penalties. The more information that is available, the more the public traditionally will have confidence. Judges should be encouraged to review cases where community penalties are imposed. Currently they see only the failures yet Home Office data published in March 2003 showed that ex-offenders are less likely to be reconvicted for standard offences within two years if they are on community sentences rather than in custody. Support this motion and be prepared to defend the rehabilitative work done with ex-offenders.
Rosie Eagleson (AMO) in support of the motion, said: We want to highlight three particular requirements to support this approach. The burgeoning prison population is hugely costly and that effectively diverts resources away from the alternative sentencing options. So, those who sentence, in theory, have a wider range of non-custodial options available to them than ever before. Lack of resources means that sensible alternatives, like drug treatment programmes, community programmes, intensive supervision programmes, and so on, are rarely available in the right places at the appropriate time actually to be used. We need practical proper resourcing of these alternatives and not a mad dash to build more and more prisons.
Secondly, fines are the most common non-custodial sentences and we need to promote a means-related fines policy. Realistic fines should be imposed which are proportionate to an offender’s ability to pay. This does not always happen at the moment and that undermines the credibility and effectiveness of fines as an alternative to prison. The old view was that the fines system was vocally opposed, particularly by the well off, I seem to remember, but the principle was absolutely right and it should be reinstated.
Finally, we must resist any further incursions of the private sector into fines collection. This is a real and immediate threat. The Government is actively reviewing the possibility of further private sector involvement in this work. Private enforcement agencies have an appalling record. Cherry-picking easy work, they charge large fees for the collection of fines which offenders themselves have to pay before their fines are cleared. In the worst-case scenarios, these companies resort to unacceptable collection methods, and they sometimes go bust or disappear with fines money. It is proposed to allow enforcement officers to force entry into premises to search and to restrain. We have some reservations about anybody other than the police having those powers but at least they will be directly managed, there will be a directly managed rigorous code of practice for our members undertaking this work for the protection of the public and the protection of the staff.
Congress, the private sector has no place in this area. We must press for properly resourced, effective, non-custodial sentences operated within the public sector. Please support.
The President: The General Council supports Motion 75.
· Motion 75 was CARRIED
National Offender Management Service
Judy McKnight (NAPO) moved Motion 76.
(Insert Motion 76 - National Offender Management Service)
She said: NOMS has been spun by the Government as being about bringing the probation and prison services closer together but let me explain what NOMS is not. It is not about merging the prison and probation services. It is not about creating a single streamlined employing body with clear governance. NOMS is about bringing prison and probation services under one umbrella, not in order to promote closer working but in order to pit us along with the voluntary and the private sector against each other in a competitive framework dubbed 'contestability'. Its purpose is the creation of a purchaser/provider market to ease the path of the private sector in making inroads, and of course profits, into the delivery of justice, and to use the threat of privatisation to attack the terms and conditions of staff.
NOMS was first announced by David Blunkett on January 6th when he stood up and announced that the Government was going to act on the implementation of Patrick Carter’s report on the correctional services. Without any consultation, he announced that NOMS would come into being on 1st June 2004. There were aspects of the Carter report that sounded positive, including a recognition that something needed to be done about the severity of sentencing. But these concepts have had little to do with the ill thought out ragbag of organisational and structural change still being worked out, seemingly, on the back of an envelope.
In May, the Home Office announced that rushed legislation was to be brought in this Autumn so that the probation service, currently organised and employed on the basis of 42 probation areas, was to be dismantled, to split in two, and moved to a regional model, not in order to increase our effectiveness but in order to introduce the purchaser/provider split. These plans had not been properly thought through, did not make sense, and were torn apart by everybody, not just trade unions but probation employers.
NAPO, along with our sister unions in the criminal justice system mounted a big campaign against NOMS as proposed. It included a very successful rally and lobby of parliament and we have also been successful to date in getting 241 MPs to sign an early day motion on NOMS; and certainly again thanks to the TUC for their support in our campaign today.
In July, Paul Goggins, the Home Office minister, announced that the Government would not now go ahead with splitting the probation service as planned and that it would remain organised on the basis of 42 boards for the foreseeable future, but he nevertheless stressed that the Government’s plan for introducing contestability into the work of both the probation and prison services remained.
We welcome this announcement as a victory for common sense but we have been increasingly conscious that our victory has only bought us time. The Government remains as ruthless as ever to extend the principles of contestability to every aspect of our work and the threat is now that a whole probation area is either simply to be handed over to the private sector, or subjected to market testing in the next couple of years.
Our colleagues in the POA know only too well what contestability means and their members understand the harsh realities of the sort of statistics given in a recent parliamentary question to the effect that in April 2003 the average basic salary for prison officers in publicly-run prisons in England and Wales was £23,071, in private prisons £16,077. We have given evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee pointing out that no case has been made for NOMS and there has been no parliamentary debate, no parliamentary scrutiny, no production of a business case, no Green Paper, it has simply been asserted, announced, and implemented. We are also pointing out that no case has been made to show that contestability will in any way improve effectiveness; no such case can be made.
Colleagues, England and Wales already have a higher proportion of people in private prisons, at 9 per cent, than the United States with 6.5 per cent. It is a depressing fact that more jobs across the public sector have already been privatised under this Government since 1997 than in the previous 18 years of a Tory government. Colleagues, please support our motion and please prevent the criminal justice system being run by the profit motive. Support motion 76.
Brian Caton (POA (UK)) in seconding the motion, said: The National Offender Management Service is a service that seems to have no justification, no jurisdiction, and seems to be again policy on the hoof by a government intent on showing it can be tough on crime but not tough on the causes of crime. Let me tell you, first of all, what NOMS will not tackle and will not resolve. It will not resolve prison overcrowding. It will not bring investment into prisons, into probation, or into the courts. It will not improve security, safety, or the rehabilitation of offenders. It will not in itself do anything other than market-test successful prisons and parts of the probation based on political dogma and the promises given to private companies in America, and given by the NOMS leader, Martin Narey, and this current Home Secretary.
What will happen? Prison populations will rise, more overcrowding, less safety in custody, and more crime, not less. If we get it wrong - if we get it wrong - as professionals, it is you and your families that will suffer from this Government’s self-determined failures. It was the TUC, I will remind you, that agreed with the POA, NAPO, and AMO, to seek a joined-up justice system. We did not seek the spin or the photo opportunities of this Home Secretary. We asked for all those with an interest in prisons to tackle this agenda together, in partnership, be they trade unions, officials, government, charities, and non-governmental organisations. This Government chose to launch publicly where we wanted to be but have no real open ideas of how we are going to get there; but privatisation is on the agenda.
I will just read to you what the Home Secretary has said to me: 'Although it is the case that the performance improvement plan [and that is something we have done inside the prison service] has an impressive record of success in driving forward change in the public sector prison service it excludes other potential providers from proposing alternatives, thus it does not offer the potential for maximising performance improvement and cost-effective delivery. The principles of market-testing have been long-established as government policy, similarly it is well established that market-testing is not an issue for collective bargaining or disputes procedures.' We cannot take industrial action; they took that away and have never given it back, and now we cannot even speak about things that are going to ruin our members’ jobs and ruin your criminal justice system and put you and your families at risk.
Colleagues, it is an absolute disgrace for this Government to come forward with such an ill thought out, already failing, process. If you can privatise justice, and I have said it many times here, then you can privatise anything, and if the Government gets away with it, watch out, you will be next. Thank you.
The President: The General Council supports motion 76.
· Motion 76 was CARRIED
The President: I have to call paragraph 5.16 on Criminal Justice Issues, and a paragraph I inadvertently missed out on Race Equality, 3.8. It was the FBU that noticed I had missed paragraph 3.8, so thank you very much.
Race Equality
Michael Nicholas (FBU) speaking to paragraph 3.8, said: Thank you, President. Under the report, paragraph 3.8, in the little box that has the Black Workers’ Conference, we have omitted a speaker that we had at the Black Workers’ Conference that I need delegates and officials to be aware of. Her name was Janet Aulder, and she runs a campaign called Justice for Christopher Aulder. Earlier this year on the BBC there was a programme called Death on Camera, graphically showing us all (those who watched it, certainly) the brutalising and the subsequent death of a young black man while in the custody of the Humberside police. Janet has started the campaign for a public inquiry. She needs absolutely all the help she can get from the trade union Movement. I am sure that will be forthcoming and you just need to be aware that campaign literature with offers and requests for support will be with you this side of Christmas. I need you all to be aware of that and to support it in any way you can. Thank you very much.
The President: Thank you for drawing that to our attention. It will be reported in the report of this Congress and of course will be part of the business of the TUC during the year. Thank you.
Economic and Industrial Affairs, continued
Opposition to Performance-Related Pay (PRP)
The President: We now come to Chapter 5, Economic and Industrial Affairs, health service, Motion 47, Opposition to performance-related pay (PRP).
Richard Evans (SoR) moved motion 47.
(Insert Motion 47 - Opposition to performance-related pay (PRP))
He said: First of all, I should pay tribute to the work put in on this motion by Sarah Larkins, our member, who unfortunately cannot be here this morning due to the rescheduling of the motion in the agenda.
There is an intention to introduce performance-related pay for public service employees. The NHS is a public service with a massively diverse provision and employing a similarly diverse workforce. The introduction of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value is proving difficult enough to achieve through the current work on Agenda for Change. There are clear deficiencies in the resourcing for this programme but there are very encouraging examples of partnership working taking place resulting in successes in some of the early implementation sites.
Congress, I need to tell you this morning that performance-related pay is not about partnership working, it mitigates against it. Performance-related pay divides managers and staff by introducing a subjective element to pay determination and it divides staff themselves by introducing inequality and competition. It does not sound ideal. So, what is the evidence to support performance-related pay? I am glad that friends in Unison have been doing some excellent work in reviewing the research. They have found that schemes are less effective than expected in the public sector. Systems are affected by cash limits making rewards for high performance too small to achieve any motivation for staff. They also comment that because PRP systems are based on appraisals of the individual worker, often by their line manager, bias and personal favouritism can influence the result of the reviews. Instead of motivating workers, performance pay undermines high quality service and challenges effective team working. It encourages a short-term focus and leads staff to believe that rewards depend not on the delivery of a first-class service but on the relationship that you may have with your manager.
My own experiences of a PRP system within the NHS may help to illustrate some of the weaknesses. My colleagues and I knew that 10 per cent of our salary depended on a performance-related bonus. We knew that that would be allocated and decided annually by appraisal. We also knew that it was impossible to achieve a full salary; it was impossible for any of us to reach the full 10 per cent because there was not the money in the budget to do it. Faultless performance could not actually effectively be appropriately rewarded. We found that the appraisal process became hijacked by this reward factor and little attention was given to any other achievements which fell outside the performance-related framework, and some of the objectives that were set one year related to pay became irrelevant during the year, resulting in a frantic rush at the last minute to try and meet those objectives and be appropriately paid. Our manager did his best to make it work, to make it fair and relevant, but it was not popular with him either. The system was not popular or practical in terms of encouraging good performance.
Congress, the NHS needs motivated staff working in partnership with excellent leaders. Performance-related pay neither motivates nor promotes leadership. Performance pay undermines teamwork and collaboration, and therefore reduces effectiveness and challenges patient care. The NHS does not need it, workers do not want it, and decent managers can produce better results without it. Congress, we should promote partnership working in service delivery and development, we should seek fair, impartial reward for the excellent work of all NHS staff, and we should oppose the implementation of cash-led performance pay systems in the public sector. Please support motion 47.
Nigel Gates (AUT) said: I am speaking in favour of the amendment to motion 47, and joining with the Society of Radiographers in their opposition to performance-related pay in the public sector. The very essence of higher education is teamwork and collaboration across all staff grades. The courses our members teach and the research they undertake all are based on teamwork. PRP would fundamentally undermine this; it would be bad for institutions, bad for staff, and bad for students.
Congress, I have experienced PRP. In 1992, the University of Hertfordshire, where I work, introduced a PRP scheme for its 800-odd academic and research staff: about 120 received a PRP award and 680 received nothing. PRP was a disaster. It set lecturer against lecturer, researcher against researcher, and teams and relationships were damaged. I am very glad to say that after two years and at the union’s request the University scrapped this particular scheme. However, the University is now preparing a new PRP scheme and the unions are very afraid of what will be proposed.
Sadly, Congress, my university is not alone. The University of Nottingham is leading the PRP assault in higher education. Without any proper consultation and in complete contradiction of the national agreement on pay, the University of Nottingham is seeking to impose a particularly ill-conceived PRP system where staff will have to compete against staff, and teams will be undermined. The bureaucratic scheme being proposed is not transparent, it is unfair, it is going to be highly damaging.
Congress, in just four days’ time, unless Nottingham returns to negotiations, AUT is going to introduce a national academic boycott. This means academic staff across the world will refuse to undertake any work with Nottingham University. That is how seriously this is viewed and what our members are prepared to do.
Finally, Congress, PRP schemes in the public sector increase inequality and discrimination, they are subjective, and they are divisive. I hope you will all join with me in sending a message loud and clear to the University of Nottingham, and the other misguided employers, there is no place for performance-related pay in the public sector.
The President: The General Council support motion 47.
· Motion 47 was CARRIED
· Motion 48 was REMITTED
Decontamination of Surgical Instruments
Robin Banerjee (SCP) moved Motion 49.
(Insert Motion 49 - Decontamination of Surgical Instruments)
He said: Back in 2001 the Government announced the investment of £200m to modernise NHS decontamination and sterilisation facilities. The investment was said at the time to underpin a major overhaul to provide the NHS with the most up-to-date equipment. At present, however, the NHS takes a rather fragmented approach. Given the media coverage all of us here will be aware of the importance of preventing cross-infection. Processing instruments in the podiatry environment to compulsory standards of washing, disinfection, and sterilisation, are fundamental to reducing the risk of cross-infection. It is particularly relevant now because, increasingly, minor surgical procedures are undertaken by podiatrists, who also manage many high-risk patients with anti-biotic resistant wounds, such as those infected with MRSA. Any podiatry instrument once used becomes a potential source of infection to another patient and to anyone handling the instrument. To minimise this risk each must be cleaned and sterilised as soon as possible.
At the Barnsley Primary Care Trust where I work monies were made available following a risk-assessment and cost-evaluation exercise, which stressed the need to ensure instrument traceability. The existing 25-year old sterilisers that the PCT had owned would soon have been only fit for steaming vegetables. The self-service scrubbing and cleaning of instruments by clinicians in and around clinical areas compromised actual treatment time for patients; indeed, such practices themselves were creating potential sources of cross-infection. It made sense for the primary care trust to consider better options. So, in June 2003, our podiatry department joined many other community services operating in the primary care trust in having instruments supplied from a local central sterilising unit. This reduced the risks of contamination to podiatrists, as well as to patients.
By 2007, all our podiatry organisations in the NHS will need to have demonstrated high standards of decontamination set by the EEC Medical Devices Directive. Unfortunately, there are compromised alternatives being considered by NHS boards across the country. They include the cheaper option of providing single-use instruments to clinical staff. The bulk purchasing of such equipment shows no regard at all for individual needs and differences between hand sizes, grip strength, and male/female variations. Given the large volume of patients that podiatrists treat, instruments should be safe not just for the patient but also for the podiatrist. We must not allow our podiatrists to be put in such compromised positions, which would inevitably affect clinical outcomes with possible litigation claims.
Using large quantities of disposable instruments also poses environmental concerns. Where will potentially infected instruments be disposed of? Landfill? Melting down for re-use? Is there capacity to cope with all this? The initial costs of contracting services to a central sterilising unit are, admittedly, high. This includes inspection, packaging, transportation, storage, let alone the costs of buying, loaning, and maintaining equipment, but without specific funding and not to the detriment of other services most PTCs would struggle. Investing in protecting both patients and clinicians would help lay a sound foundation for future generations. We must not create a world of excessive waste-producers.
Congress, we must all put our feet down. I ask you to support the motion that adequate funding be provided for central sterilisation, take every opportunity to voice our concerns whether this be through project steering groups, patient and public involvement forums, national patient surveys, or even at council and MPs’ surgeries. Thank you.
Norma Stephenson (Unison) in seconding the motion, said: Congress, whilst this motion may not be the one that sets this year’s Congress alight with stirring rhetoric or heated debate, it is no less an important issue. High standards of decontamination are vital to prevent the spread of disease and to ensure the safety of both patients and staff. I would say that staff who work in the sterile supplies departments are some of the unsung heroes and heroines of the NHS, and that is why Unison is proud to second this motion and give a voice to their concerns.
It is because clean instruments are so important that Unison welcomes the new European legislation on decontamination being introduced. We hope that it will lead to higher decontamination standards. We also agree with colleagues in other unions, in the Government, and in the EU, that many existing decontamination facilities are inadequate and that new investment is needed. However, we have serious concerns about the approach the Government is taking in tackling this issue.
A national decontamination strategy was announced last year but this was not the subject of any consultation with trade unions. It is perhaps not a big surprise as it turns out that the major part of the strategy involves the contracting out of services to the private sector. The Government has given assurance that staff who transfer over will have their terms and conditions protected and that there will be no widespread redundancies. However, this is cold comfort to many of our members as they may not be able to relocate to the sites of the proposed new sterile supply centres. If you were a woman working part-time in Leeds, you may not necessarily be able to move to a new workplace that could be at least 20 miles away.
Unison believes that the implementation of the decontamination strategy - and I said that after going to bed at 4 o’clock this morning - should be halted until full consultation has taken place with trade unions. So, while we are seeking discussions with the Department of Health, we need you to back this motion and the TUC support in order to press concerns. That is what our members hope for and that is what patients deserve. Congress, please support motion 49.
· Motion 49 was CARRIED
Economic and Industrial Affairs, continued
BBC Charter Renewal and Public Service Broadcasting
Tony Lennon (BECTU) moved Composite Motion 26.
(Insert Composite Motion 16 -- BBC charter renewal and public service broadcasting)
He said: Thank you for being here. We may be towards the end of the agenda but the next few motions cover a subject that is important to all of us, the future of broadcasting in this country and particularly the future of the BBC.
About every ten years the goverment take a long hard look at the B
BC. They decide what the BBC should be doing, how it should be funded and how it should operate. It is quite right that the government should do that because the BBC is publicly funded and is owned by you, the public and people who pay the licence fee. To give some credit to the government, they are going through a very open process of consultation at the moment because, in two years’ time, they will have to renew the charter of the BBC, which is effectively the BBC's right to exist.
There have been lot of meetings up and down the country; thousands of individual have offered their view about what the BBC should be doing; and there are piles of consultation documents big enough to give you a hernia if you try and lift them all at once. Unfortunately, this consultation has given the BBC's competitors and enemies the opportunity to line up and bash the BBC. These are massive media companies: some of them are broadcasters; some of them are publishers. They are saying one simple thing about the BBC: it gets too much money and, worse still, it uses that money to provide services free to the British public, which they the media companies think they ought to be charging for so they the media conglomerates can make a profit.
What they are saying to back up this argument is, 'We are moving into a multi-channel world of television and the BBC has therefore become irrelevant. There will be umpteen channels that people can choose to watch'. They have a point about us moving into the multi-channel age. About half the homes in Britain now have digital television. Within about the next eight or nine years it is possible that all the rest will have to join in and buy digital equipment. But when you look at those who have digital equipment now, the multi-channel homes, four million of them actually are taking a free service called Freeview, which is dominated by public service programmes, many of them made by the BBC. The other six million homes in this country who have digital television, OK they have Sky, they are truly multi-channel and some of them have to pay up to £40 a month for the privilege of watching hundreds of TV channels. If they want to do that, that is fine. Already we have four million homes that say 'We do not want to pay'and there are another 12 or 13 million homes out there where people either will not want to or will not be able to afford to pay for the subscription TV that Sky is modelled on.
It is crucially important as we review the existence of the BBC that we commit ourselves to having a properly funded quality broadcaster who is able to bring good television programmes and good radio to the audiences of this country for free, and do it well.
Let me go through the key points in Composite 16 because we need your support to try and keep the BBC going. Firstly, the licence fee, the poll tax of the air waves as it was once called: over the last 20 years people with much bigger brains than many of us have tried to find alternatives for the BBC licence fee and have failed. If you want public broadcasting that is adequately funded and free at the point of viewing and listening, the licence fee is the only answer. It has to be fair, and so far there has been a concession for households where people are over 75 years of age. There need to be further adjustments for people who genuinely cannot afford to pay, but if you want to fund the BBC properly you have to have the licence fee.
Second key point, top slicing: you remember I said that the BBC's enemies believe it is getting too much money. They have come up with a solution that is very simply to give money to them, the commercial broadcasters. That is no way to provide public service television and we are against the idea that your license money is creamed off and given to the shareholders of commercial TV companies.
We also want to restrict the amount of independently bought programming on the BBC. At the moment in the way that the Health Service buys in from private hospitals the BBC is forced to buy one in four of its programmes from private providers. We have learned to live with it but we think it has gone far enough. Buy in any more and you start to undermine the basic organisation and its reason for existence.
The final point I want to make on Composite 16 is a call for an end to the creeping privatisation of the BBC. We are currently dealing as a union with the biggest privatisation of the BBC yet: 1,400 people are going to be given over to the company that PCS are having trouble with, Siemens Business Services. The law has prevented them doing anything about it because you cannot go on strike against privatisation.
Those are the key points in this composite. I ask you on behalf of your members, the viewing and listening public, to support the BBC and support Composite 16.
Lucy Daniel Raby (WGGB): Finally getting to speak upon a vitally important issue that concerns all of us, the future of the BBC.
I ask Congress, what is left of it, to consider the following issues. Who, despite recent carping and criticising, still makes the widest and most culturally diverse range of innovative quality programming in the world? The BBC. Why is the Writers Guild supporting this motion? Because we want to carry on contributing to this range. We want to carry on writing challenging, controversial stuff and, like all our industry colleagues, we believe in a free and independent BBC.
So, why is Tony Blair trying to restrict this freedom and independence by siphoning off some of the licence fee to his commercial cronies? Because he would like to shut the BBC up. He was furious when they would not join the Iraq war. He punished them with the Hutton Report, and now he is going in for the kill with the charter review. Who is going to be making the real decisions in this process? Well, I am guessing here but I think it might just be that cosy little oligarchy inside No. 10 with a few handy hints and tips from the likes of Campbell, Mandy, Bert, Berlusconi and that well-known champion of press freedom Rupert Murdoch.
What might they try and do? As my colleague just pointed out, undermine the BBC by stealth with a sneaky top-slicing strategy, which could be the thin end of the wedge. Are we going to let them get away with that? Try no. Do we want to go the same way as America where government and big business control all the main stream media? I do not think so. Do we want our public broadcasting system to serve the people or the government? Who do we trust most? It is not really a question, is it? Is the BBC's independence at the heart of our freedom of speech and democracy? You bet it is. But is our BBC safe with a Prime Minister who rigged a public inquiry in order to try and damage it, lied to us and took us to war on false pretences? You tell me. Who deserves the best cultural legacy we can leave them? Our children. Who deserves our support, all of us, during the Charter review process, Michael Grade and Mark Thompson. Who after 80 years is still the best and most respected broadcaster in the world? The BBC. And who is going to join in the fight to keep it that way? All of us, I hope. Let us do it.
Please support this motion and please support our ongoing fight to keep the BBC the way it is.
Jim Corrigall (NUJ) supporting Composite 16 said: This composite rightly places the BBC at the heart of public service broadcasting in Britain. In its period of charter review, it is most important that our individual unions and the Movement as a whole campaign strongly for a fair settlement for the BBC in a new ten-year charter.
Although many of the great and the good seem to be in favour of charter renewal with the licence fee continuing, there are powerful forces who want to see the BBC down-sized or privatised. As we have heard, the editorial independence of the BBC has been under attack from politicians for the past year for its coverage of the Iraq war and at the time of Hutton. The BBC's editorial independence must be maintained so that it continues to produce news free from commercial and political interference. This helps ensure that balanced news reporting is the standard throughout broadcasting and this makes a vital contribution to our wider democratic process.
We pledge as the NUJ to stand together with our sister union, BECTU, in resisting attempts by the BBC management to sell off parts of the corporation. There is no need for this. We believe that the fight to defend public service broadcasting standards is equally important in the independent and commercial sectors. Since the merger of Carlton and Granada, ITV has been cutting its commitments to local news. It is closing studios with the loss of 550 jobs at Meridian TV in the south and at Central TV in the Midlands. Other broadcasters like ITV Wales are also cutting back on local news production. So far the new super regulator OFCOM, which has a brief to be a light touch regulator, has refused to intervene to ensure that these companies keep to these commitments. We urge the General Council to make representations to OFCOM to carry out its responsibilities in regard to ITV.
We urge you all to defend public service broadcasting. Please support this composite.
Jean Rogers (Equity): Good morning, Congress. I am Vice President of Equity. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.
Equity supports this composite and believes it vital that the BBC remains independent of commercial strictures and is funded wholly by the licence fee. Only then can it truly be a public broadcasting service representing all members of our multi-racial society. This diversity should be seen from top to toe of the organisation, as well as in the writing and the casting of programmes, where all age groups too need to be accurately portrayed. Ageism, I believe, is a growing problem for many of our members. To be a performer, or a presenter, and over 40, means there is a reduction in job opportunities. For actresses these days it is nearer 35. How can this truly represent a society with an ever-ageing population? What message does it send to the young about the potency and value of the middle-aged and the elderly? If you are not young and beautiful you are not fit to be seen, or even worse you do not really exist.
This leads me to the government's proposed analogue switch-off in 2010 or so with all its cost and technical implications. Many Equity members know how important television can be to the general public. I recall a letter I received from Jack in Blackpool. His wife, Phyllis, had suffered a paralysing stroke. Rather than abandon her, as he saw it, to hospital care he struggled to look after her at home. 'She is like a thin tiny baby' he wrote, 'and of course cannot hold a conversation with me, but I refuse to believe that she cannot hear or understand. Twice a week we sit in front of the television and watch your programme, and for half an hour we can forget our troubles and breathe the Yorkshire air'. What a responsibility, not just for Jack, but for the media and for society too.
Maybe you have a fancy phone or a lap top or most exciting of all a video link, as I do, to keep in touch with my family in New Jersey, but not everyone has either the desire or the financial ability to own such things. For the most vulnerable members of our community -- the old, the handicapped, the bedridden, the very poor, often unfortunately the very same people -- television is their preferred link with society. Congress, the government must ensure they are not disadvantaged further when the switch-off takes place. Long live a truly independent BBC, and it was a good night last night wasn't it. Please vote for this motion.
Elizabeth Donnelly (Amicus) supporting Composite 16 said: I would like to extend belated congratulations to the President on his 62nd birthday, which was on Tuesday. Happy birthday, Roger.
The BBC stands as a beacon of excellence, independence and quality programming across the world. How many other British television companies, radio stations or websites can say all of that? The unique way of funding the BBC through the licence fee means that throughout Britain there is a flourishing network of local radio stations and regional television centres. Where I live in the East Midlands company mergers mean that Central Television has closed its Nottingham studios, leaving only a handful of journalists but a lot of job losses. In the same region the BBC has five radio stations and a television centre providing a variety of news, music, current affairs and special interest programmes to over four million people. In the commercial sector our TV comes from Birmingham, over 50 miles away and not in the region. Local radio stations play exactly the same songs in exactly the same order with exactly the same format and only the adverts and the station jingle let you know where you are.
Nationally, with eight TV channels and nine radio stations, the BBC offers quality music and drama, informative discussion, investigative reporting, outstounding sports coverage, services to our minority communities and much, much more. Internationally the World Service is relied on by millions to improve their English and by many in oppressed countries to tell them the truth that they are denied by their governments. Additionally, the BBC website is a gateway to in-depth information and entertainment and has won awards for its creative output. All of this for £121 a year, less than 34p a day, less than the price of a chocolate bar.
Removing the licence fee would invite in advertising, encourage carpet bagging and ultimately lead to the break-up and sale of this vibrant, thriving and vital institution. Job losses would be rampant. We all know what the alternative is, over £300 a year a sum that is still not enough to banish advertising for a subscription to cable or satellite channels that offer imported programmes of questionable quality, perpetual re-runs of old soaps, a dearth of decent documentaries and sanitised programmes that emulate the partisan media coverage so noticeable when we holiday in the US. Is this what we want because that is what will happen?
The BBC is not in hock to advertisers; the BBC is not in the pockets of the government. It is loved, admired and respected both here in Britain and all over the world. Let us make sure it stays that way. Congress, support the composite.
Gareth Davies (Community): In supporting this composite I have two things I want to say in relation to it really. One, community broadcasting. OFCOM conducted a consultation earlier this year which led to an order being laid before Parliament in July and there is now a window of opportunity that closes on 23 November for applicants for community broadcasting licenses. This exercise would be conducted on an annual basis with broadcasters expected to start broadcasting within two years of being successful.
The second thing I want to say is that the Telecommunications Act placed an onus on OFCOM to appoint an Elderly and Disabled People's Advisory Committee. This it did on 27 April, and I have to say that in my case it nearly led to me falling through the road down to someone near the Sydney Opera House, I suppose, but we have met on two occasions. I am not the definitive disability experience; I am one perspective of it. I am talking to various organisations and people. Next month I expect to be addressing an AGM of Age Concern in London. But I do think that properly run trades unions are about as most representative as you can get, so I would like as much input as possible to the process.
Somebody once said it is good to talk. It is but please support this composite as well.
Richard Cook (Amicus): I am not angry, but it might be useful to ask members what does 'handicapped' mean. I am very pleased, by the way, that you included people with disabilities in the motion; I am very grateful for that. But what does 'handicapped' mean? It means cap in hand. We do not like that expression because we are not cap in hand, we are disabled people; we are not handicapped. I just thought it might be I good idea for you to realise that.
The President : The point is well taken by both the Congress and the platform and it will be taken into account in future.
Composite Motion 16 is supported by the General Council.
* Composite Motion 16 was CARRIED
Media ownership
Graham Lester George (WGGB) moved Motion 70.
(Insert Motion 70 - Media ownership)
He said: This motion concerns an issue that is fundamental to our democracy and our democracy is being undermined. I ask Congress to demand that this government reverse recent weak-kneed legislation under the Communications Bill that has surrendered so much of our democracy's protection to foreign powerful media corporations. To own one newspaper is to have power: power to control information, power to influence readers' opinons, power to influence politicians' thinking. To own four major newspapers is to have an awful lot of power, power not just to influence readers' opinions but their voting behavior, power not just to influence politicians' thinking but their decisions and policy-making. This amount of power is a threat to democracy. Rupert Murdoch has this amount of power and a lot more besides with The Times, The Sunday Times, the Sun, the News of the World and BSkyB, which unlike the BBC or ITV is unregulated. He also controls a vast swathe of our book publishing industry that he uses ruthlessly to promote his own agenda. Murdoch has been undermining our democracy for years, and this from a man who is not even a citizen of this country. He was born in Australia. Rupert Murdoch was obliged to change nationality precisely because United States law prevented him from owning US media companies unless he became a citizen.
Many of you will remember the vigorous Sun campaign against Neil Kinnock in the 1979 elections. On polling day the Sun's front page proclaimed 'If Neil Kinnock is elected today would the last person to leave Britain turn out the lights'. Kinnock was defeated very narrowly and the next day's crowing headline was 'It's the Sun what won it.' hatcher got in and in return she wangled it so that Murdoch could buy The Times and The Sunday Times, something he had been barred from under the previous Labour Government.
This new American uses his considerable leverage to distort the politics of this country and at the same time has made billions in profits from us,without paying a penny in UK tax. Yes, really. Murdoch's politics are undoubtedly very far out to the right. You only have to tune into his American Fox news channel to see where he is coming from. It is spine chilling and sometimes almost funny to see his anchor men falling over Bush and his gang and in turn spewing bile at anything that smacks of liberality or social good. It is blatant right wing propagandising, delivered under the Orwellian strap line of 'fair and balanced'. I say 'Orwellian', but such a distortion could just as easily have been cooked up by Joseph Geobbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister.
Murdoch is also a very pragmatic man and he would not let his political beliefs stand in the way of business. In the early nineties he recognised way ahead of us that Tony Blair was not only a rising star in the Labour Party but that paradoxically he was a true successor to Margaret Thatcher. His American newspapers proclaimed him as such. Murdoch's advisers also identified Blair as being a natural ally to the Christian fundamentalist right, something that Tony's close friendship with prayer buddy George W Bush seems to have borne out. Murdoch started to court him. He and his adviser, Urwin Steltser (?) met with Blair several times in the nineties and, just as he had with Thatcher in 1979, Murdoch promised Blair his support in the 1979 general election. However, we know that just as Faust had to promise the devil his soul so Blair had to promise Murdoch that he would sweep away the media ownership laws, laws that were there to protect our democracy. Blair kept his word -- to Rupert, that is, not to us -- and cut him a considerable amount of slack in the drafting of the Communications Bill. Luckily thanks to David Puttnam leading a threatened Lords rebellion the clause allowing Murdoch to get his hands on Channel 5 was amended at the last moment. But it only made it tougher for him, not impossible.
There is no time to relax. Murdoch is a global power, more powerful than Blair is or Thatcher ever was, and he does not give up. Unless we reverse our foreign ownership laws within a few short years we will have the bile of Fox News UK up there with ITN and BBC News.
In the meantime, we have to remember that although Murdoch is not yet able to buy Channel 5, AOL Time Warner can now buy ITV, so can Disney, so can Viacom, but if ITV had the money and the backing it could not make a counter bid for any of those companies because foreign companies are barred by US law from buying American media businesses.
We must act now to protect our media from anti-democratic megalomaniacs like Murdoch and from any other non-EU corporate giant that wants to influence us and our government with its own political agenda. I call on Congress to support this motion.
Roger Bolton (BECTU): You have already heard this morning about the contradictions of the Labour Party in opposition and the Labour Party in power in respect of the Prison Service. The same contradictions apply in our industry. The Labour Party in opposition opposed non-EU ownership of the UK media. The Labour Party in government dismantled the very rules that prevent the non-EU ownership of the British media. That is a disgrace. Just because we deal in our industry with a lot of Micky Mouse employers does not mean we want the Disney Corporation to own ITV.
UK broadcasting affects UK culture and has an impact on the democratic process. It should be owned by European companies, not by foreign companies and not given away to Mr Murdoch.
Colleagues, support the proposition.
The President : Motion 70 is supported by the General Council.
* Motion 70 was CARRIED
Licensing Act
John Smith (MU) moved Motion 72.
(Insert Motion 72 - Licensing Act)
He said: For many years the Musicians Union, with the continuing support of the TUC, has campaigned for the reform of the outdated discriminatory public entertainment licensing regime. We aimed to move away from a system that allowed individual local authority licensing inspectors to impose what were sometimes quite disproportionate licence fees on venues and penalised people for spontaneous dancing and singing. We also wanted the repeal of the outdated exemption for two or less performers, the so-called two in a bar rule.
Early in 2002, the government announced their intention to reform the entire licensing regime. The aim was to liberalise the system, to allow pubs to extend their opening hours and to impose what the Act now describes as the four aims of licensing. These are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm -- all very commendable I am sure you will agree. However, the Act that received Royal Assent in July 2002 deals with music and other entertainment in a different way than we imagined it would. Live music will in future be classed as regulated entertainment and it will be a criminal offence to put on live music in a venue that has not asked for that facility to be included in the licence. Rather bizarrely, big screen sports broadcasts sponsored mostly by the gentleman that the previous motion was mainly about are not subject to the licensing regime.
During the Bill's progression through Parliament the Musicians Union lobbied vociferously in order to avoid what we feared might be a serious erosion of our members' ability to work in pubs, clubs and restaurants. We lost the day when it came to the legislation but we are very pleased that the DCMS had appeared to listen to our arguments and set up the Live Music Forum soon after the Act received Royal Assent.
May I, President, at this point pay tribute to Estelle Morris, the Minister for the Arts, who announced yesterday that she is standing down at the end of this Parliament. She has been very useful to the Arts lobby. We are very pleased with the way she has taken on this brief and she will be a serious loss to the Arts lobby and to the Labour Party, I believe. The forum she set up is chaired by The Undertones lead singer, Fergal Sharkey. He has been given the brief to examine the live music scene and, particularly, to monitor the effects of the new Act to ensure it does not diminish the provision of life music.
There is still a lot to do. Licensing authorities are publishing their licensing policies as we speak and the transition period from the old to the new licence regime begins on February 7. Then for a six-month period licensed venues will be able to convert their old licences for a new premises licence for a single fee that will cover the sale of liquor and the provision of entertainment. The licence will then remain valid for the lifetime of the venue as long as the provisions of the Act are not breached. This is a major and welcome departure from the old system. However, if a licensee does not ask for entertainment to be included at the time of conversion an additional fee will have to be paid for variation of the premises' licence, and we fear that a number of smaller venues who previously used the two in a bar exemption will not bother to opt for entertainment in their application for conversion. It is crucial if they want to limit the paper work and save money that they opt for entertainment from the word go, even if they have no plans to present it at the moment.
The government's commitment to live music is clear but we must spread the word and make sure that the vast majority of licensees convert their licences during the transition period, taking up the entertainment option. That is the only way we can ensure that we keep music live.
Florence Sparham (Equity) seconding Motion 72 said: Circus and Punch and Judy shows are traditional forms of entertainment that have been performing for over 150 years and are some of the few indigenous forms of entertainment in the UK. Given the government's desire to demonstrate that the new licensing laws will encourage grass roots culture, Equity feels it is important to address some of the unfairness that will arise for these two forms of art in particular. The licensing system will require a circus and Punch and Judy to have a licence for every site they perform on. For circus this will mean applying for around 40 to 100 licences. Punch and Judy will have to apply for a smaller number of licences on sites concentrated around a shorter summer period but it will be equally burdensome. Each of these licences will have a separate fee. The government have yet to announce the cost of the licences but it is likely to be around £100 for circus and £10 for Punch and Judy. This is the same system that will apply to fixed buildings such as theatres but will inevitably mean proportionately higher financial burdens on these forms of entertainment as theatres will only have to apply for one licence for the whole year.
Additionally many circus will have to deal with the pressures of applying for licences while they are travelling. These problems are exacerbated because both circus and Punch and Judy are weather dependent and may well have to change the performance site at short notice. As the application process for a full premises licence is likely to take 6 to 8 weeks. it may be impossible to find a new venue at short notice if a site is compromised by bad weather or if a local authority declines an application for a licence. Equally, as local authorities will want to inspect the circus prior to granting a licence, and because circuses will be travelling right up to the point where they arrive in an area to perform, there are problems surrounding the practicalities of approving a licence.
One area that we have looked at with the government is the licensing of public land by local authorities. This would allow circus and Punch and Judy to request permission from local authorities to use their land who, as the licensee, could give permission without the lengthy licensing process.
What Equity is arguing for is greater flexibility in the licensing structure. We accept that licensing is necessary for both these art forms but what we want is a system that can be applied to a non-building based travelling art form. Equity supports the successful implementation of the Licensing Act but wishes for some of these specific concerns raised in this motion to be addressed.
The President : Motion 72 is supported by General Council.
* Motion 72 was CARRIED
Use of union contracts in publicly owned entertainment venues
Harry Landis (Equity) moved Motion 73.
(Insert Motion 73 - Use of union contracts in publicly owned entertainment venues)
He said: As President of Equity, moving Motion 73, three days late, with a platform practically empty and a lot of people gone home. That is how important we are!
I am an actor. I am very rich. I have an eight-bedroomed house. You can find me in nightclubs any night of the week, surrounded by a bevy of beauties, and the News of the World is after my story day and night. If you believe that you will believe anything. That is what they print, rather than print that there are thousands of performers living on the dole and having a hard time because that does not sell papers.
The trade union Movement suffers from the same thing. When you act for your members, do they say that you are working for better conditions and pay for them? No. They say you are trying to bring the country to its knees. That is why we are dismayed that some trades unionists take notice of all that rubbish. It helps give credence to the belief that we are happy to do our work for nothing or just expenses.
Let me give you an example. Some time ago I was phoned by a very well respected trades unionist, a great activist and a fine man. He said, 'Harry, we are having a party for a truly great man who has done a lot of fine work for the Movement. He is moving on; we want to give him a party'. I will not tell you the name of that great man but he is married to Harriet Harman. He gave two very good speeches this week, nothing against him, but the other gentleman said to me, 'If you can, we would like Belt and Braces', which was a very respected comedy satirical group of the time. He said, 'If you can book them for that Saturday it would be wonderful, but do not talk money, I will knock him down'. If I had said to him 'Send me a plasterer and I will knock him down, do not talk money', I reckon he would have bloody well knocked me down!
We have mouths to feed and rent and mortgages to pay like everyone else. We are not strolling players who do it for fun, although a lot of people think we do. I think the prejudice starts at the top in the TUC, which is why our motions are put at the end of one day, do not happen, the next day do not happen, and then it happens now at the end of the Conference. Well, I want to tell the General Council that we are as much a part of industry as anyone else, and that the arts play a very important part in this nation.
Recently a play was performed in London's City Hall for nothing. for the good of the cause. People asked the Musicians Union for a free band for an event for the Movement. If Congress House asked for a plumber to come and fix the hot water for nothing they would get a bloody good answer, wouldn't they?
Brothers and sisters, let me say this to you: if you are in a position to book entertainment for any civic place like civic halls, towns halls, schools, working men's clubs, any event for a trade union, please make sure that they use the Equity contract. It is not exorbitant. It lays down a minimum wage; it lays down certain conditions of work. If you do that for us, you will earn our eternal respect.
John Smith (MU) seconding Motion 73 said: The majority of our members are self-employed, and most of them frequently perform in publicly owned venues, the kind of venue that Harry has just described. These self-employed musicians do not have a statutory right to receive written particulars of employment, unlike employees, so the union provides 18 standard contacts for various types of engagements -- live performance, recordings, even teaching and coaching. We try to ensure that our members always get it in writing, and we have produced a leaflet to that effect to try and encourage them. However, despite all our exhortations often our members cannot prevail upon the people who are hiring them to sign a contract, so the musician has to choose whether to work on the strength of a phone call or to turn down the offer of work altogether. Working without a written contract may be fine as long as the engagement goes off without a hitch but can cause untold difficulties in the event of a dispute. The union then gets involved and, on many occasions, we find that not only are the terms of the engagement vague but the material terms have never actually been discussed. On some occasions, particularly when the engagement has been arranged by an agent, it is not even clear who has contacted the musician. This has then to be determined by a judge, usually in the Small Claims Court.
Written contracts encourage the parties to consider the agreement and the terms they are signing up to and ensure that all material aspects are covered. Importantly for the union, written contracts make disputes easier to resolve, which is to the benefit of both the artist and the hirer. Therefore, if any of you are involved in hiring performers please use a standard MU or Equity contract and encourage others to do so. That is the only way we can ensure we can provide our freelance members with the protection provided by a union contract.
I am pleased to second this motion.
The President : Motion 73 is supported by the General Council. says the President.
* Motion 73 was CARRIED
The President : It seems to have worked. Harry, the cheque will be in the post.
Our future in Europe
Graham Fowler (BALPA ) moved Motion 78.
(Insert Motion 78 - Our future in Europe)
He said: As the economic ties between the countries of the European Union continue to grow, and the economic and financial integration between member states increases, it is vital that trades unions across Europe establish new and innovative arrangements that enable the interests of employees to be properly represented. The establishment of European Works Councils, whilst a welcome development, does not fully meet this need as much of the activity undertaken by trades unions, including the recruitment and organisation of workers, falls outside of their term of reference.
Civil Aviation, by the very nature of its activity, is at the leading edge of cross-border developments, and a number of UK airlines in which we have members are establishing bases in other member states of the EU. The pilots at those bases are employed on UK contracts and are covered by UK collective agreement, but who is to organise and represent them? Should it be BALPA, the UK pilots association, or one or more of our fellow organisations in the member state or states concerned? Alternatively, should they be represented by an alliance of the relevant pilots associations? If so, how should such an alliance be structured and funded? How should services, including legal representation and benefits, be provided? How are the pilots' interests to be represented to regulators, governments and the institutions of the EU?
As a result of its experience, BALPA believes the importance of developments across national boundaries requires fresh thinking on how we organize. We may need to adopt radical solutions, such as pan-European trade unions.
President, in your opening address to Congress you mentioned the initiative the TUC is taking in cooperation with the ETUC to hold a major Europe-wide organisation conference next year. BALPA welcomes this initiative and asks Congress to instruct the General Council to undertake research amongst affiliates on the problems being experienced in organising across member states of the EU, and to engage our colleagues in Europe by holding a seminar during the UK presidency of the European Commission.
I ask you to support Motion 78.
Motion 78 was formally seconded by Amicus.
Paul Moloney (NUMAST) supporting Motion 78 said: NUMAST has had to cope with the problems associated with a global industry for decades. Our members, like their colleagues in Europe, are highly trained, skilled workers, often responsible for the lives of many hundreds or, in the case of today's large cruise ships, thousands. Our members work for multinational companies employing workers across the world, yet, despite the skills required to navigate a ship safely, our members' employers often set up internal competition that forces seafarers from one country to compete with those of another country, with the constant pressure to be more cost effective than their counterparts from Europe. In the last three years, we have seen an increase in the internal international pressure to force the cost of employing highly skilled officers down. Cruise companies such as Holland America Line and container companies such as P&O, Nedlloyd (?) and Mersk (?) employ officers from the UK and Europe.
In view of the more beneficial tax incentives in Holland and Denmark, reducing the cost of employing seafarers, NUMAST has had to fight hard to protect our members who are regarded as being more expensive. We cannot influence the way these and many others operate without creating structures to deal with the international nature of these companies. NUMAST has recognised that the only way to protect seafarers from Denmark, Holland, Norway, the UK and elsewhere from continual attacks on terms and conditions is for us to work with our sister unions across Europe.
This motion suggests radical solutions, such as pan-European trades unions. In our industry we can already see the beginnings of this. We now have close ties with our colleagues throughout Europe, and particularly with FWZ in Holland. We are now exploring the possibility of joint pay claims being submitted with the FWZ in those companies that employ Dutch and British officers. We also regularly exchange information so that never again will our two groups of members be forced to compete with each other in companies such as P&O, Nedlloyd and Holland America Line.
NUMAST therefore supports this motion and welcomes the call for research to be undertaken by the TUC. We would be happy to share our experiences so that our Movement can be better placed to overcome the challenges set by pan-European businesses. Please support this motion.
The President : The General Council support Motion 78.
* Motion 78 was CARRIED
European Constitutional Treaty
Tony Richardson (BFAWU) speaking to paragraph 6.4 said: Yesterday in the debate on Composite 17 we said a lot about the importance of having a fully informed debate on the Constitution with all affiliates having the opportunity to contribute. I indicated before the debate that the Bakers Union wished to speak in the debate, but unfortunately we were not called.
When we in the Bakers Union attend the TUC we take our duties very seriously. We do not come here to sit passively on the side lines; we come here to contribute and we come here to make our members' voices heard. As a lay official, I directly represent hundreds of members in my branch, and thousands of members nationally, when here as a delegate. I hold their views and their interests as paramount.
With that in mind, and demanding our democratic rights, I wish publicly -- without using my detailed speech - to put on record our position with regard to the EU Constitution debate. My Branch, because of the many concerns highlighted in paragraph 6.4, would have demanded that the TUC take a position and take a vote on the EU Constitution. In the absence of that vote the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union nationally, which also has a position of wait and see, supported Motion 77 and Composite 17. We would have spoken strongly in favour of Motion 77 and Composite 17, and after the debate we did vote to support fully the RMT position.
That is all I want to say.
MIKE follows - 4D
TUC04D (MIKE)
European Social Forum
Maureen O’Mara (NATFHE) leading in on paragraph 6.7 of the General Council’s Report said: I would like to up-date Congress on the European Social Forum.
On behalf of the European Social Forum Committee and as company secretary and treasurer, I would like to thank the TUC and all the trade unions for their current support in the process. The Forum is a partnership between the trade union Movement, the NGOs and the wider grass roots social movement where real debate, cultural events and exhibitions will take place attracting people from all over the world. ESF is taking place between 14th and 17th October in London, and it is the most important civil gathering to take place in 2004, coming as it does just before the G8 in Gleneagles and a possible general election next year. Many trade unions have proposed seminars and workshops to ensure that our voice and our concerns are to be heard loud and clear.
At the World Social Forum in India earlier this year people travelled hundreds of miles carrying their food with them because they could not afford the 50 pence charge a day for food at the event. If these brothers and sisters - our brothers and sisters - felt that this gathering was important enough to ensure that their voices were heard, it is any less important for ours to be heard? The Greater London Authority and only three major unions have donated substantial funds to ensure that the event takes place. If we do not receive substantially more money from the trade union Movement there is a real danger that the event will have to be downsized. Negotiations are taking place with the ETUC for some funding. Is the TUC prepared to match-fund any monies coming from the ETUC?
We also need to find accommodation for our fellow trade unionists travelling from Europe. We need volunteers. If you can help with anything, please see me or Paul Mackney, our General Secretary. I say to all the treasurers, if any are in the hall, I will take your cheques now. You can register for the event through the website, and if you register before 1st October, the charge is £30 but you will get a free travel pass which is normally worth £15, which the GLA and Transport for London are donating.
Roger Laxton (UNISON): I will be very brief because the last speaker spoke on quite a few of the issues that are important to UNISON. We are one of the unions which have been involved in ESF and we have put quite a lot of resources into it. I would like to thank the General Council for its support and also the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, because he has put quite a lot of resources into this event.
For the event to be a success for the trade union Movement, please ensure that all of your members come along to ESF. There will be hundreds of different seminars and I am sure that you will find one or two to go to which will be relevant to you and speak at. Please support.
The President: Congress, that completes the formal business of this Congress. I call for the General Council’s Report to be adopted. (Agreed)
Votes of Thanks
The President: I have to make a number of votes of thanks to those who have contributed to the smooth running of Congress. They will be brief because of the time but they are sincere and well meant. I move a vote of thanks to the staff at the Brighton Centre for all they have done to ensure that the Congress has run smoothly, and to the stewards for all their assistance during the week. (Applause)
I would like to thank the creché workers and a very special thanks to the team of sign language interpreters. (Applause) I would also like to thank the verbatim reporters and the musicians who have worked so hard throughout the week. I am sure that these votes are agreed.
At this stage it is time to say farewell to a number of colleagues on the General Council. Jean Foster of the GMB, who joined the General Council in 1999. Unfortunately, I do not think she is with us today.
Paul Gates joined the General Council last September, having previously served from 2001 - 2002, and he is now the Deputy General Secretary of the new Community union, and we wish him well in his new job with the union. (Applause)
To McCullough of Amicus, who joined the General Council in October, it may be farewell to the General Council but Linda has been elected to the General Purposes Committee, so we will still be seeing her.
To Jane MaKay of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, who joined us in 2002, and is a well-known and formidable champion of women’s rights, thank you.
To Phil Pinder, who is the first representative of young workers, under the new rules on the General Council, he joined the General Council in 2001 but has now reached the mandatory retirement age of 27. Thank you, Phil.
To Richard Rosser of Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, who joined the Council in 2000 and who now joins the trade union team in the House of Lords. Thank you, Richard.
We also say farewell to Danny Carrigan of Amicus who served on the General Purposes Committee for the past two years after previous service on the General Council.
We wish them all well in their continuing work for their trade unions and for the trade union Movement. (Applause)
Award of Congress Gold Badges
The President: We now come to the presentation of the Gold Badges of Congress, which are awarded to those who are retiring after long service either on the General Council or on the General Purposes Committee.
I will start with the General Purposes Committee, and the Chair, my very good friend, Gerry Veart of the GMB, who retires this year after five years service, initially behind the scenes but for the past two years as chair, presenting the GPC Report to Congress. Delegates, the work of the GPC may not receive much attention in public but it is crucial to the efficient running of Congress. Gerry has steered the GPC with great skill and tact. He will certainly be missed. Gerry, I have great pleasure with presenting you with the Gold Badge of Congress. (Presentation made amidst applause)
During the course of the year Doug McAvoy of the NUT, who has served on the General Council for 15 years, and he is entitled to the Gold Badge of Congress. Doug was lead spokesperson on local government issues and he enjoyed a high profile as a strong advocate for his union and its members. Doug is not able to be with us today but we will arrange for him to receive the badge and your good wishes. Thank you. (Applause)
Peter Landles of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, who is one of the few lay members on the General Council, is departing at this Congress after nine years. He, too, receives the Gold Badge of Congress. Peter has brought the authentic voice of the lay activists to the General Council’s deliberations. He has also made an outstanding contribution as the lay rep on the General Council cricket team. Peter, I have great pleasure in presenting you with the Gold Badge of Congress. (Presentation made amidst applause)
At this Congress, Sir Bill Connor retires from the General Council after seven years’ service, and he, too, receives the Gold Badge of Congress. Bill has been a tremendous presence in the Movement for as long as I can remember, and that goes back to our days in Liverpool together, which is longer ago than we care to remember. He has been a forceful advocate for his union and its members, loyal to the TUC and clear about the importance of ensuring the election of a Labour Government in 1997, its re-election in 2001 and to win a third term. (Presentation made amidst applause)
Sir Bill Connor (General Council and USDAW) : I want to say thank you to all my colleagues on the General Council, to the TUC staff who give a first class service in information and expertise, and, basically, for the comradeship and to be able to speak to a packed hall like this. Thank you. (Applause)
The President: We wish all of our colleagues all the best for the future.
Congress President 2005
The President: It is my honour to announce that the next President of the TUC, who takes office from the close of this Congress, is Jeannie Drake. I wish her well. (Applause) I have explained to Jeannie that she is responsible for all the ex-President’s unpaid bills, and I hope she enjoys her year as President as much as I have. Well done, Jeannie, and good luck.
Vote of Thanks to the President
The General Secretary: I call on the Vice-President to give a vote of thanks to the President.
The Vice-President (Tony Dubbins): Congress, it is no easy task to be TUC President. Not only does the President chair the Annual Congress of the TUC, but away from the public eye the President chairs the General Council and also the TUC Executive Committee. At the same time, the President often maintains a leading position in his own union, although in that respect Roger’s position has been made considerably easier this week.
You have seen how Roger has steered debates, with tact, humour and skill. The fact that we have been able to complete our business in good time is in no small measure due to Roger’s exhortations to delegates to keep their contributions short, be ready to come to the rostrum and not to repeat points already made. That is advice which I have taken to heart in preparing this speech.
What we do not see is all the work that goes on behind the scenes to keep Congress running smoothly. Roger’s working day does not begin at 9.30 when Congress begins, but at 8.15 with a pre-meeting to finalise the order of the day’s business. Few of us are at our best at that time of the morning, but Roger was always there on time, although it has to be said he was not quite looking his normal spruce self, and often urgently seeking quantities of decafinated coffee.
Congress, if you think being the Chair of Congress is tricky, you should see the meetings of the General Council and Executive Committee. Trade union leaders are not an easy bunch to keep in some kind of order, and Roger has managed all of those meetings with the same skill, tact and humour that you have seen him exercise this week. But there is another side to Roger and that is his passion and commitment to the cause of international trade unionism. Roger really has made a real and substantial contribution to our work with trade union friends in South Africa, Colombia, Cuba and the Middle East. L
Roger, we thank you, in particular, for that work. It is not always easy to move on when you have held high office, but I am sure that whatever the future holds for Roger he will bring to it the same enthusiasm, good humour and energy that we have seen this week. Roger, on behalf of all of us at Congress, I thank you for your work during the course of this year and also during the course of this week as TUC President. We wish you well for the future.
On behalf of Congress, can I present the Gold Badge to the President.
(Presentation made amidst applause)
The President: Thank you very much, Tony; thank you to my colleagues on the General Council and thank you, delegates, for staying behind. It is always nice to check out who is interested in our last set of proceedings. We used to finish Congress on a Friday lunchtime, and we used always to say, 'If only we could finish a little earlier, then people would stay to the end'. As a result we brought the conclusion time of Congress forward to 4 o’clock today. Then it got a bit dodgy between lunchtime and 4 o’clock, so we thought that if we tried to finish at 1 o’clock, everyone will be here. So thank you, everyone, for being here. (Laughter)
Genuinely, thank you to you for making this Congress very easy for me and all the support staff and everyone else who has been working with you. We have completed our business and that is great. I have been congratulated on a number of things this week, but one point I am still trying to puzzle out. Apparently, I am meant to get a message to my parents to congratulate them for having my birthday on the day of the TUC President’s Dinner. I cannot work that one out but it certainly went well and I thank all of you who were present on Tuesday for the way it went so smoothly. It was good in that we had a majority of the Cabinet in attendance, so we were able to sort out the manifesto without all the troubles of joint committees, forums and things like that.
I started my career as an official in Liverpool and I made fantastic friends, who I still keep in touch with. I involve myself in many campaigns. Now is not the time to go into detail, but I particularly refer to the campaign in which I met a lot of families in a very sad context, and that was the campaign that we organised after the Piper Alpha disaster. We did get the whole safety regime changed and for health and safety generally by getting risk assessment brought in from the Cullen Report. I hope that the work we did on that occasion has saved many people’s lives and limbs in many industries and services, and it is a great memorial to those people whose lives were sacrificed on Piper Alpha. (Applause) To those who know me well, know that I have a basic commitment to equalities and equal opportunities, but particularly equal pay as it is something which is under our control. Every agreement we make, if it does not include enforcement of equal pay, whatever the wishes of the employer, makes us a bit culpable about unequal pay. The work we have put in over 12 years through our speech and language therapists, which cost us well over £1 million, led to that final victory when we got many speech therapists ten years’ back pay. It amounted to thousands and thousands of pounds. The award of £12 million was an incredible experience. No one believed that we would keep up the funding and no one believed that we would ever win. It was the only budget under the Tory Government which had no cap. The budget to defeat our speech and language therapist members, however many times it had to go to Luxembourg, however many barristers they had to involve, they were under instructions to spend what it took to defeat our speech therapists. We fought with that Government and we beat them. As a result, we got our speech and language therapists fair pay. That was a great victory. (Applause)
The third and final memory that I have in these campaigning areas is the campaign that we made on the family friendly agenda and in fighting bullying and stress at work, because I think they are connected. If people are facing bullying and stress at work, it affects their domestic lives as well. You cannot be nice at home if you are under pressure at work, and that can cause all kinds of secondary problems. I think the bullying campaign that we have been running - the Dignity at Work Campaign - is something I will especially remember. I thank all those who were involved in all of these campaigns, not just in my own union but across the Movement.
I have had to stand for two elections as General Secretary, as many of you will know, and I won both overwhelmingly. It enabled me to go around the country and to meet members of a union that covers every industry and service. We grew the union from the original 36,000, when I joined in 1966, by merging and organising and eventually to form Amicus. It brought synergy and resources together. That development now enables Amicus to play its full role in the Movement, shortly to be joined by Unifi and GPMU.
I am proud to leave more than a million members in the union, which I joined in 1966. It is well situated to grow and I wish all the members well. I have been on the TUC General Council for 15 years. In the past few years we have gone in for some major reviews, and it is as well for people to know because it is not always well understood that we are not a static organisation which just repeats itself year after year. We reviewed all of our structures a short few years ago. We had 18 major committees of Congress and 18 major committee of the General Council, wish members of the General Council used to sit on day after day after day. When it was proposed that we chopped almost all of the sub-committees of the General Council, the response was one of shock and horror. It was said that the whole world would come to an end and the whole British labour movement would fall apart. Now most of the sub-committees have been chopped and the world continues to go round and the TUC is all the stronger for it.
In the past year we have reviewed our strategy, particularly with regard to priority for organisation and recruitment, developed on the basis of our experience with the Organising Academy and the affiliates who work in organising. All of this is vitally important and I wish it well as it goes forward.
We have reviewed our working skills and training and life-long learning, and particularly we have looked at the massive growth - the revolution - in workplace learning reps, which is something that I am very proud of, as it changes the face of British trade unionism. A whole new tier of activists comes in, comprising many women and many from the ethnic minorities who are not necessarily the long-standing convenors of the plants. They come forward being the face of trade unionism in workplaces across the land.
As Tony said, I have done my best to strengthen international solidarity. We have put our money where our mouths are, not just by passing resolutions but seeing how our solidarity has been implemented. I believe we have strengthened our credibility with the Government. The quality of TUC evidence makes a powerful impact, and the results of the negotiations leading to Warwick are very important. The implementation of the Warwick Agreement is very important as well. The unity that we have been around the Warwick Agreement should be maintained. We do not have the luxury of a house divided, especially in working for a third term.
Our members and the wider public will not respond to a Movement which is fueding and fighting amongst itself. It does require a united trade union Movement to get our members and families out to the ballot boxes to ensure a third term for this Labour Government. I know there is apathy an cynicism around, and I know that not everybody here wants Labour to have a third term, but I strongly urge Congress to beware of any such siren calls, because the Tories and Lib Dems who are the only serious alternative will not subscribe in any way to our agenda. The Liberals want to abolish the DTi as their contribution to manufacturing. Public services jobs will be under an even bigger threat from both of those Parties. The NHS and education would not longer receive the record investment that they get year after year at the moment. The people who we represent and their families would not thank us if we put them and their lives at risk, and jobs, skills, employment rights, aid to Africa, devolution and many more issues under threat at the risk of their reactionary policies.
I am delighted that as I stand down there is a consensus that the Movement can make real progress on the back of the Warwick framework. It is not the last word but a big step forward to a third term manifesto, helping unions to prosper and grow in the months and years ahead.
I know I leave the TUC in good hands with a first class team under Jeannie, lead by Brendan, Frances and their colleagues, who are committed to winning the best for Britain’s workers and to strengthen solidarity at home and abroad. I thank Amicus in particular for their magnificent support to me during my year as President. I finish with a vote of thanks to my wife, Kitty. Thank you, Kitty. For too many years she has heard me speaking of the work/life balance, but rarely has seen me. Now I have run out of excuses.
So good luck to you all for your continued successes on behalf of our members and families. That is what we are all about. Thank you for giving me the privilege and honour of being President of this great Congress. (Applause)
I now call on the General Secretary;
Vote of Thanks to the Media
Brendan Barber (General Secretary) : Thank you, President. It is my pleasure to move the vote of thanks to the media, which is the final item of business on our agenda. I want to begin by offering my congratulations to you, the delegates, for the way in which you have completed Congress with half a day to spare, thus demonstrating our total commitment both to higher productivity and shorter working time. (Laughter and Applause)
I ask you to spare a thought for the journalists here, what with Batman at the Palace and fox hunters on the floor of the Commons, it has not been what they call a quiet news week, so they have struggled to make too many headlines out our debates. However much mayhem there has been outside, including the storms and gales, it has been a remarkably united Congress, so no help for the press there. In fact, as I recall it, the closest we came to a voice of dissent in the first couple of days was Ed Sweeney’s vote of thanks to the President.
However, we have had some coverage. Our proceedings were the subject of a rigorous intellectual analysis in that most thoughtful and impartial of daily journals of record, The Sun, which referred to, and I quote - this is not a misquote - 'to the dimwits of the TUC'. We are making progress. That is mild by their usual standards.
So much for the speeches. What really counted to the press was the level of applause. It is not that we do not trust the press, but in the interests of accuracy, we have undertaken our own scientific measurement of the response to our various speeches during the week. I can now reveal the results. Third prize went to the PFA’s Quality Award winners, Luther Blissett, Cyril Regis and Paul Davis, who had non-speaking parts, as you will recall. Next came Pedro Ross, our most welcome guest from Cuba, but top of the list was Hernando Hernandez from Colombia. So the lesson is clear. The way to win over Congress is either to speak Spanish or not to open your mouth at all. (Laughter and Applause)
So, amigos, need I say more. (Laughter) Forget politics. What really matters these days is what is happening in the soaps. Of course, we have had our own soap this week. The younger ones amongst you might not remember but in the 1950s everyone was watching the story of am American family in London. It was called Life with the Lyons. That is what we have been enjoying this week. Roger has had a good week in the chair. We celebrated his birthday on Tuesday, and what a birthday party it was at the General Council’s Annual Dinner. Ian McCartney gave an absolutely brilliant speech, which was spoiled only by an excruciating attempt to imitate Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Ian was not the only Minister in attendance. About half the Cabinet were there. I did actually suggest that we could have worked out the manifesto there and then.
The other big feature of the week, of course, apart from Roger’s birthday, was Warwick. Tony Blair came to praise it, Digby Jones, who was not here and had not been there, wanted to bury it, and us with it - a case of 'Alas, poor Warwick' (Groans and laughter) It is getting late in the week. You have to make allowances. I am sure that the agreement made there will be dominating our agenda for a long time to come.
I said in my speech at the start of the week that we have won a lot of victories this year, and we have been piling them up during the week as well. On Monday we passed a motion calling for shorter working time, and according to today Guardian, with a story headed 'Britain working shorter weeks', so objective is being delivered already.
Alan Johnson did even better for us. We carried a motion calling for 50% on the seats of pension fund boards, and he was on his feet announcing it ten minutes later.
We have even been able to celebrate one of those most elusive of victories - one at Wembley, for which the unions involve deserve much credit. (Applause)
Talking of Wembley, for some reason it reminds me that the incoming General Council has shown a victory for one group which has long been pressing for equal opportunities, and I refer, of course, to the general secretary of the Everton group, with John Hannett, Jedd Nichols and Steve Sinnott joining our already strong squad.
So we have a lot to be pleased about with our week. We have heard about the importance of our international work from all our guests from overseas, and perhaps, most movingly, when Hernando brought home to us the desperate dangers that workers in Colombia face day in and day out just for doing the simple trade union things that we take for granted.
When I had the privilege of visiting Colombia, it really came home to me how important even simple messages of solidarity can be to people in distress and danger. So let us all send a similar message of solidarity to the people of the Caribbean region, who have been facing the devastation brought by Hurricane Ivan. I know there are many delegates to this Congress with strong family links with that part of the world, and these have been worrying days.
Congress, we have many battles ahead, and solidarity and unity are the strongest weapons in our armoury; solidarity with the Civil Service unions in their battle to protect jobs and vital services. They are going to need all our support in the weeks head. (Applause) Solidarity with the unions campaigning to defend our manufacturing sector with a new massive threat to jobs at Ford Jaguar looming; and solidarity, above all, in taking trade unionism to the British people so that we grow ever stronger again.
President and Congress, that is enough for me, so in the words of the traditional RAF sign-off, 'Roger and out'. (Applause)
The President: Brendan, thank you for that, and also for ensuring that after Ian McCartney’s attempt to sing Happy Birthday, Mr. President, you were able to supply Marilyn Monroe to sing it in English.
I now call on Daniel Coysh of the Industrial Correspondents Group to reply on behalf of the media. (Applause)
Daniel Coysh (Industrial Correspondents Group) : President and Congress, hello trade unionists. It is an honour to address you today at the end of this year’s TUC Conference on behalf of the news media and, more specifically, my own paper, the Morning Star, the daily paper of the labour Movement, now available on line at Morningstaronline.co.uk. I thought you were wondering about that.
I know you are all anxious to get off home, so do not worry. I will not be keeping you for long, and do not worry that I will not be doing any jokes like Brendan’s Warwick gag. I am not very used to public speaking at all. In fact, the last time I addressed a crowd it was in a living room in Teddington with 20 people in it. It was the South West London Morning Star Supporters Group. (Chuckling) I did not do too badly that day, as it happened, as I managed to raise £160 for the fighting fund. So looking at you all out there now, I reckon we have about two grands worth in the room. If we keep the doors locked, I think we should be fine, so you are not allowed out just yet.
Seriously, standing at this rostrum is quite a nerve wracking experience for me. I was volunteered for this job by my so-called colleagues in the back room while I was in here following the education debate. I thought, 'Me! Why on earth would Congress want to hear from me waffling on at the end of the day? Am I a worthy speaker for you all?' This really worried me, and then I thought, 'The TUC had Digby Jones last year and Sebastian Coe just a couple of days ago, so I am clearly part of this great tradition of ironic speakers', so that is fine. It helps my confidence. I understand Jeffrey Archer is next on the list. He will be appearing next year. Margaret Thatcher had to cancel at the last minute, so the best of luck to him. (Laughter) I should not spoil that surprise, so forget I mentioned Jeffrey Archer. The point is that this will not be the most dazzling speech you have ever heard. I fully understand if you do not give me an ovation. Better and more important people than me have failed to get that from you this week. (Laughter) I know my place. (Applause)
This is the third time that I have actually attended Congress, the first being that somewhat over-shadowed occasion in 2001. Despite being made to feel very small and redundant on that day, sat in the press room trying to do reporting there, I have been back every year since for the TUC. I assume this must make me quite a strange person, but I always look forward to the conference and coming here.
The TUC is particularly dear to me. It is a time when something unique happens. The Morning Star sells loads of copies, for a start, and we get invited to posh hotels. It truly is a sparkling and unusual event. It makes a real change to the normal modus operandi of my paper. Too many times during my early years in journalism, I was packed off to some rather grim B&Bs in rather grim locations. There is something uniquely unnerving about sitting in Scarborough Spar Centre off-season, feeling this terrible sinking feeling as you understand that you have no idea what the union speaker is actually talking about. Of course, now I am an experienced reporter. I have been in the game now for several years. I have honed my skills. Nowadays, you can read my copy several times before you realise that I have no idea what I am talking about. (Laughter) I could not comment about any of my colleagues in that regard, except to point out that they are a very dedicated bunch, especially fellow NUJ members, obviously. The vast majority of them actually stayed on to report on Congress after Tony Blair had gone home, so well done to them all. The Star always stays to the bitter end, as you know. As you can see, I am still here, so I am glad of the company.
I would like to thank the TUC for choosing Brighton again. It spared all of us the white knuckle experience of Blackpool hotels. That is always a good’un. Let me say that those of us in the press pack all share your trepidation with the news that the Brighton Conference Centre is being redecorated and re-vamped. I am sure the TUC will be thinking very hard over the next 12 months as to an alternative venue with a modicum of comfort, maybe. Perhaps there could be a coffee machine in the press room this time. That might be a good idea. I am beating about the bush, ultimately.
I have an important job to do today, and that is to offer the thanks of everybody, all my press colleagues, myself, everyone at our paper, to Brendan, Roger, to the top table behind me and, most important of all, to the TUC staff and officers who have been doing the best to facilitate - that is the buzzword now - things for us. They always makes sure that Congress goes as smoothly as possible for us hangers on in the media who are anxious to find out what happens and anxious to write as little as possible. Those copies of speeches are always very useful, indeed.
As a quick aside, I would like to thank The Morning Star sellers who got up much earlier than I had to and braved Hurricane Mitch, which seemed to be hitting Brighton seafront during the past couple of days. They did us proud. I want to give a quick shout to UNISON for my luxurious accommodation. I believe it is still Britain’s biggest union. So there is no confusion there.
As I have said, this is my third conference. I have always found the press team conference organisers very helpful and knowledgeable. They always work hard to ensure that speeches and motions are available for our perusal as soon as possible. On the rare occasions when they cannot answer a question off the cuff, they get back to us very swiftly. Given how hectic this Congress is, that is no mean feat. I think it is something that should be recognised. They demonstrate courtesy, ability and a terrific commitment, although that does sound like a job reference, doesn’t it?
Given the coverage of some papers of trade unionism and the labour Movement in general, they must have colossal reserves of patience at times to keep smiling after reading what some people have written the day before. If you want a good example of the type of sacrifices that have to be made for this kind of smooth media operation on the TUC’s part, yesterday was a good example. The TUC’s favourite Olympian, Seb Coe, had just finished had address, and a few minutes later the plaintive voice of Mike Power could be heard in the press room, saying 'Anyone want to interview Sebastian Coe? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, sod it. I am going to bring him in, anyway'. (Laughter) We salute your dedication, Mike. That is true professionalism. By the way, if any of you are worried about poking fun at Seb twice in a speech, do not worry about it. He is a close personal friend and an old school buddy.
I do not want to keep you from your families for much longer, so I am going to get to the point now. Congress is one of the biggest events in my paper’s calendar. That and the Labour Party Conference are the two big ones for us. It is the only place that, for all its flaws and criticisms that can be made, can genuinely call itself the Parliament of the British workers. That is what you are. It is also the place where the labour Movement looks back at the industrial events of the year. As Brendan has just said, it has been a very busy and hectic year. There has been industrial strife, walk-outs, in-fighting, union de-recognition, general secretaries on the warpath, and that was justthe ASLEF barbecue. That is just the beginning. (Laughter) You are still the workers’ Parliament of Britain. You must not forget that.
This year’s Congress has been marked by a terrific degree of unity amongst the unions and some very unified debates. Some have complained that this has led to a debate-free conference. The press has to admit its responsibility for the situation partially as quiet unity, as Brendan said, is not sexy news. Many papers like to interpret passion for controversy or division, whereas it is just people passionately expressing what they believe. There have also been speakers this year who have talked about the importance of a labour Movement which does much more than just debate and pass resolutions; that actually gets stuck in. At this year’s Morning Star rally, Kevin Curran urged unions to pay more attention to servicing their members rather than the institution itself, saying that this is the way to gain membership and recruitment, which is obviously the big issue. He was right. Unions do need to grow if workers are going to avoid this worldwide race to the bottom, the sweatshop agenda, the cost-cutting and globalisation which has been foisted on us.
The best way to make unions grow is to be seen to be taking real action on behalf of working people without folding in the face of the disgracefully one-sided anti-union laws or the inevitable hostility of a press run by a cliqué of multi-millionaires, for the most part. Some people might say that that is Lefty idealism, but it can be argued that the unions that have grown the most in recent years have been the ones which are most at risk of being accused of being old fashioned, such as the militant RMT and PCS, whose unflinching action to defend its members’ jobs and the essential services that they provide have seen civil servants flocking to join up, because they have seen people making a difference.
A willingness to role up your sleeves and defy those hostile to trade unionism pays greater dividends than just offering cheap car insurance or a personalised Visa card, and it yields industrial results too, as indeed was mentioned just now, the victory at Wembley is a great example of that, and indeed the BA settlement that was achieved. BA obviously mucked that up by cancelling planes, anyway, so no strike action necessary for that company.
It is true that knee-jerk opposition to anything that management comes out with does not help working people or the union’s own position. It just makes people seen as fractious. A one-sided power relationship disguised by the word 'partnership' will not be any good for your members either. It is best when people take everything on its merits.
The union Movement is better when it is bold. There is nothing wrong in identifying where your interests lie and then fighting for them. Digby Jones knows that too well. His mill-owner style comments last week illustrate the attitude of the employers to partnership, and, ironically for Digby, demonstrate how relevant the unions are. It was a big of an own goal for Digby there, perhaps. As long as the likes of the CBI exist, the TUC will not only be necessary but vital, as are the unions which comprise it. The beauty of partnership is no kind of partnership. The TUC has to be very vigilant against those sort of people.
Congress, this week’s events have shown the country that unions continue to be more than relevant. They continue to be an essential part of our country’s fabric and an essential part of the life of working people.
I wish you all the very best in your future campaigning, and on behalf of the rest of the media once again, I thank you all very much. (Applause)
The President: Thank you very much for that stimulating and entertaining address.
I now declare the 136th Congress closed and ask you to join with me in singing Auld Lang Syne.
Congress joined in singing Auld Lang Syne.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox