2004 Congress verbatim report: Wednesday
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: 0207-405 5010. Fax No: 0207-405 5026
THIRD DAY: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH
MORNING SESSION
( Congress assembled at 9.30 a.m.)
The President: Good morning. First of all, many thanks to the musicians who have been playing for us. Thank you very much.
Before we start I would like to mention the procedure on the General Council’s Statement to Congress on Europe, which is being circulated. When we come to the debate on Europe, I will call the General Council Statement first, moved by Kevin Curran on behalf of the General Council, then I will call the mover and seconder of Composite 17, which incorporates the NUM amendment, but all other amendments have been withdrawn. I will then give a right of reply to the mover of Composite 17, and then to Kevin Curran as mover of the General Council’s Statement. I will then take the vote on the General Council’s Statement, followed by the vote on Composite 17. The Statement is being circulated and if anyone does not have a copy later on this morning, ask one of the staff.
Secondly, on speakers, although we have not yet had to consider reducing the length of speeches, we may have to do that. We are falling a little behind so I would ask people not to repeat arguments that have already been made by previous speakers; if necessary, formally second. I may not necessarily be able to take all the speakers who want to speak on every motion. Please, let us all show a degree of discipline on this and we will get through the business.
It is a great pleasure now, colleagues, to invite a speaker, sororal delegate for the Labour Party. I did suggest that as she has already spoken to us twice we should take that off her time, but I will not be unkind because I love Mary Turner. It is not so much a visiting speaker as an address by one of our own in a different guise. Mary is President of the GMB, been a delegate to Congress for many years, and after one speech to Congress provoked a former president to award her the 'Best Dressed Delegate' award for her slogan-bearing T-shirt, and the phrase that was coined, 'You know when you’ve been Turner’d'.
Mary, you are very very warmly welcome, and I am delighted to be able to ask you to give the sororal address for the Labour Party.
Sororal Address by delegate from the Labour Party:
Mary Turner (GMB) : Thank you, President. I notice that every time I come up here we have to talk about clocks and putting times back, but I am honoured, extremely honoured, to give the sororal address on behalf of the Labour Party. As Chair of the Party’s NEC I have the pleasure of keeping some pretty big egos in their place but I have to say that I am more nervous this morning about giving this speech than telling John Prescott to shut up. There we are, that is life.
Colleagues, I am honoured. I am the first woman ever in my union’s history to be nominated to the NEC; that shows you how far the trade union Movement and my own union has come. I was the proudest girl last year when I was nominated by the Party to be the chair. I really always thought that by the time it was my turn they would change the rules, but here I am, the school dinner lady, on the NEC of the Party. That just shows we can make it. To get that honour the same day as Jack Jones and Michael Foot were honoured, believe you me, made me feel extremely humble.
I am a trade unionist, I am a school dinner lady, and in my own history, yes, I fed and led the 'March for Jobs' when they marched from Liverpool to London. Yes, my dinner ladies, as lowly paid as they were, gave up their week’s wages to make sure that those good people were looked after well. We marched and we marched to find employment.
Congress, throughout our shared history we have made some great progress for working people and working productively together under a third-term Labour Government I believe we can deliver so much more. That is what I want to talk to you about this morning, our ambitions for Britain and our ambitions for British people at work, and in their communities.
First, I think it is important to step back and think about what we have achieved since 1997. Let us reflect on some huge gains working people have made, and you have made, under Labour: the minimum wage, the New Deal, the four weeks paid holiday, new rights for trade unions, and the right for every worker to be represented at work. Labour is delivering for working people beyond their workplace. Our record investment in public services is delivering results in health, education, transport, and the fight against crime that working people as taxpayers can be proud of. I salute all public service workers, whatever job they do, and I am proud to be one.
We have heard a lot about Warwick, and rightly so. What took place was a discussion involving all parts of the Party working together. I congratulate all the trade union leaders here for that weekend and, in particular, I would like to pay tribute to Tony Dubbins. Tony led a great weekend and I was very proud. There were MPs, MEPs, councillors. CLP delegates, and trade unionists present. I am sure the 'Warwick Deal', as it has now been billed, will appear in future in our history books for some time. I was one of the negotiators there and what took place was not a secret discussion in a smoke-filled room, as some would have you believe, but instead a genuine dialogue between ministers, the Party, and the unions, on building the workplace of the future. No Tory minister ever came to talk to us when they were in power, of that you can be assured. We have now agreed a positive agenda for the third-term giving unions a significant agenda on which to work with government and employers.
As someone who represents members, my commitment is absolute in delivering the Warwick pledges. Our agreement includes a commission on women in work (not before time), chaired by our comrade Margaret Prosser, to take a systematic look at the factors shaping continuing gender pay gaps and women’s opportunities at work; an extension of the entitlement to four weeks paid holiday by making eight bank holidays a right in addition to the four weeks; eradicating the two-tier workforce across the public sector and, as many of you know here, that is my goal, I gave you that promise and I will keep going until we do make sure that all the little I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed; comprehensive corporate manslaughter legislation; and for manufacturing a review of business support and a commitment to work for a level playing field in procurement.
I know that not all our aspirations, or yours, have been fulfilled but we will continue as we always do as one family to work to meet them. We need to work together, colleagues, because if we do not the consequences are dire. If we look back 20 years ago this year to the miners, to the rape and pillage, the devastation, that Margaret Thatcher and Howard did to those communities, it was a vindictive act by a vindictive party that has no place for us any more. I pay tribute to those mining communities and to the good women that led the fight.
That is what Howard wants to take us to; he wants to take us back. That may be Howard’s way but it is not our way. Unemployment was 3 million, and I argued those figures as women were not allowed to sign on the dole because they never earned enough; millions were on the dole with no hope; and we had the highest number of suicides by men when their homes were repossessed and communities devastated. That was Howard’s way. It is not the Labour Party’s way. We had the attack on public services, hospitals, and schools. Why? Because Maggie and her cronies always went private. I remember Maggie saying, 'There’s no such thing as society.' We had people like Virginia Bottomley, who thought an intravenous drip was a Tory MP. I can remember those days. That is Howard’s way. It is not our way.
Congress, I know what I am talking about. I had to work under the Tory Government. I stood shoulder to shoulder with many of you -- the miners, those at Wapping -- as we fought for our jobs and our industry. Those Tory ministers would not speak to us. That was the Tory way. It is not the Labour Party way. A vote for Howard is a vote to go back to how this country was run in the dark days. I know there is not one person in this hall that wants to go back to those days, where the young people left school and were given their pension at 16.
In a third term, Labour will put particular emphasis on rooting out abuse at the bottom end of the labour market. We will also address people’s aspirations. People want satisfying work and the opportunity to participate in the success of their workplace.
Colleagues, today history will be made when hunting will be banned, for which we have waited for so long.
Congress, it was nice to hear Tony telling working people to go out and join a trade union, and that trade unions are relevant. We are relevant, and you are relevant.
In conclusion, there is an issue that I would like to raise. It is now over ten years since the labour Movement together helped to achieve free and fair elections in South Africa, and you played a big part in that with the Labour Party. Congress, now Maggie’s little soldier is under house arrest in a free democratic society. He will get justice more than his mummy gave to Nelson Mandela and all the other great people who liberated South Africa. I can assure the police that we will not be applying for the right to march, as we did for Nelson Mandela.
Congress, thank you very very much for inviting me and, just to let you know, on my CV I have reached new heights this morning. I have actually at my age reached the height of being on page 3. Isn’t it great? One up, Mary! Colleagues, it is page 3 of the Morning Star, and I am very proud of it, too.
Colleagues, I thank you for your invitation and you will never know how proud I am. I am proud of my union and I am proud to work with all of you. Please, please, please, give us the right for a third term. Never allow the Tories back to do what they did for 20 years because it will take us another 40 years to get back on the road again. Thank you, and good morning.
Presentation of Gold Badge of Congress to Mary Turner, Chairman of the Labour Party’s NEC and President of the GMB
The President: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of Congress to award Mary the Gold Badge of Congress.
(The presentation was made amidst applause)
Mary Turner : Thank you. Colleagues, in memory of my dad, the first thing he ever told me was: 'Join a trade union when you start work.' I joined a trade union from the day I left school and I am proud to wear that hat, and I am proud of this. Thank you very much.
The President: Congress, you will recall that on Monday we recognised the immense contribution of activists through the Lay Reps Awards. Unfortunately, Melanie Jenner, the winner of the Organising Award, could not join us then. However, she is here today and it is my great pleasure to present her with the Congress Award for Organising. Melanie Jenner.
(The presentation was made)
The President: Congress, you will know there is a number of motions which have been scheduled but could not be taken due to lack of time. We will try and take Motions 47, 48, and 49 at the end of this morning’s scheduled business. If there is time, I will also then take Composite 16, followed by Motions 70, 72, and 73. It would be immensely helpful, as I said earlier, if people bear in mind the pressure on time when speaking. Also, if anybody is going to speak, they should be here before their speaking time arrives.
Also today we will be having the General Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Zwelinzima Vavi, Pedro Ross Leal from the Cuban TUC CTC, and this afternoon we will have Hernando Hernandez, the Colombian Trade Union leader, speaking to us.
Regions
The Regional Dimension
The President: We now come to Chapter 10 of the General Council Report, on page 129.
Regional Government
Clare Williams (Unison) speaking to paragraph 10.2 of the General Council’s Report.
(Insert paragraph 10.2 - Regional Government)
She said: I just wanted to share quickly under the Regional Dimension part of the Congress Report the work that the Northern TUC did in tackling racism and the anti-fascist campaign that we ran. The Northern TUC was the key body in our region that brought together a coalition under the umbrella of The North East Unites Against the BNP. That brought together every trade union, community groups, Labour Party members, people working with asylum seekers, and young people, to form coalitions in every part of our region where the BNP and the National Front were standing. Both parties had targeted the North East region and were thinking they would make great electoral gains. I am very very proud to say that through the trade union Movement, and particularly with the work of the Northern TUC, not only did they not win any seats but in some key areas, such as Sunderland, actually the BNP’s vote was halved. I think we should congratulate ourselves as a Movement on that.
Part of our campaign was a massive Respect festival in Sunderland, which attracted over 13,000 mainly local young people; that was a key event, I think, in making sure people understood, firstly, what the BNP stands for and, secondly, why they should not vote for them. Another key event for us was that at our annual Northern TUC Conference, as the National Front, unfortunately, had been given the right to march around Newcastle, which was an historic event, the Conference voted unanimously to suspend itself and join the protest. I think for me that showed the complete relevance of trade unions joining ordinary people from the community on the streets and actually making a difference. I will always have a lasting memory of Dave Anderson, General Council member, and Unison’s then president, along with Kevin Curran, being chased by the police on horses, and the fascists, which was quite an experience. I do have some photos to make sure I never forget that!
Very importantly, and I will finish with this, what it has done for us in the Northern region is that the TUC is now absolutely relevant to whole layers of new people, and particularly young people, and the unity of the trade unions through the TUC has been absolutely key to our success. People now realise unions are not just about sitting in meetings and talking, we are about action, and we make a difference. I am absolutely proud of the role of my union but also the role of the trade union Movement in the North East in making sure we have built lasting coalitions that meant the far right did not win any seats and they certainly will not in the future elections to come. I hope that as a TUC we will make sure it is an absolute priority for our work. Thanks.
The President: That completes Chapter 10 of the General Council’s Report.
Health and Safety
Protecting People at Work
The President: Before I call Composite 19, Congress will be aware that on Monday we were joined by workers from the Wembley Stadium site, who had been shamefully sacked in a dispute which was essentially between contractors. I am very pleased to be able to report that following a great deal of hard work by the unions involved, the GMB and Amicus, a full and final settlement of the dispute has been reached, all the workers have been re-engaged, and they will be on the blue book national agreement. The deal was voted on this morning. Well done.
I now come to Composite Motion 19 on Health and Safety.
Kevin Curran (GMB) moved Composite Motion 19.
(Insert Composite Motion 19 - Health and Safety)
He said: I am absolutely delighted to be moving composite 19 on health and safety at work. I am delighted because the track record of trade unions on health and safety is something that we have every right to be very proud of. Union safety representatives are the success story of the last three decades, with thousands of active reps trained by their unions and the TUC protecting health and safety in workplaces all over Britain. Independent research proves that workplaces where unions are present are twice as safe as unorganised ones, evidence that shows people join unions specifically because of our record on tackling health and safety, union safety reps reducing risk and protecting people, and delivering for people at work.
So, it is a genuine mystery to me why this fantastic contribution to society goes unrecognised by government. We contribute so significantly and achieve so much success in reducing injury and disease, imagine what we could do if we had more support. Yet the things that we know make a difference, every improvement we suggest or increased right that we ask for is turned down flat: roving safety reps so that we have the right to represent our members effectively, the right to stop the job, the right to issue provisional improvement notices, and the right to prosecute privately negligent employers on behalf of our members.
Why this reluctance to ensure that we can further increase our contribution to prevention? The answer is that, despite the proven success achieved by unions, our demands are at odds with the deregulatory agenda that this Government seems determined to pursue. Rather than a regime based upon increased rights and more involvement of union reps, vigilance by well-funded, properly resourced, and effective inspectorate, and stronger enforcement of the law, the Government is systematically undermining the health and safety system to reduce so-called burdens on business and, sadly, colleagues, the chair of the Health & Safety Commission seems unable or unwilling to oppose this folly.
The recent Select Committee presented a tremendous opportunity to go to government and demand implementation of its wise and sensible recommendations, to demand the tools, the support, and the resources needed to tackle the failure of employers to protect their workforces, to support a report that recognises that decisive action is necessary if work-related deaths, injuries, and disease, are to be reduced, but the ink was barely dry on the report before the chair, without even consulting the TUC commissioners, declared against improved rights for safety reps. He did that at a press conference called to announce increased deaths at work. How ironic is that?
The Government and the commission face a simple choice: to pursue to the delight of negligent employers a strategy that will reverse health and safety gains achieved over the last 30 years, a strategy which the Select Committee explicitly rejected and which the unions are firmly opposed to, or they can adopt a radical agenda for improving health and safety at work that will deliver for people at work, an agenda that should be resourced by a work environment fund that every employer must contribute to, an agenda based upon increased inspection, vigilance, and enforcement that enshrines the involvement of unions.
Congress, that is the choice. The Government is at a crossroads on health and safety. Down one road lies deregulation or a system funded by a compulsory levy on employers for support of safety reps, effective inspection, and enforcement of strong laws that will deliver a reduction in deaths, injury, and disease. It really is as straightforward as that. It is blindingly obvious which path needs to be followed. We need strong leadership from the HSE to take us down the anti-deregulation path. Deregulation does not reduce workplace risk, deregulation will not prevent deaths and disease, and deregulation cannot deliver for people at work.
Rob Thomas (NAPO) seconding composition motion 19, said: Much of the media and employers’ representatives in this country love to portray those who campaign on health and safety issues as either whingeing do-gooders or extreme left-wing activists, but over this issue in 2004 that is very far from the truth. Just listen to these quotes. On the subject of enforcement rather than encouragement: 'The evidence supports the view that it is inspection backed by enforcement that is most effective in motivating duty holders to comply with their responsibilities under health and safety law. We therefore recommend that the HSE should not proceed with a proposal to shift resources from inspection and enforcement to fund an increase in education, information and advice.' Who said that? The Labour-dominated House of Commons Department Select Committee on Work & Pensions, which reported in July of this year. On the subject of stress and occupational health, the academic, Andy Waterstone, an occupational health professor at Stirling University, said: 'The HSE does not present itself as a champion for occupational health advances but rather as an apologist for ineffective government.' On working temperatures, USDAW, that notoriously militant trade union, in a press statement earlier this year pointed to evidence that anyone working in temperatures above 250C can start to suffer heat exhaustion, loss of concentration, and consequent loss of productivity. It is a fact that there are more regulations covering the temperatures in which you transport cattle than there are over working conditions for humans. Perhaps we should pretend the Tube trains are cattle trucks.
What kind of action do we need to tackle these problems? First of all, we need enough inspectors to detect breaches of health and safety law, and then we may well see an increase in the incidence of prosecution for criminal acts. Of course, you also need more effective legislation in the area of corporate killing as well. However, it is no good using all stick and no carrot. For some of the less serious breaches of the laws we need a more flexible approach and that is where this motion calls for the promotion of full criminal responsibility, and sanctions, for those who break the law. Being a union which represents probation officers, we know a bit about the availability of alternative penalties. At the moment, all the court can do is send someone to prison or fine them. We believe it would be much more effective if the courts had other options, such as community punishment or probation orders.
On the rights and functions of safety reps, again the Select Committee has backed the need for major improvements and backed the TUC line. Why is the HSE not backing this as well? On actions to make violence to workers a reportable event, my union tabled a motion to the 2001 Congress which specifically called for racially motivated offences to be recorded. At Congress that came to an abrupt halt because of 9/11 but we need to return to those issues straightaway. Finally, on the opt-out for the Working Time Directive the leadership of the TUC has done a grand job but where is the voice of the HSE on this?
So, this motion is calling for more action; without a big push at every level this will just have been a pious statement. We need a thorough review of the functions of the HSE and I urge all affiliates to ensure that something happens, and happens quickly.
Eddie Grimes (Amicus) said: I support this composite with specific reference to the amendment including subclause (b) in the composite.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment given to this Congress on Monday that legislation will be introduced to create the offence of corporate manslaughter, so why do we need to include this motion? Firstly, we have heard the same commitment before but this time we want to see it acted upon. The Works & Pensions Select Committee has recommended that the Government publish a bill on corporate killing by 1st December this year. Secondly, the facts speak for themselves: 300 to 400 workers die every year in work-related incidents yet only five companies have ever been convicted for manslaughter. We cannot stand by and continue to see workplace murder take place almost on a daily basis and yet allow those responsible go free.
This motion is not about statistics, it is about people, it is about families, and it is about wrecked lives. Directors and bosses of companies have walked away from these tragedies and washed their hands of them for years. Further delays in promoting the necessary legislation and changes by government will mean that we will share the guilt of future deaths. Management has a responsibility to assess risk, manage health and safety, and make sure that their employees leave their workplaces as they come to it, fit and well. Not until employers see the threat of their necks being on the block will they take their responsibilities seriously.
The fact that employers frequently do not carry out their responsibilities is emphasised in an independent report released by the Centre for Corporate Accountability, today. Amicus fully endorses this position. Copies of this report are available in the Amicus stand today. It gives the shocking statistics that since Labour came to power there have been 2,000 deaths of workers and of which 70 per cent could have been prevented. Despite this horror story, the Government is being asked to consider recommendations from the Health & Safety Commission, and Executive, to move towards a more voluntary approach to safety rather than the enforcement system currently in place.
Congress, we cannot let this legislation remain a promise any longer. We must now demand government action for the sake of our members, workers in general, and their families. Support this composite.
John Hannett (USDAW) speaking in support of the composite, said: Congress, many of us in this hall today, many trade unions represent workers in the front line, in the public and in the private sector, face-to-face working with customers, clients, claimants and patients, in their millions every single day; in service sectors, which are increasingly open all hours, assessed by customers and fellow citizens who want what they want when they require it on demand. Many of our members move heaven and earth to deliver what I believe is a first-class service but they are doing it in an increasingly hostile and dangerous environment. Violence and abuse from customers plagues our members in the UK, particularly in the retail sector.
In a recent USDAW survey, in one week in the working lives of over 600 shop workers across the retail sector, they reported 887 cases of verbal abuse, extremely demeaning when you are on the receiving end of it repeatedly; 224 threats of violence; 107 actual violent incidents; and 80 cases of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Another survey amongst our union representatives revealed that nearly half of our representatives had seen violent assaults on staff in their stores just in the last year, and many stores had had several attacks; 72 per cent reported that threats of violence were a problem in their particular store and verbal abuse was a daily occurrence in over a third of those stores.
Congress, retail workers do an exceptional job and have the right to be respected, and our retail violence campaign was not only about raising awareness but bringing to the attention of the consumer that if you want a good service, you have to give respect to the individual providing that service. The levels of violence and abuse have a devastating effect on people’s lives. They worry about going to work and three-quarters of our members are worried about being attacked at work and, 87 per cent about being verbally abused.
Congress, that kind of abuse leads to stress and illness, and 38 per cent of our union representatives told us that they suffered ill health due to the fear of violence and abuse. An illness does lead to time off work; 48 per cent of our representatives and members at their store were taking time off as a result of the attacks of verbal abuse and violence. Finally, some people even leave their employment because they cannot cope with the ongoing pressure. That is why, Congress, we need a concerted coordinated approach to dealing with violence against front line workers, people who do real jobs and should be respected, working with the appropriate authorities, including the police, to resolve crime and disorder in and around our workplaces, working with employers to build a healthy, safe, and stress-free working environment, and supporting our members to organise around issues that really matter to people who do a fantastic job. Please support the composite.
Chris Baugh (PCS) speaking in support of the composite, said: As we know, the basis for health and safety law in the UK remains the 1975 legislation and trade unions quickly recognise the need to organise around the important new rights this legislation conferred, and it is still really the case today, but we know from experience, at times bitter, that the broad framework within which health and safety law is regulated has never been enough.
PCS represents staff, front line and the much maligned backroom office workers, employed in the Health and Safety Executive, a public body that fulfils a vital public function but, in our view, has been consistently under-funded, denied the powers of enforcement, and the resources to do the job our members and the public have a right to expect, a position that can only get worse if 104,000 civil servants are eventually declared surplus to requirements. That is why my union have highlighted the call for a properly funded HSE given a wider range of enforcement, in particular, that inspections should force employers to show evidence of workers’ involvement and consultation with workers’ representatives.
Again, we know that you do not get worker involvement in health and safety, or on any other issue for that matter, without workplace organisation and safety reps. There is a wealth of experience that shows the positive benefits of being a member of a trade union and we know that union membership has a beneficial effect on both injury and illness rates, however scandalously high they remain. This is a powerful weapon in organising the agenda to which PCS, and the Congress itself, were committed on Monday. So, when the Prime Minister commends flexible labour markets, it is worth restating the real meaning for many of our members: a human resource agenda that reduces job control, a battery of work targets, IT systems that mean in an office environment chained to a display screen, and five million workers, a fifth of the UK workforce, suffering high levels of stress.
A Whitehall study of 10,000 civil servants found the familiar story of lack of job control, unattainable targets, conflicting priorities, and poor management, as the major causes of stress at work. But rather than address the underlying causes as part of a media-inspired attack on the so-called 'sick note culture', the Government now threatens for its own employees to reduce sick pay entitlements and compensation for those retired on grounds of ill health. The growing experience of PCS members, we believe shared by many across the public and private sector, compels us to challenge the Government and employer indifference to how modern times makes so many of our members quite literally sick at work. It means fighting to defend the vital public services performed by members in the Health & Safety Executive. It means campaigning against the underlying causes of stress at work, and demonstrating to those we hope to attract into union membership that unions can offer an alternative to the stressful and increasingly unsafe work environments to which millions of UK workers are currently consigned. Congress, please support.
Suresh Chawla (BECTU) speaking in support of Composite 19 with particular reference to sub-paragraph (a) and the amendment, said: as I am sure we are all aware, many regulations are flawed with irregularities, inconsistencies and injustices. Regulation 8 of the Safety Representatives Regulations states that it is fine for safety representatives not to be employees of the employer concerned, but only when representing employees from two specific unions, which are Equity and the Musicians Union. Whilst we are very pleased that two of our fellow entertainment unions can appoint roving safety representatives, there is a clear need for the rest of us to be able to follow suit.
Within BECTU, like so many of our unions, more and more of our members are freelances and self-employed, on short-term contracts, in different locations across the nation, resulting in a nomadic occupational lifestyle. We must amend this legislation to ensure that all of our members, in all of our unions, are protected by the right to roving safety representatives.
I urge you to support this composite motion.
Graeme Henderson (Prospect): Representing inspectors, scientists and other specialists in the Health & Safety Executive.
Prospect calls upon the government to implement the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on the work of the Health & Safety Commission and Executive. The Select Committee identified three main issues: the lack of resources to HSE; the lack of enforcement; and also the lack of support for unions and safety representatives. In particular, the Select Committee made the following key recommendations: first, that in the context of the 2004 Spending Review, the HSE Inspectorate should be recognised as a front-line service and should be protected. The Select Committee endorsed the view that Prospect put to them, both orally and in writing, that the number of inspectors in the HSE’s Field Operations Directive should be doubled within six to seven years. It also recommended that substantial additional resources are needed in the next three years, as indeed the seconder from NAP indicated.
The Select Committee concluded that it is inspection, backed by enforcement, that is most effective in motivating employers to comply with the law, and it called upon the Executive and the Commission to do away with the proposal to shift resources away from enforcement towards education, information and advice.
It also concluded that in view of the huge job that the Health & Safety Commission recognised as needing to be done in the field of occupational health, it is extremely concerned at the reduction in the HSE’s in-house expertise, particularly in the reduction and dumbing down of the numbers of employment medical advisers - 120 twelve years ago, now down to 15 doctors and 27 nurses.
We recognise that we face an uphill struggle to ensure implementation of the report. The Public Expenditure Review announced massive cuts in our sponsoring department, Work and Pensions -- up to 30,000 jobs are to go by 2007. In a paper that was presented to the Health & Safety Commission in April, by HSE’s Director of Resources, predicated upon a flat cash settlement, she concluded that HSE staff would need to decline from the current 3,800 to either 3,000 or possibly 2,800 by 2007.
Last year, when I moved the composite on health and safety, Prospect challenged the Chancellor to put his money where his mouth is. Gordon, you do not often get a second chance in life but this is your opportunity, and for the sake of millions of workers and their families take it.
Robert Crow (RMT): We are supporting this composite, with particular reference to the paragraph in relation to the accidents to, or the manslaughter of, four of my members that took place on Valentine’s Day this year. A run-away train in Tebay, with no proper brakes whatsoever on that wagon, a lump of chestnut fencing stuffed under the wheel, rolled down the hill, over a mile and a half, full of tons of used steel, rolled over and killed four of my members. The other six were fortunate to get out of it. Really, in all honesty, we do not want a witch-hunt, but when there is agro at Wembley this week they can find copper after copper to investigate what went on up there, so why can they not go down and find out why our members were killed in the railway network? That is the issue to be looked at, and in the rest of the other corporate killings that take place.
Since then, there have been three further incidents. In one of them, the same vehicle was involved, in Motherwell.
To be honest with you, we are fed up with coming here year after year talking about tragedies to people, whether it be in the building industry, the mining industry, the railway industry or anywhere else. We do not want a witch-hunt against anyone, but we want a proper public inquiry to make sure that this never happens again. One company was responsible for the wagon and another company was responsible for the wagon it was attached to, and the fact of the matter is that there were no standards put in place as a result of privatisation of BR.
When these managers walk out year after year, when they go to their places and villas they have in the Costa del Sol, when their companies make millions of pounds out of the railway industry, they get pats on the back. If they are prepared to make millions of pounds out of the railway industry, when they kill our members they should be banged up in prison and not going back to their villas or wherever they go on the Costa del Sol or anywhere else where they may live.
Also, I would say that the Health & Safety Executive has been absolutely spineless when it comes to this. Hatfield they have dropped. Take one of our members up there, Alan Fenton. The police went round there with a sledgehammer, smashed his door down and took all his particulars out of his house. They did not go round to Corbett’s house when he was let off two weeks ago for Hatfield.
By the way, let us make it quite clear, so long as the likes of Digby Jones are out there saying that trades unions need to be relevant, whilst our members are being killed in the trades union Movement there is more relevance than ever for the trade union Movement to be hard and fast on safety for all workers, wherever they work.
Ian Lavery (NUM) supporting Composite 19.
This composite highlights very clearly many issues relating to the failures of the Health & Safety Commission and, indeed, of the Health & Safety Executive, and chiefly the lack of protection in terms of corporate manslaughter for our members. As trades unions and health and safety representatives, we witness massive problems every day in each and every workplace. Whether it is in the railway industry, whether it is in a shop, on a building site or in an office we experience it every day.
A major concern for the National Union of Mineworkers, among many others, is the lack of legislation in relation to corporate manslaughter. That is where our members are killed as a result of corporate negligence.
As previous speakers have already mentioned, the government have repeatedly promised to act and have repeatedly failed to do so. The Department of Work and Pensions Select Committee called for the doubling of HSE inspectors, coupled with increased finance for the HSE - quite laudable recommendations, welcome recommendations too. But it is not enough; we must have the power to do something against these employers. If we are doubling the money we must at least increase the service in terms of health and safety. Directors, managers and staff at the very top level must face up to their responsibilities when they cause the death of employees in the workplace. Until legislation is implemented by the government and the workplace is adequately policed by inspectors, with powers that they are prepared to use, then these greedy, hungry, profit-seeking company directors - as Bob has adequately explained - will continue to kill our members in pursuit of profit.
There have been 100,000 miners killed in the mining industry. In British industry last year, 249 people were killed; thousands have died as a result of occupational illness; and thousands die of industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis, empheysema and asthma. In excess of 10,000 employees are killed by work every year. That is 29 per day, more than one an hour, and there are very few convictions.
In the trade union Movement we have a moral obligation to seek justice for the widows and widowers and, yes, for those children who lose their beloved parents as a result of corporate negligence. Justice does not only mean a lengthy battle for compensation; it means a fight to ensure that those responsible for the ruination of family life are held accountable for their actions or inactions, as it may be. Yes, the world would be a safer place and, yes, the prisons would be fuller institutions.
Teresa Mackay (T&G) speaking in support of Composite 19 said: The Health & Safety Report for 2003/2004 shows that 49 per cent of fatal injuries to workers occurred in construction and agriculture. In construction, 70 workers never came home; for agriculture, forestry and fishing it was 44. For my industry, agriculture, that means almost twelve deaths per one hundred thousand, making it the worst and most dangerous industry in the country.
Of course, the Morecambe Bay incident forms part of those statistics, with the terrible deaths of 21 Chinese cockle pickers. We should also remember that two other workers are thought to have drowned but their bodies have never actually been recovered. We should also remind ourselves that this horrific disaster makes it the worst since Piper Alpha. This, I have to say, was the turning point for the government’s acceptance of the T&G’s and Jim Sheridan’s Gangmaster Licensing Bill, which received Royal Assent on 8 July. According to DEFRA, there are 3,000 gangmasters in the UK, employing 60,000 workers, but no one really knows. The young Chinese reporter from the Guardian, who spoke at the Gangmasters Meeting on Monday, knew of one gangmaster in Norfolk who employed 25,000 workers. This same reporter went under cover for two weeks and experienced the most appalling working conditions.
The Gangmaster Licensing Act has become the legacy of Morecambe Bay but, if it is to work, resources have to be made available. Announcing over 104,000 job losses in the Civil Service does not send out the right signals that proper investment is going to take place. What it does point out -- as the PCS have graphically pointed out -- is that we are dependent on the Civil Service at every level, and that we in the trade union Movement must wholeheartedly support whatever action the PCS will take to save those jobs.
Roving safety representatives have also been a major campaigning issue for those of us working in agriculture in the T&G. Six of us have just completed a two-year pilot project sponsored by the HSE to see if roving safety representatives make a difference in this very dangerous industry. Although the results will not be formally announced until the HSE’s Agricultural Industry’s Advisory Committee meets later this year, all signs seem to indicate that, just like the Workers Safety Advisers Project, it was a resounding success.
One of the major problems that our union has had to face has been the reluctance of the National Farmers Union to allow T&G members on their farms. What this project showed was that none of the farmers, who were all volunteers, had any problems with our visits or objected to our talking to these workers. On the contrary, they were more than willing to participate.
If we are to turn this industry’s dreadful record around, which includes massive under-reporting of incidents, the government and the HSE must seriously look at ways in which the roving safety representatives can become a reality. Our project, just like the Workers Safety Advisers, will surely prove that such schemes make good health and safety sense.
Support the composite.
Bob Hudson (Community) Supporting the motion on behalf of Community. In May last year David Blunkett confirmed that the government would introduce the offence of corporate manslaughter, but there is still no progress. On the contrary, we seem to be going backwards. The likelihood of a successful prosecution under the existing law receded completely after the recent Railtrack case. Reportedly, Ministers themselves now fear that they themselves may be charged for the fatal errors employees in the NHS and other public services commit. There is no truth at all in this, and the story just looks like another bit of spin to avoid action.
Since the Home Secretary made that pledge, 235 people have died as a result of injuries at work, and there were more than 150,000 other injuries. There were no convictions of top bosses. In the steel industry we have experienced more than our share of death and crippling accidents. The incidence of serious injuries in our industry is wholly unacceptable, even though top management is committed to reducing the toll, as we are.
About 70 per cent of these deaths and serious injuries at work are generally due to management failures, and the record shows that the larger the company the greater the likelihood that there will be no charge. We need new effective legislation to put top managers in the dock. That would really bring home the priority that health and safety should have.
I urge Congress to adopt the motion and the General Council to press the issue vigorously with the government to see that they honour their pledges.
The President : Composite Motion 19 is supported by the General Council.
* Composite Motion 19 was CARRIED
Health and safety in commercial aviation
Jim McAuslan (BALPA) moved Motion 91.
(Insert Motion 91 - Health and safety in commercial aviation)
He said: I want to tell you about Belinda. Belinda and her husband flew with a major BAE 146 operator. During her time operating as crew she suffered severe medical symptoms on exposure to fumes. Her son was born with a genetic syndrome and she and husband were advised that they had chemical damage to chromosomes.
I want to tell you about Captain Julian Soddy, a physically fit pilot who developed flu-like symptoms and memory loss. A visit to his doctor revealed symptoms similar to those experienced by people exposed to sheep dip. He lost his licence.
I could tell you many other stories from across the world, too many for fume exposure to be explained away as a personal sensitivity. The fact is that engine oils contain organophosphates, neurotoxins, sensitisers and carcinogens. The tin reassuringly warns you that it contains TCP. There is evidence that the ingestion of oil fumes causes a range of complaints from headaches and gastrointestinal problems to heart, lung and neurological disorders. It is looking more and more like it does what it says on the tin. There may be some short and long-term problems, some result in those affected being ill-health retired. In Belinda’s case it was worse.
It does not need to be this way. Other lubricants for engines and auxiliary power units to bleed air systems of aircraft have been known about for 25 years. More recently, the Australian Senate undertook an extensive review making very specific recommendations. These have not been actioned. They gather dust, 'Not my responsibility'. The regulators say it is not a safety issue and that there is no proof of long-term health problems, but they have not been prepared to release all their findings, including some from Porton Down. Manufacturers say it is a maintenance problem; the oil companies say 'It’s safe' as long as it does not get into the cabin. For the want of funds, some decent research by eminent scientists goes undone. Everyone says that someone else is responsible. It is massive failure in the duty of care.
So who is to lead? No part of the Chicago Convention, which regulates aviation, requires countries to regulate for health and comfort of passengers. Here in the UK we have the bizarre situation - as you will hear - that in one of the most safety critical environments, aviation, the remit of the HSE does not extend into looking into health. This is not a case of deregulation; it is a case of no regulation.
I recognise from the previous debate that the HSE is itself struggling to deliver on its existing agenda and that more responsibility is probably the last thing that it wants, but if not you then who? In BALPA we are part of a small group of organisations and individuals that are saying that action is needed. We have launched our own campaign and you can find details and watch video clips on our website, BALPA.Org. Our aim is not scaremongering; it is to improve reporting by crew of incidents so that we have reliable data and can make the right decisions based on facts.
However, BALPA is but one voice and getting the various groups to put pressure on decision-makers is beyond our resources. That is why we are asking for your support, so that the TUC can take action, because the TUC is at its best when it brings together those working in isolation, best when it acts as a catalyst to challenge inertia and indifference, best when it does not accept at face value the reassuring noises of industry.
Congress, we ask for your support for this motion to help us improve environmental health in aviation to the same standard as aviation safety.
Dave Reed (T&G) seconding Motion 91.
Firstly, as a British Airways worker I would like to thank all delegates and trades unionists for the outstanding support shown to our members in the T&G and our comrades in Amicus and the GMB in our recent British Airways dispute. As our General Secretary says, if we fight back we may not always win; but if we do not fight we will surely lose. We fought back, we won and we thank you.
Secondly, if you had come to this Congress in the 1970s the chances are that few delegates would have flown in a ‘plane. Today, many of you here have flown. Air travel is no longer the preserve of the rich; it is for every person. While air travel has grown dramatically, safety is of paramount importance. Whilst the safety record in aviation is an enviable one, there is no room for complacency. That is why the T&G is seconding this motion, because when it comes to people working and travelling on a plane, moving at 500 miles an hour, at 30,000 feet, the number one most important issue of course is that of health and safety. For example, take the impact of poor quality recycled air in aircraft cabins. Our government must give a lead by commissioning independent research to establish the medical facts and to improve ventilation systems.
We need to end the blurred lines of responsibility that exist between the HSE for our ports and ground workers and the CAA for our people working in the air. We must develop as a matter of urgency ways of working to support and address the problems associated with stress, workload, long hours and fatigue.
We want to reduce the weight limit on each bag to a more reasonable level, and we seek your understanding there. We want our check-in and customer service members to be able to work without fear of verbal and physical assault. We seek your support and understanding on that.
We do not want you to board a ‘plane unless the pilot is properly certified. Cabin crew are also vital to safety and security. We call for cabin crew in Europe to be properly certified. I am sure the public would welcome that.
Air travel is essential for our economic future. It has opened up new horizons for travel for ordinary people. It has brought communities together. Passengers deserve to travel in a comfortable, safe and healthy environment and our members deserve the same.
Therefore, let us ensure that this crucial industry remains a safe industry. Support Motion 91.
The President : The General Council supports Motion 91.
* Motion 91 was CARRIED
Safety and preservation of theatres
Barbara White (MU) moved Motion 92.
(Insert Motion 92 - Safety and preservation of theatres)
She said: It is more than 90 years since the Theatre and Public Halls Act was introduced in 1908. Its principal objective was to exercise control over, and improve, the condition of theatres and licensed halls for the purpose of ensuring the safety and convenience of the public. I must admit that most of the provisions of the Act have been repealed.
You will remember that the 1908 Act concentrated on safety and convenience. What convenience? In countless towns around Britain audiences still sit in uncomfortable seats and spend the interval in queues for the toilet or crushed in a bar. Theatre-going in Victorian and Edwardian times was a very popular pastime, attracting all sections of the population, but the buildings reflected the class structure and social divisions of the period. As only about one-quarter of the audiences entered through the front door and the foyers, bars and toilets were planned with this in mind.
One of the most frequent complaints from the public relate to seats with inadequate leg room. This is not surprising when you realise that the average height of people 100 years ago was four inches less than today.
Once again, we come back to that word 'convenience'. The Theatre Trust’s most recent survey states that 65 per cent of theatres would benefit from more women’s toilets. From the queues that I have seen, and been involved in, I would say more like 100 per cent.
We must not forget the less able-bodied and wheelchair users. Access presents particular problems, with 48 per cent of theatres having totally inadequate provision for patrons in wheelchairs.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, performers continue to work in conditions that long ago would have been condemned in most other professions. Dressing rooms and spaces for technical staff often exhibit conditions that would not be tolerated in any other industry. These theatres were simply not designed for the paraphernalia of modern lighting and sound equipment, or for the weight and size of modern scenery, or for today’s rigorous standards relating to health and safety. It goes without saying that entertainment unions give safety the green light and danger the red.
What would it cost to make things better? The figure of £250 million would give fairly radical remodelling in those buildings that are least satisfactory. When we think of this figure we must also remember not only the cultural importance of the West End theatre but the fact that it generates ticket sales of £246 million a year. The total direct spending attributed to the West End theatre industry was £700 million, with a further £350 million in indirect spending. This level of economic activity contributed tax revenues to central government of at least £200 million a year.
Without investment the prospects are bleak. Theatre audiences cannot be expected to tolerate indefinitely conditions that reflect theatre-going 100 years ago. In the minds of most people, the National Lottery might seem the most obvious potential for such a programme. Although there is nothing in the regulations to prevent these theatres applying to the National Lottery, applications to Arts Council England have been rebuffed and it is clear that the Council has never regarded commercial theatres as one of its priorities. The present owners of theatres are currently spending around £6 million a year on their theatres, or £150 per seat across the West End theatres as a whole.
The VAT on West End ticket sales recouped by the Treasury now amounts to over £48 million per annum, nearly three times the amount needed annually to refurbish these theatres. We cannot afford, nor do we have the option, to rebuild theatre land. Most subsidised theatres have now been refurbished with money from the National Lottery, creating a marked imbalance between the two sectors. There is now very little alternative other than to look to government to secure a solution.
As an inheritance, theatre land is the envy of the world. Those responsible are determined to play their part to invest in it and to help maximise its potential. We need to act now.
Graham Lester George ( WGGB ) supporting Motion 92 said: London’s West End theatres are part of its identity. I could say all the usual stuff about culture and heritage, but it is more than that; it is about a city’s personality. Paris expresses itself in the boulevards and in the pavement cafes; Berlin with its dynamism and the old and new vying for attention; Rome with its piazzas, fountains and antiquity around every corner that says 'Hey, this is where it all got going'. But London is famous all over the world for its theatres. Those theatres are rightly known both for what they house, the best drama and best entertainment productions anywhere, and for their unique interiors that lend that special atmosphere that is West End theatre.
Unfortunately, many of them are crumbling or in danger of crumbling. Often it is not at the front of house where the problem lies; but backstage, cramped and often hazardous spaces strewn with ropes and timber supports, electrical cables and other paraphernalia. It is where all the invisible, magical work is done to create the illusion out front that the actors are in a park, up a mountain or just in an urban living room. But they are not good working conditions back there, although the workers - the carpenters, the electricians, the ASMs, the designers - tolerate the discomfort and inconveniences, and the dangers, because they are doing what they love to do: deliver their magic night after night.
But this is the 21st century and we cannot continue to ignore the health and safety problems that beset these venerated and venerable theatres. They are magnets for tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world, bringing millions of pounds to the economy of this country, but so far without access to Lottery cash. They are in danger of becoming unworkable, in danger of subsiding into darkness, thereby depriving the West End of its unique beating heart and those visitors of a reason to come.
I therefore ask you to support Motion 92.
The President : The General Council supports the motion.
* Motion 92 was CARRIED
Bullying and Harassment
Carol Machan (BDA) moved Motion 93.
(Insert Motion 93 - Bullying and Harassment)
She said: Sadly the BDA over the last few years has recognised that bullying and harassment remain at an unacceptably high level within the NHS. As a small organisation we spend a large amount of our trade union resources advising, supporting and representing members who have experienced this serious workplace issue. I am aware, from reading reports and surveys carried out by other unions, that the prevalence of bullying and harassment remains high. We confirmed this as a serious issue doing our own survey of BDA members this year.
I am not going to describe the meaning of bullying and harassment, as everyone here is aware of the term. I just want to say the BDA have used these terms together to ensure that all possible perceptions of such actions are covered by this motion.
As trades unions we have been involved in highlighting this issue with employers and campaigning to ensure that the issue is taken seriously. In the NHS there are now policies that we are advised by senior management are taken seriously and that they are there to protect employees. However, the reality of this problem is that it is often ignored and made more difficult to pursue. Even with glossy policies, with a clear approach to this and timescales for how situations should be managed, individual employees do not get the support of their employer. My own experience confirms this. Supporting members through these bullying and harassment policies is a long and extended process with more hurdles than the Olympics.
I will just quickly describe one situation, which I think demonstrates that the NHS with its policies says it is committed to eradicating bullying and harassment but clearly avoids doing anything about it. Last April a member working in the NHS came forward to us asking for help after a long period of bullying. This member had been working as a dietician for nine years in two different departments, having never been off sick and always enjoyed working and socialising with colleagues. After having a baby she changed to part-time work in another department. Coming to us about five months after starting this new employment, she had been off sick for almost one month. Worried about this, and about what happened to her at work, she was in despair. On hearing her situation we obviously agreed to support and represent her, and embarked on helping her work through her local policy. The NHS Trust assured me that they took bullying and harassment very seriously and that a thorough investigation would take place.
You might think that I am about to give you an outcome as it is now about 15 months since we started this process. No, having been shouted at, pulled and pushed, ignored in front of others, and singled out by this bully - which, I must tell you, was all witnessed, including a picture of our member placed on a notice board and people being encouraged to use it as a dartboard - we waited eight months even to hear whether the investigation had been completed or not. Now, after one year, we have a statement from the Trust saying 'There may be some small element of behaviour which could be construed as harassment but not enough to do anything about it.' The BDA are currently seeking legal advice, which again is not easy as you may know.
Legislation is not clear in this area and so we have been advised by our lawyers that results are often unsatisfactory as the laws are not designed specifically to tackle this area. We come to you for help. Members, employees, should not be bullied at work and employers must take this issue seriously. As a small organisation, we seek General Council’s advice and support. We believe the government must consider and examine ways to extend legal protection for all victims of this endemic problem. Employers must take this issue seriously and, if evidence shows that they have failed to act, they must be forced to do so by adequate protection to victims under law.
It is bad enough having to go to work but what about being in fear of going to work, to be bullied at work, to be bullied in your workplace? Please support.
Peter Pendle (ACM): Bullying is not a new issue and it is a shame that two unions representing professionals in the public sector find it necessary to raise this matter today.
In seconding this motion, I wish to draw your attention to the types of problems we are facing in the public sector, and in further education in particular. I will give you an example of the serious effect that bullying can have on an individual and then outline how the TUC can help us campaign for effective policies to tackle this problem.
Bullying is one of the most common reasons for ACM members to call our Help Line. The inescapable conclusion we must draw from this is that bullying, whatever the non-believers say, is a very serious issue. In further education, you will be relieved to hear that procedures to tackle bullying and deal with complaints are fairly common. Most colleges have bullying and harassment policies for employees. Sadly, though, the good practice often ends on paper.
We too have seen employers fail to accept that there is a problem, fail to use procedures that they have in place and fail to support the victims of workplace bullying. Yet the impact of bullying on an individual is surely reason enough to take every case seriously. Recently we helped a member in his late forties. He had a responsible, challenging job that he performed well. Then the bullying started. It was persistent; it gradually ate away at his confidence and his work suffered. Regular periods of sick leave turned into long-term sick leave. The stress caused by bullying turned into severe depression. So ill was our member that he would not answer the ‘phone at home in case it was the college. He rarely went out in case he bumped into someone from work, and if he did he could not go anywhere near the college. Our member was a wreck, his work and working, family and social life destroyed by a bully, aided and abetted by a college employer who ignored all the danger signs.
The college lost a hard-working manager and it also had to pay him one-third of a million pounds in compensation after we lodged a personal injury claim - a small victory for a broken family.
This is a sad example of workplace bullying and it is precisely why we need your support for this motion. Through the TUC we need to press for better legal protection and we need to continue raising awareness of the serious impact that bullying can have on the workplace.
Ann Robertson (T&G) speaking in support of Motion 93 said: NHS workers have the right to work without fear. In 2002 violence and aggression accounted for 40 per cent of all reported health and safety incidents in the NHS. The zero tolerance campaign was welcome but, as this motion points out, written procedures are one thing, real change on the ground is another. NHS Trusts are not meeting their targets in reducing violence. This is an urgent problem, not just for NHS workers like me but for patients too. All research shows that violence and aggression leads to staff sickness, resignation and demotivation. Tackling this problem must be central to the government’s plan to rebuild the NHS. The government must send out a clear message that anyone who is violent towards an NHS worker will be subject to the full force of the law. Employers who do not take this problem seriously must be held to account.
At the National Policy Forum we made progress. The Labour Party made a commitment to encourage the use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders against people who abused public sector workers. However, we cannot afford to wait for a third Labour term; we need action now. Official figures show that hundreds of NHS workers are assaulted very day, and not all incidents are reported. NHS workers care for everyone else; now we need you to care for us. Please support this motion.
Pat Dwan (UNISON) speaking in support of Motion 93. I say without fear of contradiction that there are employers out there who should carry a government health warning. Bullying and harassment, I am sorry to say, is not only confined to the NHS but can be found in the majority of our workplaces today.
I work for an NHS Trust in Wales where recently, following input from the Royal College of Nursing -- dare I say it -- UNISON and the British Medical Association, we closed down our cardiac unit for one week and we dealt specifically with issues that are contained within this motion.
Many employers, when faced with bullying and harassment issues, do not know how to handle them; their policies do not go far enough, they are too weak. Their first port of call is to the union rep. They call her or him in and they use them to dig the employer out of the mire. We have in the NHS, as my colleague just said, a zero tolerance for violence to staff. But this is mainly used by service users. It does not go far enough. This policy of zero tolerance should go to the bullies and harassers who are actually employed by the NHS. The other procedure that they have is prosecution, but they very rarely use that.
A clear message should go from here today, not only to NHS Trusts but to all employers and the government. My union, UNISON, and all other unions are watching and waiting. We are willing to act on behalf of our members. You need to sit down with us; we will help you rewrite your policies and they will be far more effective.
The protection of our staff is a right. We need it; we need it now. The policies have to be rewritten and rewritten in our favour. Please support Motion 93.
The President : The motion is supported by the General Council.
* Motion 93 was CARRIED
Campaigns
Owen Coup (GPMU) speaking to paragraph 9.2 said: I would like to refer in particular to the bullet point on migrant workers. The GPMU welcomes the work already undertaken by the General Council concerning the safe working conditions of migrant workers. We would, however, like the TUC to consider broadening their work to encompass the more general issues of agency workers and, more particularly, those relating to health and safety. We, the GPMU, see agency workers increasingly in large printers undertaking magazine and catalogue work. In practice, those agency workers have limited health and safety rights. They often lose out on basic induction training and personal protective equipment. They can unwittingly undermine existing health and safety arrangements for permanent workers. Of course, some employers see agency workers as cheap labour.
We need clear guidance on health and safety to ensure employers and agencies meet their duties towards agency workers. Our experience tells us that agency workers’ rights and protection fall down a big hole between the employers and the agencies, even though we as a union do what we can. Agency workers need protecting in relation to health and safety. We therefore call on the General Council to look into this further and to press the TUC representatives on the Health & Safety Commission to keep up the pressure on protecting agency workers and migrant workers.
We ask for the General Council’s support in this matter.
The President : We will certainly take that into account in our work. Thank you.
Terry Britton (T&G) speaking to paragraph 9.2 said: I would like to spend a few moments on paragraph 9.2, particularly in relation to asbestos. I have heard all the speakers this morning and asbestos has not been touched on once. We all know what asbestos is, but few of us know what asbestosis is. That is a related disease from asbestos. It is a nasty disease. It can fester in your body. One fibre can fester in your body and be thirty years before it shows its head. You forget where you got it from. It comes down to one of the related body diseases.
What I would like to say is: why do we have seven lines in the middle of a General Council Report on the biggest single industrial killer that has ever been known? It should be one of the motions that is top of the Agenda. Okay, there is a committee dealing with it but in my own union I intend to push this, and I fully intend it to be on the agenda from the Transport & General Workers Union at the next TUC Congress. It is a nasty disease; it does not want sweeping under the carpet. If you sweep it under the carpet you do so at your own peril. Please do not do that. As I say, it is the biggest industrial killer. Morrish & Co. have a fact sheet on their stand downstairs. I am not on commission for this! The fact sheet tells you some of the signs to look out for.
You might not have worked in an asbestos-related industry; textile workers who I represent have done. We had a case not so long ago where thirty years ago there was a big weaving factory. The roof caved in and a lot of these people now have either died -- we have found out since -- or are dying. We are taking court action against this company. It does not matter what industry you work in. You might have members who have been in contact with asbestos. I would like you to join us the next time the TUC comes here, whichever union you represent, in getting this on the agenda and getting it to the top of the agenda.
The President: I can assure you that asbestos and asbestos related diseases is a central part of the TUC’s health and safety work. We liaise with affiliated unions on it and we will continue to.
Earlier this morning in her address from the Labour Party, Mary Turner referred to the days when Mrs. Thatcher supported apartheid and the apartheid oppressive regime in South Africa. She did make a plea that democratic South Africa treats her son fairly in its judicial process currently under way. I am sure that Congress all agrees that he deserves a fair trial and a fair punishment. (Laughter and Applause)
Address by Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary of COSATU.
The President: As one of the early founders of Anti-Apartheid, I remember the trade union campaign which was founded against Mrs. Thatcher’s opposition or her support for apartheid, and it resulted in a complete and utter victory, a resounding achievement, and this year is the tenth anniversary of the end of apartheid and the creation of a new and democratic South Africa. We should remember that trade unions were central to that tremendous achievement. Trade unions in Britain were in the forefront of the campaign against apartheid, but even more central for the trade unions and the people of South Africa itself. I am immensely and enormously pleased to have Zwelinzima Vavi, the General Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions here today. Comrade Vavi, welcome to Congress. We celebrate your ten years of freedom. The floor is yours.
Zwelinzima Vavi (General Secretary, COSATU) : Do you remember that on the streets of London as part of the world movement in opposition against the Apartheid system and as part of the anti-Apartheid movement we had our most active friends in Great Britain.
President, General Secretary, comrades, delegates and friends to this Congress, democracy brought a huge increase in political power in labour rights and social and economic opportunities for black people, including workers and women. It fundamentally improved conditions for the majority of our people. We saw improvements in pay and conditions for lower level African workers, especially in the first few years of democracy. Blacks and women benefited from laws banning discrimination and improving basic conditions of employment. They also gained much greater access to education and skills development. Workers also benefited from the extension of government services to African communities. As such the AUC led democratic movement used access to state power to begin to unravel the legality of apartheid. Still the state pursued a contradictory strategy. On the one hand, it provided basic services to the people and changed the apartheid labour market. On the other hand, it relied heavily on conservative macro economic strategies.
The gains listed above have been offset by rising unemployment and the resulting fall in incomes for the poorer households. Slow growth and low investment levels. To the extent that the economy has created jobs at all. They have been low level insecure and very poorly paid jobs. That is the average income from work declined sharply between 1995 and 2001. Essentially, the first decade of freedom has meant the attainment of political power and not the total control by the state. Whilst the ANC is the leading party in government, the old style bureaucrats, the reactionary consultants and advisers even from the IMF and World Bank have to, an extent, usurped political formulation in critical areas. On his part, the democratic movement has weakened its capacity to formulate and develop policy whilst the tripartite alliance is largely marginalised from policy making. Fundamentally, economic power remains firmly in the hands of white capital centred in mining and finance.
Unless the economy is restructured significantly, it will be very hard to realise the goals of our struggle to build a non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous South Africa. We also noted the process of class formation taking place in our society. Whilst the ruling class remains largely white and centred in mining and finance, we begin to see the emergence of a small black bourgeoisie. The working class has also been restructured with the job losses and expansion in the informal sector. Capital strives for short term gains, and profits have resulted in new forms of insecure and poorly paid quality jobs.
The overall cost of our political strategy, therefore, in this context is to upset the workingclass hegemony of society to counteract the power of capital. To that extent we seek to combine the state and social power in a way that consistently tilted the balance of power in favour of workers and their working families. Freedom must bring tangible and real benefits to the poor. The complex changes facing the working class demand a long-term vision to build a strong trade union Movement and to assert the working class leadership. The march to our long-term vision demands patience, resilience and bold thinking, foresight and visionary leadership.
COSATU in its recent Congress held in September of last year adopted a medium to long-term vision which is called the 2015 plan. That plan defines priorities. It defines the benchmarks and core strategies for taking forward our initial democratic revolution. The two central pillars of our strategy is to build the working class power and ensure quality jobs. This twin task must be linked to reinforce one another. Engagements at the policy level must support organisational development. Our vision is shaped by benchmarks that I am going to mention.
Firstly, the systematic and rigorous implementation of the organisation development programme that will ensure recruitment of workers into trade unions and we aim to reach a membership of four million by 2009, or by the time when we go to our tenth Congress, from the current membership of 1.7 million. We are seeking to ensure that we build the trade union unity at least amongst the main centres which exist in the country.
Secondly, I want to defend our political gains and space. In this regard, we want to build a stronger ANC and a stronger SACB. We do not need weaker alliance partners. For each election, we will have a balance sheet based on our vision of what was achieved, what still needs to be done and what have been our setbacks during this period. On that basis, we will develop a framework for what should constitute an electoral platform between the parties that form part of the tripartite alliance. This analysis will then be used to contribute towards development of the election manifesto. We have, in the past, established election teams to mobilise workers and voters during the entire election campaign. We want to continue to do mobilise financial resources to implement our election plan, deepening the debates on all major challenges facing the working class and the workers, whilst at the same time playing a major role in delivering membership education and deepening the political consciousness of the working class on the ground. In that context, we are building a pool of cadres with deep organisational, political and ideological depth.
These programmes are designed to ensure that the working class provides a leadership of society within the ANC and key organs of the people’s power. We seek to strengthen the civil society especially the community-based organisations and ensure stronger involvement of our local structures in local government processes. We want to ensure a stronger role for the working class and black women in the public discourse. We want to ensure that clear measures are in place to reverse the rising unemployment, the poverty and the inequalities in the society. We want to ensure that the workers have a share in the national income. In this context, we want to increase the capacity of the affiliates to influence sectoral and workplace restructuring processes. We want to ensure that there is a stronger development and democratic state that can ensure growth and a development strategy and ensures redistribution on the larger scale. We want to play our role to see the resurgence of the African Trade Union Movement, because that is absolutely essential in relation to the dynamics that we continue to interact with at the national, continental and global level. We want to see a better co-ordinated and international policy that will contribute to the struggles to build a better world based on the equitable redistribution of resources and closing the growing gap between the rich and poor within and inbetween nations.
In this regard we want to build stronger international trade unions and improve the co-ordination and unity of social movements as well as improve the co-ordination between progressive political parties, progressive governments, the civil society and the trade union Movement which must be strengthened into one solid block that should demand a change in the global system. Success on this front can only be stronger if we succeed to strengthen the rule of the International Labour Organisation as well as transform the United Nations and its institutions, in particular the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. We hope that in this path we shall be walking side by side with the TUC in realising all of the dreams that we have. Thank you very much for having us in this Congress. (Applause)
The President: Thank you very much, Zwelinzima. We wish all the best to the leadership and membership of the Congress of South African Trade Unions.
Care of elders
The President: We now move back to Chapter 4 to page 40 of the report. I call Composite Motion 8 - Care of elders.
Tony Kearns (CWU) moved Composite Motion 8
(Insert Composite Motion 8 - Care of elders)
He said: I want to explain where the majority of the origins of this composite came from. It was not a matter of the CWU just deciding it would be a nice idea to put forward a motion on the care of elders. The CWU has 22,000 retired members amongst its number, and it has a Retired Members Conference. The majority of this proposition was drawn up by the Retired Members’ Advisory Committee of the CWU, placed before a retired members conference and carried, and then placed before the CWU general conference and carried there as union policy. So the issues which this proposition deal with comes from those to whom it matters - the retired members.
If you look at the composite motion it talks about campaigns, engaging retired members, direct contact with MPs and of active opposition to the closure of nursing and residential homes. More importantly, it backs the position of the National Pensioners Convention. So why have we put this demand before you and why do we have this need? It is because the treatment of the elderly in this society is nothing short of a disgrace. We kid ourselves if we think we live in a civilised society when we have the levels of pensioner poverty that we do. Two-and-a-half million pensioners need income support. The Government’s own figures show that 27% of pensioners in this country live below the poverty line. During the debate yesterday on pensions, we heard about remuneration for pensioners in society, but that is only half the issue. It is a vital starting point, but that is not all that matters. If we want to call ourselves a civilised society, it is an absolute disgrace that last year more than 70,000 elderly people had to sell their homes to provide long-term residential and personal care for themselves. Why is that?
The position in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales some improvements have been made in the funding of personal care in residential homes. But those people in England needing personal and residential care face means testing. They face bills running into thousands of pounds. Those elderly members who do not meet that criteria, their money runs out long before the care ends. So we have a situation where people have given their lives to producing the wealth of the fourth richest economy on this planet end their days with a loss of independence, a loss of dignity and a loss of the right of choice, and it happens at the most vulnerable time in their lives.
Means testing degrades and impoverishes the whole of our society. It is a disgrace and it has to end.
The question is how does it end? It ends with the carrying, in a fashion, of Composite Motion 8. It ends by our campaigning vigorously for the full implementation of the Sutherland Report, which was a Royal Commission in 1999, which had 24 recommendations, the majority of which have been carried into law by the government but not the issue of long-term residential and personal care for the elderly in society. That needs to be done. It encourages retired workers to become active participants in pensioner forums, the very forums that affect their daily lives. We have to press our local MPs to continue opposition to foundation hospitals, which will inevitably lead to the privatisation of the NHS.
The issue of care and nursing is part and parcel of the Government’s move away from the model of the NHS, providing public sector orientated health, in favour of the competitive and commercial market.
If you visit the UNISON website there is some excellent material about the campaign against foundation hospitals. I urge everyone to do that. We, therefore, ask Congress to oppose the closure of nursing and residential homes for the elderly through active campaigns. As I said earlier on, more importantly, we should be publicising the campaigns, rallies and activities organised by the National Pensioners’ Convention.
The National Pensioners’ Convention are fighting for the provision of all health care and treatment and aids to support day to day living to be provided without delay free of charge. Furthermore, pensioners on discharge from hospital should, where appropriate, be resettled in their own homes with the necessary medical and social care. A number of other points were raised at the National Pensioners’ Convention.
This Amendment is based on the true traditions of this Movement. It sets out demands; it identifies targets; it engages with those affected and supports by direct action those groups leading this fight.
We have heard a number of references in the past couple of days to the agreements made in Warwick and the future manifesto of the next Labour Government. However, there is another manifesto to this one, which is the Pensioners’ Manifesto. It only costs you a pound if you buy it in the stall just outside this hall. It gives a comprehensive way of dealing with the elderly in our society. As we run-up to the General Election, this document will grow in prominence. There are 11 million elderly in our society. We need to support the NPC in its campaigns and activities around this document, and we need to support long-term personal care for the elderly in our society before we can call ourselves a civilised society.
Anne Duffy (Community and District Nursing Association): CDNA supports all care of our elderly population. We support and applaud all those who have actually given us our National Health Service that we have come to know today. We continue to campaign against all issues around elder abuse, which we see on our day-to-day travels. We continue to campaign for proper health and social care for all our elders.
Community and district nurses are continually encountering elderly abuse when carrying out their everyday duties. We have identified the fact that our members feel unsupported, in particular around basic medication as a major concern. We support Composite 8.
Myfanwy Manning (UNISON) speaking in support of the composite motion said: I am speaking specifically to the issue of long-term care and deploring our Government’s cynical and contrived separation of personal and nursing care which leads to the means testing that the mover of the composite spoke about.
Colleagues, would any one of you present today say, as our Government do, that people who cannot get out of bed without help, cannot walk, cannot feed themselves and cannot go to the toilet without help are unworthy of State provided care? In the UK we are proud of the equity that underpins our Health Service. When Tony Blair spoke about first-class public services available to all, he conveniently forgot to add, 'except anybody needing long-term care'. They are excluded. This is institutionalised discrimination against elderly people. These are attacks on chronic illness in old age and it is an insult to the architects of the welfare state who bequeathed to us a huge programme of reform which gave us some social justice.
But what sort of social justice is it that forces old people, as you have just heard, to sell their homes, homes they have worked and saved for all of their lives? You really have to be there, colleagues, to know how heartbreaking this all is; to be ill, unable to cope, to need care and then to be stripped of your dignity, your savings and, finally, your home, to know that all hope has gone because even if you get better you have no home to return to. How dare our Government deprive our most vulnerable citizens of the most fundamental of all human rights - the right for their lives to be sustained without having to foot the bill! The Government have cross the rubicon on this issue, colleagues, and has created the mother of all health inequalities. UNISON will not stand by and see this happen, and that is why we have set up the Right to Care Campaign, which is a coalition of 17 organisations campaigning for all nursing and personal care to be free across the UK, just as it is in Scotland where, to their immense credit, the Scottish Parliament voted to provide funding for long-term care.
This is an issue which will touch the lives of everyone of you in this room. If it is not yourself it will be someone who you love. I want to leave you with one thought, and it is this. If our Movement is about anything, it is about caring for people who cannot fight for themselves, who are too vulnerable to fight their corner. That is why we need everybody in this room to join the Right to Care Campaign, to fight for these people and to fight so that we win justice for them.
The President: Composite 8 is supported by the General Council.
· Composite Motion 8 was CARRIED.
Address by Pedro Ross, General Secretary of the Cuban TUC
The President: Congress, this May Day I was in Havana, Cuba, taking part in the International Workers’ Day celebrations, which have become a symbol of Cuba during the past 40 years. While I was there I told them what our TUC Congress agreed last year, that we are opposed to US aggression against Cuba, including the economic blockade, and we salute the magnificent international aid that Cuba and the Cuban people give to so many other states, especially in Africa.
While I was in Cuba we were able to discuss a memorandum of understanding between the TUC and the CTC, the Cuban National Trade Union Centre, which was subsequently endorsed by both organisations. Of course, there are some issues about which we have different perspectives with the CTC, but we have extended the hand of friendship to the Cuban Trade Union Movement and I am extremely pleased that we have with us here the General Secretary of the Cuban TUC, Pedro Ross, who I call on to speak to Congress.
Pedro Ross (Interpreted) : Comrade Roger Lyons, President of the TUC, dear brothers and sisters. On behalf of the Cuban workers, I would like to express my gratitude because of the invitation expressed to me in order to attend this Conference, and to convey a brief message of greetings and solidarity.
We are responding to the growing expressions of friendship and solidarity shown by the British workers and trade unions towards my country, a country that for more than forty years has struggled in order to maintain its independence and sovereignty against the most powerful that has ever existed in the annals of history - the United States of America.
You are all aware of the cruel and inhuman economic blockade that armed aggression, terrorist acts and biological warfare has cost our people numerous material damage and thousands of human lives.
Dear brothers and sisters, you are also familiar with the fact that despite all of these aggressions and attempts to sway our people by the way of devastating hunger and diseases, we have been able to develop a social masterpiece unparallelled amongst under developed countries, such as our universal system of education, health and social security for all Cubans without exception, massive development of culture and sports, basic nourishment assured for all citizens and access to full employment that enables us today to exhibit unemployment figures that are below the level of 3%.
The Cuban people believe in solidarity amongst workers of the world. More than 40,000 young people from impoverished Third World countries have completed their university and technical careers in Cuba by way of scholarships completely free of charge. Ten thousand poor youth from Latin America and the Caribbean are being trained as medical doctors in our country and once graduated they will return to their communities of origin to serve. More than 60,000 Cuban doctors have rendered their services in poor nations without receiving a single penny in return. At the very moment that I am speaking, 20,000 medical doctors and dentists are providing solidarity in 64 countries around the world.
Still Cuba is under a threat. The new Bush programme for Cuba has reinforced measures of economic blockade as well as new aggressions against our sovereignty. Millions of dollars have been destined for the development of subversion and counter-revolution in Cuba. Several of these millions have been assigned to create independent trade unions under the scope and protection of the US Interests Section in Havana, acting as stooges and servants of a foreign power. Their aim is to discredit the image of Cuba in the world arena, to regard Cuba as a nation that represses human rights and, therefore, prepares the world opinion and necessary condition for launching direct armed aggression against my country.
Cubans were profoundly convinced of what solidarity really means. We highly appreciate in all its magnitude the solidarity demonstrated by you during these years and especially the active participation of the British trade union Movement towards the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, including trade unions such as UNISON and many other organisations in the UK. We also commend and appreciate the resolution of solidarity with Cuba presented by the Community & Youth Workers’ Union during last year’s TUC Congress which was unanimously endorsed by all.
We also value as well the courageous attitude of the TUC represented in the recently held ILO Conference in Geneva when understanding that acting against Cuba would only serve the interests of the Bush programme geared towards destroying the Cuban revolution and, thus, implant their domination upon the island. We are confident that the TUC and their affiliated unions will maintain their support to a just cause in order to prevent the giant from the north from having a pretext that would justify a military attack against Cuba.
Dear Comrades, the forthcoming British trade union conference of solidarity with Cuba to take place in November is no doubt another example of the increase in support of the British trade union Movement towards our cause. All the workers of the world are experiencing today difficult times. The economic policies implemented during the past 20 years have destroyed many of the historic achievements conquered by the workers during hundreds of years of hard struggle. Even in the most developed of countries there is sky-rocketing levels of unemployment, job uncertainty and large segments of marginalised people.
In the southern countries, unemployment, hunger and diseases, especially HIV AIDS, threaten to destroy entire nations. New wars of rapacity and conquest are killing thousands of men and women as well as inoffensive children. Yesterday, I recalled the disappearance of the opprobrious regime of apartheid in our system in South Africa. I remember that 30 years ago we were fighting together with our South African brothers in Angola. I was there for four years. The sacrifices in sweat, blood and human lives were not in vain. Colonialism, imperialism and modern slavery were defeated. Nelson Mandela, an icon of freedom and liberty, has said that apartheid would never have been defeated if not for the decisive contribution made by the Cuban people.
Brothers and sisters, Hurricane Ivan, which fortunately did not hit our country, has already gone away, but the hurricane which has lasted for more than 45 years, the infamous and criminal blockade imposed by the United States of America against my country, that permanently harms our elderly, our women, children and nation as a whole is still in place. This hurricane has not bent the will of the Cuban people. We shall continue to endure with the support of all of you and we are sure that this hurricane will also disappear as apartheid did. All the workers of the world are experiencing today the need for solidarity amongst the workers for the purpose of building a world of peace and social justice for all.
Let us struggle for a better world that, without any doubt, is completely possible. Victory forever. Thank you. (Applause amidst a standing ovation)
The President: Thank you very much, Pedro. I can give an assurance that the General Council of the TUC will continue the dialogue based on the Memorandum of Understanding in building strong fraternal and sororal relations between our two centres.
Equal Rights
The President: Delegates, we now return to Chapter 3 on Equal Rights. We are on page 24. I call Motion 12. The General Council supports the motion. It is moved on behalf of the TUC Women’s Conference and seconded by PCS.
Equality/human rights commission
Mary Davis (NATFHE, The University & College Lecturers’ Union) moved Motion 12.
(Insert Motion 12 - Equality/human rights commission)
She said: This Government are embarking in the biggest change in our equality framework seen in 30 years. They call this a leap forward in the battle against discrimination. What they are proposing to do is to merge the three Equality Commissions together with the new commissions, the so-called 'orphan strands', and add human rights to all of this but with no new legislative framework. I wish there was a Minister on the platform. They are never there when you want them. What we want to tell them is that this is at best a leap in the dark but at worse a tremendous leap back, and we must resist it. What is wrong?
What we have now is a mess, but not because the existing commissions are not any good but because the law is a mess. The current law has to be sorted out. It is piecemeal, complex and expensive to access. A basic trade union principle must always be that there must be no worsening of what we have already got. I can tell you, sisters and brothers, this is a major worsening. As far as women are concerned we do not want to be a strand in some big diversity melting pot where an unaccountable board can establish hierarchies of oppression in a flavour of the month approach to equality. Women are 50% of the population and of the workforce. We want specific and specialised advice and action backed by stronger laws. I know that I am not speaking only on behalf of the Women’s Committee or women in general, because I know that every single equality group is saying exactly the same thing. This Government must listen.
We have all had to submit our response to the White Paper called 'Fairness for All - A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights'. The TUC response is that the White Paper will not advance the cause of equality and social justice, and it will not. There is far too much emphasis in this White Paper on the business case. We have to feel terribly sorry for business people who do not understand our complex laws and, as a result, this new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will spend almost all of its time on advising them.
What about the enforcement role? That is downplayed amazingly. We need a separate commission for human rights, anyway, but the point about this proposal is that it absolutely does nothing to resolve the crisis for those suffering discrimination at work. The composition of the Board itself is laughable. There are no guarantees for trade unionists with trade union experience serving on that Board or also with people serving on the equality groups. I think that PCS, which is seconding this motion, will say something about staffing.
I have to let you into this little secret. Jackie Smith, who is the Deputy Minister for Women & Equality, told us at the Women’s Conference, and I quote - I am sure this is absolutely accurate - 'The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will need to be realistic about what it can achieve with finite resources given its widened remit over six strands'. That really, really encourages us. This encourages us that this great leap forward is going to be something dramatically different in that it is going to be dramatically worse. There are many other things wrong in the composition of this commission. We need not to incorporate human rights. Human rights are important, but let us have a separate commission for them.
What we want is a commission with teeth, with separate sections for each equality strand, properly serviced and functioned. What we want is an equality law with teeth, covering public, private and voluntary sectors. What we want above all is for this commission to have strong enforcement powers and the ability to pursue claims which test the law. That is not what this commission is offering. That is why it is a great leap backwards.
We should end the attempt to put our equality agenda into the comfort zones of white male middle class England. This might suit the Government’s electoral strategy but it does not suit our equality agenda. We want more and we deserve more. Every single equality group says the same. This Conference must give that message loud and clear. Apparently, no one at the moment is listening, but I am sure that Brendan you will convey this message very strongly. This matter must be taken up and fought for within your trade union Movement. Otherwise we are going backwards rather than forwards.
Sue Bond (PCS) in seconding the motion said: I am pleased and proud to second this motion because PCS believes that a single body as proposed is a recipe for failure for all the reasons that Mary has outlined. PCS has a particular interest in these proposals because we represent staff in the three existing equality commissions. Will you be surprised to hear that, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge on Monday to consult with stakeholders and work with unions to help fashion change, that PCS has been denied a place on the interim steering group for this body? Clearly, the main recognised trade union that recognises the workers who have been delivering equality for more than two decades is the wrong kind of stakeholder.
Our particular concern is the resourcing of this body, because the brutal efficiency savings demanded in Gordon Brown’s Budget announcement will apply to the equality commissions, too. Already the Commission for Racial Equality is facing a 13% cut, redundancies and the closure of their office in Leeds. Furthermore, ACAS, the only Government body that advises on sexual orientation, religion and belief, faces a 15% cut. That is one reality of Gordon Brown’s cuts.
The Government are silent on the funding for this new body. Do they see it as a cost-cutting exercise. We not only have to fight for strong enforcement tools to tackle discrimination. We must also fight for the staff and the resources to use them, ring-fenced for each area of discrimination. You cannot achieve equality on the cheap. Investigations and enforcement costs money and you cannot put a price tag on equal rights. Without proper resources, this champion of diversity, as Patrician Hewitt calls it, will come into existence with one hand tied behind its back. Without enough staff the enforcement tools it is given to crack down on discrimination will remain gift wrapped on the shelf unused. It will be a watchdog without teeth, a whisper not a clarion call for equal rights under the law and that doorway to justice for so many of the oppressed, unequal and the vulnerable will stay closed. The Government’s bright shiny promise of a fairer, more inclusive Britain will fall broken in bits to the floor with the others. Do not let that happen. Please support this motion.
Stewart Brown (FBU): My union is speaking in support of Motion 12, submitted from the TUC Women’s Conference.
Is it the intention of this Government to continue to introduce legislation that drives us towards equality across the whole of society when, maybe, they think or believe that is what they are doing, but quite clearly from a trade union point of view it is being done incorrectly, and they seem to be getting things done back to front. How else do you explain the bringing together of the three existing commissions and the tag on of human rights? Coupled with new legislation, the proposals before us are absolutely mad, to say the least. So what are the proposals are why are we so concerned about the approach taken?
The legislation introduced last year was the Equality, Employment, Sexual Orientation Regulations, which gave gay men and lesbians protection in the workplace at long last, but, and this is a very big 'but', along with legislation introduced for age and religion, the legislation does not extend to goods and services. Therefore, it is not equal.
The situation is quite simple. We do not have equality now, we have never had it and now we get the chance to make things equal it is not even close. We now have proposals after lengthy consultation, which the Government, obviously, never paid too much attention to have a new single equality commission. That is great news and welcome news, but the catch is that we have equal rights attached. This development is not welcomed, and we foresee many problems with the idea, one of which is the budget for the new Commission, which no doubt will be swallowed up with cases concerning human rights. Therefore, it will dilute the cash required for the six other strands.
We in the Fire Brigades’ Union believe that for the Commission to work properly we need to be answering some important and essential points. There is a need to move towards harmonisation and simplification of legislation. As the way it stands today, some strands are more powerful than others, especially in relation to discrimination regarding goods and services.
The new six strands represent particularly discriminated groups which must work together but also need to be distinctly different to enable them to work with their respective groups and individual problems. The trade union Movement demands representation amongst the Commissioners to enable us to feed our knowledge into the Commission and to allow us direct access to our members’ needs.
Conference, we are due to go back to our unions and get on the lobby trial to see if we can influence the direction of this equality legislation. The Government have not listened. It is too important an issue that affects the majority of us as we get older. Remember, age discrimination will affect us all. Please do not give up on the fight that we have in front of us. The single Equality Commission needs to be fully supported, fully funded, fully staffed and fully understood before the removal of the current provisions. This needs not be a quick fix. This needs to be right.
Lesley Mansell (Amicus) : Congress, the White Paper is substantial. It contains 90 pages but the content is flimsy. The Government argues that important benefits are a cost-cutting approach, with single access points, it will tackle discrimination on multiple grounds and an improvement of delivery to public services. All this will come from a single commission. It is all very laudable. The Amicus response shows a number of flaws. We need a level playingfield. The duty to promote is a positive move, but all organisations should be vicariously liable in all strands of equality, not just on race.
This duty is the exception to current legislation, which itself is complex, piecemeal, expensive and mainly harmless. We have an Alice Through the Looking Glass reality on equal pay, which took 34 years of running largely to stay in the same place, yet to discriminate on pay is illegal.
Without a single Act we set a foundation for hierarchical oppression where any gains could be subsumed as lawyers argued away from diversity and towards large sums of compensation. The potential for the weaker regulations is to keep the issue of sexuality, religion and belief invisible. The forces of homophobia are too entrenched to be dealt with in the way suggested, i.e., by producing a few leaflets.
The multiple oppression argument is positive. The White Paper fails to recognise that equalities work is about changes in management. It would be a real agenda for change if we had a single Diversity Act which encompasses class action. That would make a difference.
As to the Government’s argument against a single Commission - I must quote the argument - it would be 'a failure to benefit from the economies and scales and synergies arising from a single organisation, including the promotion of good practice on equality and diversity to employers and service providers'. So it would not be realised. I think this means a cost-cutting exercise. The Government cannot afford to stop discrimination, like it cannot afford jobs for civil servants. It cannot afford to save manufacturing industry. It cannot afford a National Health Service, but it can afford a war in Iraq.
I urge you to put your collective weight behind the TUC, campaigning to bring in effective legislation to eradicate discrimination to mainstream equality and diversity for resources and funding to develop a positive mechanism to drive this matter through.
· The Motion was CARRIED.
* Motion 12 was CARRIED.
Parents, carers and work/life balance
John Hannett (USDAY) moved Composite Motion 4.
(Insert Composite Motion 4 ‑ Parents, carers and work/life balance)
He said: I welcome the opportunity to move this composite; a composite that deals with perhaps one of the most important issues confronting millions of working people today, and not just them, but the success of British business and the future of the economy as a whole. I am talking about parents and carers and their working hours.
The facts speak for themselves. Across the UK, there are more than 12 million parents of dependent children. Parents accounted for almost 40 per cent of the entire workforce. There are also at least seven million carers. It is a fact that at some point in our lives we each spend time caring for children or for parents or for relatives or friends. That is the reality. In truth, most of us will probably need someone to care for us in turn.
This agenda, the work/life balance, the family‑friendly agenda, is vital for working people and their families. There is no question that the Government have already made some real progress by increasing maternity pay and leave, introducing paternity leave, adoption leave and pay and implementing the right to request flexible working.
However, we also need to press the Government to build on those strong foundations if our members are really going to feel the difference, and our women members in particular. Women members make up nearly half of today’s workforce and 58 per cent of women with a child under the age of 5 are in work, rising to 78 per cent of women with children aged between 6 and 13. Despite more and more women entering the world of work, they continue to shoulder the main responsibility for caring.
Last year, my union, USDAW, published the results of a survey. We asked over 7,000 of our activists for their views on what parents and carers really want and need. They told us about the problems they are coping with as parents and carers in the 21st century. Two‑thirds of them agreed that their main concern was getting paid time off when the children were ill.
The statutory right to unpaid parental leave does not amount to much for low paid predominantly women workers. It is not just because parents do not know about it; they just cannot afford to take it. Nationally, the take‑up is as low as 3 per cent.
This is a vital right that has to get off the paper it is written on and into people’s lives for real. It would transform the working and family lives of millions of our people and help to reduce sickness absence levels. It helps businesses manage effectively and it helps employers to recruit and to retain staff. At the same time, to extend maternity pay from 26 weeks to 52 weeks is also important.
We must congratulate the Government on their decision to increase significantly the amount of maternity pay. It is the biggest increase since maternity pay was first introduced in 1948. We also welcome the extension of the period of paid leave from 18 to 26 weeks, but we urge the Government not to lose the momentum here. Opinion polls consistently confirm that women want to take their full 52‑week maternity leave entitlement. Such an additional paid maternity leave period would make the situation a reality for women.
The timing could not be better; a general election around the corner and the votes of millions of working parents are up for grabs. A recent poll published in the Guardian confirmed that a clear majority of the electorate, 61 per cent in fact, felt that parents of young families spent too much time at work.
We urge the Government to rise to the challenge and reap the benefit of doing so at the ballot box. It is fair, it is right, it is a sound business case and there is huge political capital to be gained. Please support.
Ruth Jones (CPS) seconding Composite Motion 4 said: We all know that the current parental leave regulations give parents who have worked for their employer for at least a year a legal right to up to 13 weeks unpaid leave within the first five years of their child’s life.
The introduction of unpaid parental leave was a useful first step, but after that first step, we now need to go on down the road and build on that step. The next step is paid parental leave. We, in the CSP, call on the TUC to press the Government for delivery on this. How many workers in the unions represented here today can afford to take even one week’s unpaid leave, let alone 13? The research shows parents may have urgent reasons for taking parental leave, be it family breakdown, serious illness or injury, but these serious problems will only be exacerbated by the lack of money coming in.
I appreciate Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have young children. It is that good they could benefit from parental leave. I cannot help feeling that the loss of a couple weeks’ pay would not jeopardise their family life nearly as much as a family in the South Wales valleys relying on a single, low paid worker’s wage.
I enjoyed the story on Monday about a TUC president leading the under 5s dancing down Downing Street lobbying for parental leave. I suggest, Roger, next time after you shout, 'What do we want?' you get the children to reply, 'Paid parental leave'!
While we are talking about improving basic parental leave rights, what about extending the length of time in which parental leave can be taken? I do not know about you, but I was fortunate in that I did not need time off to deal with my kids when they were little. It is now they are older. Now after‑school care and holiday clubs are expensive and difficult to find. It is now my kids are experimenting with climbing trees, rollerblading and skateboarding. It is now at work I get the call from school to say, 'Don’t worry, Mrs. Jones. Your son is fine. He bounced as he fell, but if you could come along to A&E, you will find him in X‑ray.' It is now I need parental leave!
Let me briefly touch on the equal pay situation or, should I say, the unequal pay situation. We all know that the gap between male and female earnings remains, but let us think about the individual people involved. For individual women, the consequences of unequal pay are personal poverty, social exclusion, child poverty, inability to build up adequate pension provision and the inability to invest in personal training and life‑long learning.
We know some good companies have voluntarily undertaken pay reviews. That is great, but we all know that most employers would much prefer to ignore the problem. The only way to get them to face up to the issue and overcome the pay gap is by making pay reviews compulsory. The Equal Opportunities Commission task force recommends mandatory pay reviews. Our union agrees. I know you agree; so please show this by supporting the motion.
Lesley Ann Baxter (BOS) supporting Composite 4 said: If only increasing maternity leave were as simple as celebrating motherhood. Increasing paid maternity leave to 12 months is great news for children and parents. In line with a previous speaker, as our President said on Monday, and as Lucy’s story of him with a group of five year‑olds demanding parental leave shows, we all believe parents have the right to stay at home with their children.
However, many mothers still have to return to work sooner than they would want because their families need the income. It is no good extending maternity leave provision if mothers cannot take it because they have to pay the mortgage. Fathers also have limited rights and in many cases have very little or inflexible paternity leave.
The Prime Minister said the Government had improved maternity rights, and maternity leave entitlement is higher in Britain than in most other European countries, but the amount of maternity pay in Britain is amongst the lowest throughout the EU. In Sweden, parents receive 480 days’ paid leave that can be shared between both parents before the child is eight years old with one month’s paid leave dedicated to each parent.
Parents must be given support to be able to make genuine choices about how to balance work and family responsibilities. We need to increase paternity leave that can be taken in a flexible way. We need to introduce paid parental leave, which is targeted at both mothers and fathers and is in line with the Government’s strategy to eradicate child poverty.
More must be done to ensure that the current rates of statutory maternity pay are high enough to mean that women on maternity leave are not earning less than the minimum wage. You know it makes sense. Please support.
Paul Aburn (Unifi) supporting the composite said: I would like to speak to a particular part of the composite, namely, the upwards harmonization of the parental rights of women and men.
The inequality in carer responsibilities has been identified by the EOC as one of the significant contributors to the pay gap currently sitting at 18 per cent with my own industrial sector, banking, holding the dubious honour of the largest differential at 43 per cent. The finance sector, of course, has a huge percentage of women workers, many of whom are forced to work part‑time due to carer responsibilities.
The actual impact on this gap is two‑fold. On the one hand, you have the money lost by mothers taking time out for child care duty, missed promotions, lower performance‑related wage increases and bonuses, part‑time work and the simple fact that maternity pay, as it stands, is of an unacceptably low level.
On the other hand, you have the outdated belief that women should not be promoted beyond a certain level, if at all, because they will, no doubt, need to take time out at some time in the future for child care, the so‑called glass ceiling, or is it sticky floor, that is all too prevalent in far too many of our industries. Certainly, whatever you call it, I know that in my own industry women do not just hold up half the sky, they hold up almost all of it.
My sister has just had her first baby. The two weeks of paternity leave are now up. She has told me ‑‑ jokingly, I believe ‑‑ that she is quite glad her husband is no longer under foot. The truth is that my sister is now having to carry out the larger part of Matthew’s upbringing. On the flip side, Kenny has complained that he is not getting as much of a chance as he would like to spend time with his child, especially at this early stage.
Harmonising the parental rights of mothers and fathers is essential if we are to give women and men equal rights. This is a concept that I believe is fundamental to any modern society. More than that, though, it would give out a clear signal to men and to our employers that, not only are fathers able to have the same participation in child care, but this is actually expected of them.
If we manage to achieve that, we will have taken a significant step towards eliminating one of the major contributing factors towards the pay gap. I know that we can afford this, again especially in my own industry where regular obscene profits filter into the pockets of male fat cats and not to the predominantly female workforce that created them.
Kath Murphy (GMB) supporting the composite said: Thirty‑four years, half a lifetime after the Equal Pay Act, the workplace is still unequal and it is getting harder to balance the growing demands of work and family life.
We welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to abolishing child poverty and improvements to parental benefits. We congratulate those unions that have successfully negotiated flexible working with employers, but much more is needed, because most of us still have little choice but to keep doing it all, and struggling on in jobs where we can request flexible working but have no right to get it. We can have parental leave but no pay for it.
Too many mothers feel forced to return to work before they are ready because they cannot survive on maternity pay of £102.80 a week. When those mothers are forced back to work, the problems do not go away. We need affordable and accessible child care so that working mothers know their children are safe and secure whilst they are at work.
Work/life balance on the current basis becomes a choice; a choice based on inequality of earnings as long as full‑time working women continue to get 82 per cent of the average male earnings and part‑timers 60 per cent.
As for paternity leave, yes, it is welcomed, especially now that fathers play a greater role in child care, but, just like maternity pay, it is simply not enough. It is also inflexible and limited to one or two weeks. A child is for life, not a fortnight.
We, in the GMB, want to see working parents given help to care for their children when they need it most. We need to ensure a decent income for the first six months of a child’s life, paid parental leave at the equivalent of a living wage, genuine flexible working so parents can balance work and family life, affordable and accessible child care and it should be compulsory for employers to address the inequalities in pay and for mandatory equal pay reviews.
These are the kinds of measures that will make the notion of work/life balance more than just words, Congress.
Rose White (GMPU) supporting the composite said: We have achieved a considerable amount of progress with our campaigns for equality legislation. Although this is good news, it has been seen in the context of the Government’s desire for light touch regulations.
This means the effect of this raft of new and improved rights has not been as extensive as we would have wished. The motion goes some ways towards dealing with the flaws in the current system and we are happy to support it.
To make use of existing and future rights, we also need collective strength and organisation. We believe developing equality reps is the way forward. Existing reps may be reluctant to take on even bigger responsibilities and often see equality as a specialist subject. What we need are reps that are committed to equality issues and keen to spend the time it takes to stay up‑to‑date with new developments.
We need equality reps to ensure the issues are raised and that the profile of equality in the workplace is high. We already have a successful example of this work in the Disability Champions project run by Amicus. Equality reps would have a huge brief and would need training, but between the TUC and individual unions, this could be provided. The most important thing is to ensure they have the standing and facilities to do the job properly and assist their shop stewards in their specialist role. Campaigning to get equality reps is the same standing as learning reps. It is, we believe, essential, especially given the success of learning reps.
Some people’s concerns are that this would lead to equality issues being marginalised. Given that we have made little headway on local bargaining agenda to date, surely, it is a risk worth taking. We need our unions committed to developing the role of equality reps and to campaigning for legal rights. We can start the ball rolling by supporting this motion for effective equality legislation. Please support.
* Composite Motion 4 was CARRIED
Fair Deal for Women
John Carolan (UNISON) moved Motion 16.
(Insert Motion 16 ‑ Fair deal for women)
She said: Reading this week’s edition of Tribune and the top 10 trade union leaders, I hope I am not the only person in the hall who looked at the name of Rose Boland and thought, who? I then read on and it stirred vague memories of the Dagenham women who took action on equal pay; proud women who took pride in their work; women who took industrial action to secure equal pay and whose efforts led to the Equal Pay Act of 1970. 1970 ‑‑ hopefully, there are people in this hall who were not born then!
However, nearly three generations later, in 2004, while we have had 30‑odd years of equal pay legislation, we still do not have equal pay. So when Tony Blair talked about eradicating it in another generation, I have to say: 'No. We have waited long enough.'
To look at the press in this country, you would now think that equal pay battles are about whether female merchant bankers are equivalent to male merchant bankers, but that is not our reality. Our reality is that 40 per cent of women in Britain have an income of less than £100 a week. That is the cost of a dinner in some restaurants in Brighton.
Over a lifetime, a skilled woman will earn a quarter-of-a-million pounds less than a skilled man. The hourly rate for a female full‑time worker will be 18 per cent less than her male counterpart. For a part‑timer, the gap will be 40 per cent. Where the income gap exists, the pension gap falls. Poor women workers become even poorer women pensioners.
So why do women work part‑time? It is because women have to match work around their other vital duties, such as caring for children, caring for elders, caring for those who require care in the community, and it is unpaid, of course. If you look at the figures for who actually does housework, it is predominantly done by women. Women have to look after grown men who cannot look after themselves, including male trade unionists. (Cheers and applause)
It might sound as though I am spelling out the obvious, but this Movement pays lip service to the women’s agenda. If it did not, we would not have waited so long for our most fundamental trade union right - a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
I am proud that my union under Dave Prentis has made equal pay the central plank of the negotiating agenda. For too long public services in this country have exploited low paid women who perform the vital services that keep the services going, whether in the Health Service, where agenda for change is addressing the issue, or in local government.
Our motto, as a trade union on equal pay, has been educate, negotiate and litigate. Litigation, as we all know, is protracted, complicated and expensive. It needs simplifying and it needs speeding up. But while litigation on its own can provide individual claimants with redress, it fails to deal with the underlying unfairness within the pay system. Used strategically, it can provide the stick which encourages negotiations.
However, as a union, we also reject the actions of some unscrupulous hit and run 'no win no fee' lawyers, taking cases to make a hefty profit for themselves, private firms whose actions are irresponsible and disruptive of good industrial relations.
Our preference is for a negotiated settlement based on objective justification of grading structures through job evaluation, securing settlements that provide compensation for historic discrimination. Within local government, we secured the single status agreement in the NJNC in 1997 and in Scotland in 1999. The fundamental requirement is that all councils audit their grading system to equality proof.
Several years later, progress has been slow. The main reason for the lack of progress is the resource issue. Quite simply, if women are to have equal pay, the employers need to fund it. Too often equal pay cannot be balanced with a need to maintain jobs and services. How often have we heard, 'Yes, we will give you equal pay, but we will privatise the service.'
Within public services, there needs to be a level playing field for women based on equal pay. The resources to provide it must be given by government. Investment in public services must be based on women’s equality.
The Women at Work Commission do not need to commission another forest of research in statistics in women. They need to start with the lives of real women. We need a strategy for real rights for part‑timers. We want mandatory equal pay audits. We need real flexibility that is paid and reflects women’s lives. We need a pension system that works for women.
The women’s agenda cannot be treated as the equivalent of the desirable but not quite essential decking on the patio or balcony; quite nice but not necessary. Frankly, the women’s agenda should be the foundation and bedrock of all our work. We want progress. We want it now. Do not just support the motion ‑‑ organise.
Diana Holland (T&GWU) seconding Motion 16 said: The press talk of us in terms of 'union barons', the 'awkward squad', the 'big four'. What they have ignored is the 'big 3 million', namely, women trade unionists. Women across our unions are agreed. We need a strong united trade union campaign for a fair deal for women.
Let me remind the Movement that the women’s agenda has not been completed. Women in Britain are paid a third less than men. That is the largest pay gap in Europe. How long do we have to wait? It was in 1888 ‑‑ yes, that is 1888 ‑‑ when this Congress first demanded equal pay.
At Warwick, we set up, and agreed to set up, the Women at Work Commission chaired by my predecessor at the T&G, Margaret Prosser. It will look at the pay gap, as has been said, and at mandatory equal pay audits and at the role of union equality reps. We need to ensure that this Commission is not another chance to measure the pay gap, but a final chance to close it.
We know women working night shifts get less pay enhancements than men. We know that term‑time workers suffer an unjust pay gap that we must close. We have measured the pay gap in local authorities. We just need the funding to close it. That is why unions are negotiating change.
This week we have expressed our support for fire fighters, engineers, miners and civil servants. I call on you now to express your solidarity with T&G home‑workers at Industrial Rubber Limited in Portsmouth, some earning as little as 73 pence an hour, sacked simply for demanding the minimum wage. Let us support their fight for fairness.
Let me remind you, recent surveys show that 82 per cent of women have experienced sex discrimination at work. That is women here, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters and our granddaughters. It is all of us. If you are a black woman, a disabled woman, a lesbian, a single mother, you face double discrimination.
We all remember the bigoted comments of that UKIP MEP who said, just recently: 'A woman’s job is to have the man’s dinner on the table and to clean behind the fridge.' Clean behind the fridge? I know women who make fridges. I also know a few women who would like to drop a fridge on him from a great height! (Applause and cheers)
As we have often said, a woman’s place is in her union. It is unions that can really make the difference. Women in unions get paid 25 per cent more. If you are suffering discrimination, it is the union that will stand up for you.
My daughter deserves more than women of my generation have had; so does my son. Equality belongs to us all, girls and boys, men and women. A new deal for women. A fair deal for women.
Rachelle Wilkins (GMB) support of Motion 16 said: There has been some movement on such things as equal pay, flexible working, access to pensions and the work/life balance. However, we have still not moved far enough. On the issue of equal pay, there are still far too many unscrupulous employers who see women as the cheap option. This has to stop. If women do the same job for the same length of time, then they deserve the same pay.
These bad employers need to be pulled into line by compulsory pay audits. In some areas, we are still having to battle as hard to make progress as our sisters, the suffragettes did, in the 1900s. The wheels of change seem to move very slowly. It is usually women who take part‑time work to be able to juggle home life and child care, giving some employers the excuse for poor training and lack of career development. Why? Do they think that because we only work part‑time, we only have half a brain?
We need to insist that the opportunities for good quality training are available for all. Since the legislation on flexible working has entered the arena, the number of women who have been able to access this type of work is still too small. Women need flexible working arrangements in practice, not on paper.
There has also been much debate this week on pensions. The GMB has been at the forefront of making sure that part‑time women have access to occupational pension schemes. However, there is still much work to be done in the area, but we are at last winning the battle. Companies are now compensating our members for not originally allowing them into the schemes.
In supporting this motion, it gives us the chance to demand that gender and equality is addressed by policy and that women finally get the fair deal they deserve. Please support the motion.
Lorene Fabian (Amicus) supporting the motion said: I also listened to the Prime Minister on Monday. When he started to list reforms which were to take place, I waited with baited breath, especially when he spoke of the gender pay gap. I thought: This is it. We have cracked it. He is going to say that we will have mandatory pay audits. It did not happen, did it?
I represent Amicus on the TUC Women’s Committee who have campaigned tirelessly for a fairer deal for women. It is true there have been some improvements in this area, but it is not enough. Many of the points I make may have been made by previous speakers, may be made by subsequent speakers and may have been made at previous congresses. I do not care, because they have to be repeated time and time again until the powers that be listen.
Nineteen per cent is the official figure given as the pay gap, but that is not the whole picture. I am told by one of my sisters in Unifi that the figure in that sector is more like 43 per cent. This is in a sector which makes millions and millions of pounds profit every year. As Bob Crow said earlier, how dare these people say we do not need unions? What a disgrace!
How many reps sitting here in this conference hall have negotiated an equal pay audit? Unfortunately, if you have investigated the possibility, you will have found that with a few exceptions, employers do not do things voluntarily. If this Government is keen to support women in work, then they should practise what they preach and give us a structure that helps the process that would help close the gap.
We need to be able to take class action. This would help those women who work part‑time. The casualisation of women only serves to heighten this disgraceful situation. Why, oh why, do we have in the UK, which I am told has a healthy economy, this huge pay gap? There is no sign of it narrowing.
Yesterday’s pension’s debate highlighted the crisis in pensions and poverty in old age. For women, it is far, far worse. You cannot save for your old age if you do not earn enough. You cannot pay into an occupational pension scheme ‑‑ that is if you have one ‑‑ if you do not earn enough. You can only expect poverty in your old age if you do not earn enough and you do not earn enough in a society with a gender pay gap.
A colleague of mine in the Amicus delegation has asked me to point out to the General Council, when taking on issues that affect workers with disabilities - that is those disabled people lucky enough to have a job in the first place ‑‑ that we must demand of this Government mandatory pay audits because all workers will benefit.
We should campaign on this issue, just as we have campaigned in the past on issues such as apartheid, when we were, quite rightly, outraged by a section of society being denied their rights. The TUC Women’s Conference has highlighted the creeping feminisation of poverty within the UK. Job segregation and the gender pay gap is a big contributor to this situation. Let us get rid of it now, not in 10 years or 20 years.
Jerry Bartlett (NASUWT) supporting the motion said: I address the demand included in the final paragraph, that the 'Government ensures that initiatives to close the gender pay gap are fully funded, legally enforceable and address past inequalities'.
One of the causes of the gender pay gap is the concentration of 60 per cent of women workers into the 10 lowest paid of the 77 occupational groups. There has now developed an additional contributory factor to this concentration. I refer to gender segregation in vocational education and modern apprenticeships.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has conducted a formal investigation. The Commission looked at five sectors, construction, plumbing, engineering, ICT and child care. These are amongst the most gender segregated occupations in Britain and there has been little change in the past 30 years.
In construction, only one per cent of workers are female. This is replicated in the take‑up of modern apprenticeships in the industry. In ICT, 30 per cent of IT operations technicians are female, but only 15 per cent of those in modern apprenticeships are. In engineering, 8 per cent of the workforce and 6 per cent of those in modern apprenticeships are female. In child care, 97 per cent of modern apprenticeship take‑up is female.
What of the gender pay gap in modern apprenticeships? Male‑dominated modern apprenticeships pay twice as much as those where the take‑up is predominantly female. The gender pay gap extends into vocational training.
What are the statutory agencies doing? The Learning and Skills Council has no targets and does not monitor in this area, despite a statutory duty to promote gender equality. The Equal Opportunities Commission has been openly critical of Connections for appearing to bolster up traditional gender segregation and for not providing full information, particularly about the low rates of pay in stereotyped women’s jobs.
The Government target is for 28 per cent of young people to start a modern apprenticeship. The scheme is being extended to 14 year‑olds. So these issues must be resolved if real progress is to be made. The initiative must, in the words of the motion, be fully funded, legally enforceable and address past inequalities. Initiatives towards the eradication of occupational gender stereotyping are an essential complement to the ongoing struggle against the undervaluing of work traditionally performed by women and for equal pay.
Please commit to working for a fair deal for women and support Motion 16.
* Motion 16 was CARRIED.
Violence against Women
Tom Harrison (Accord) moved Motion 17.
(Insert Motion 17 ‑ Violence against Women)
He said: I represent, along with Unifi, all trade union members within Halifax Bank of Scotland, and we are very proud to tell you that 70 per cent of our members are female.
I would like to start by asking you to imagine a world without violence against women and girls and to hold the thought of the possibilities that that would bring us all, men and women, throughout this plea for action.
Violence against women is a cancer eating away at the core of every society, every country in the world. The work to expose the prevalence of this cancer over the past 25 years has produced increasing evidence of its global magnitude, although it is clear that it is almost universally under‑reported. The evidence shows that no political or economic system, culture or world religion is exempt when it comes to allowing and justifying violence against women.
It happens in public and in private, in peace and in war time and it takes many forms; women being killed by their husbands, infanticide, crimes of honour, rape, genital mutilation, sexual violence, prostitution and trafficking are just some of its more horrific manifestations.
This is a global human rights catastrophe. The Council of Europe has stated that domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability to women aged 16 to 44. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has reported that up to 70 per cent of female murder victims are killed by their male partners.
The home is supposed to be a haven of safety and security, yet for many women and children it is a place of fear. In a survey in 2002, one in three teenage boys thought they may have to use violence in a future relationship. One in 10 girls thought that was acceptable.
Is this why in the UK one in every four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime? Is that woman living next to you? Is that woman working next to you? Is that woman sitting next to you? Is that woman you? Is your union doing something?
At work, our membership is affected by sexual harassment, bullying, attacks on the way to and from work, frontline abuse from customers and, in some of the caring professions, seeing the tragedy of domestic violence, but there being a lack of procedures and resources to deal with it. These issues predominantly affect female workers.
Ten years ago, our Government, our then Tory Government, made commitments in the Beijing Declaration and platform for action to address all aspects of violence against women in the UK. You would have thought that a Labour Government was more likely to deliver on those commitments, but not to date.
In this case, we, in the trade union Movement, need to act as the conscience of Government and demand that they develop a national strategy based on Beijing to tackle this cancer in our society. Why should they be interested? Domestic violence alone costs the UK around £2.6 billion a year ‑‑ not a reason I choose, but something this Government may listen to. Furthermore, but tougher still, we must be a major driver in the UK of cultural change with respect to stopping violence and the acceptance of violence against women.
We must educate our membership that this culture is unacceptable and must end. We must ensure that we have policies, rules, procedures and constitutions that ensure violence against women is not tolerated and is tackled. We must offer support and be there for our women members who experience violence.
We must fully engage our male membership for they are the key to cultural change. We must ensure that our members are given procedures and resources to deal with violence against women in all its forms, seeking support and funding from employers and government.
In solidarity, we should support and promote the UN’s International Day for the elimination of violence against women held annually on 25 November. May I also ask you to support the Amnesty fringe meeting taking place this lunchtime in the Norfolk Room of the Hilton Metropole Hotel just next door, and the Amnesty International stand in the foyer downstairs?
In closing, I ask you again, imagine a world without violence against women and girls. Use your imagination and unanimously support motion 17.
Walter Wright (NGSU) seconding Motion 17 said: Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful Human Rights violation and it is also perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and peace. Those are the words of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General.
In the UK, one in every four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. On average, two women a week are killed by a male partner or a former partner. Nearly a half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or ex‑partner. The victims of violence have been, are and, unfortunately, will be our colleagues, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our grandchildren our partners. Our neighbours and friends will all be affected too.
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. Take a moment to think about that. Since Congress opened at ten o’clock on Monday morning, over 3,000 incidents have been reported in the UK alone. That works out at over half a million a year. Elsewhere in the world, the story is worse. In Europe, domestic violence accounts for more deaths and ill‑health in women aged 16 to 44 than cancer or road traffic accidents. In the USA, women are the victims of 85 per cent of all domestic violence. Research has also shown that in Canada and in the USA women suffer from more severe forms of violence.
World‑wide, at least one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime. Unfortunately, society has failed to recognise the scope and magnitude of what is often a hidden problem or, worse, ignored. We must help our members and society in general to become aware of the problem and change their views on it.
We demand that the UK Government develops strategies that will redress and reduce the incidents and acceptance of violence in the lives of women world‑wide. To live a life free from the threat of violence is a basic human right, but it is a right denied to millions of women across the globe. Now is the time to do something about it.
Please demonstrate that you want to change our society for the better.
Glenys Morris (PCS) supporting the motion said: Let me make it clear that domestic violence has its roots in inequality, control and power. It affects everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It is a public health issue on a global scale.
The facts about domestic violence tell a shocking story. We know that much of it remains under cover and undeclared. All too often victims of violence feel they must collude with the conspiracy of silence for fear of shame and the further loss of dignity and status in their milieu. The truth, of course, is that the real shame is not on the victims, but on the perpetrators. We must speak out and campaign against domestic violence in our own employment situation, in our own country and across the globe.
For example, in March this year, after lobbying and campaigning by my own union, PCS, and other unions, the Cabinet Office published guidance for the Civil Service about introducing policies on domestic violence. These policies include the provision of safe working environments, ensuring that abused workers are not adversely affected by sick absence procedures or performance appraisals, agreeing time off or variations in hours worked.
However, there is much more that government should do, particularly as governments become the enablers in the same conspiracy of silence by allowing attitudes and laws to prevail which tolerate and normalise violence against women. Why is this so, when we have a government that is prepared to intervene in almost every other aspect of our daily lives, like telling us who, when and what we can eat, meet, think and drink? But they fight shy of facing up to the most fundamental violation of Human Rights, by failing to adequately legislate, as spelt out in the terms of this motion.
I believe that those who wear the chains know best how to break them. However, on this occasion, sisters need the support of governments, of this Labour Movement and all its brothers. Please support.
* Motion 17 was CARRIED.
(Congress adjourned until 2.15 p.m.)
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION
(Congress reassembled at 2.15 p.m.)
The President: Good afternoon. Many thanks to the Highworth Guitar Quartet, who have been playing for us this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Congress, as you will recall, at the beginning of this morning’s session I outlined how I hoped to take some of the outstanding business that we had not been able to take earlier in the week. However, we have not been able to complete this so the outstanding business still remains but we will be reviewing the schedule of business to see if there is any scope for taking any outstanding motions at the end of today’s session, otherwise all business will be completed tomorrow.
Migrant Workers Presentation
The President: It is with great pleasure we start this afternoon with a presentation on migrant workers. Delegates, we know about the exploitation which so many migrant workers suffer at work but we also know that without their vital contribution many of our public services and other sections of the economy would suffer. We could tell more about the unpaid wages, the unfulfilled promises made by recruiters, the overcrowded housing, the skills used but not paid for, the risk to health and safety, and the intimidation, but it would be better to hear from the migrant workers themselves. So, today we have a panel of migrant workers who will not only be able to talk about the exploitation they have suffered but also about how joining a union can help transform their working lives.
We are lucky to have the opportunity to hear from three workers who have come to Britain and rather than suffer in silence have become active in their unions. They are Janice Caranday of Unison, who is a nurse, Emmanuel Sillah, of T&G, who is a cleaner in Canary Wharf, and Katicia Giordani Bendo, of the GMB, who is a restaurant worker. These colleagues will be interviewed by Felicity Lawrence, who is consumer editor of the Guardian. Her recently published book, Not on the Label, documented many examples of the abuses faced by migrant workers in the food industry. You may also have read a piece on migrant workers in this year’s Congress Guide. Felicity, Congress, I am sure, is looking forward to your interview with your guests; over to you.
Felicity Lawrence (Consumer Affairs Correspondent for the Guardian) :
Thank you very much. I have been lucky enough to listen to the stories of Katicia, Emmanuel, and Janice, earlier and they make extraordinary telling. They are extraordinary stories and yet from my experience of interviewing these are the reality, the very ordinary experiences for migrants who come here. They are fascinating stories of how the union has helped them, and also how they have contributed enormously to unions in return.
Katicia, let us start with you. You are from Brazil and you came here and originally in very typical experience worked as a chambermaid for a large hotel, where you worked extremely long hours, no overtime pay, and no sick pay. You went on to a better company and you now work for the Pizza Express Group. Tell us a little bit about what happened and your experience there, because it did not all go well, did it?
Katicia Giordani Bendo: I was almost six years in Pizza Express. I had a kind of horrible manager. I had a few problems because I did work in a shift of 18 hours for the big part of Pizza Express.
Felicity Lawrence: : That is 18 hours non-stop?
Katicia Giordani Bendo: That is 18 hours non-stop and the director was passing by and telling us that we were going to get nice service, extra money on the side, carry on working, and we are all happy. Two weeks after not having seen any money I went to my general manager to complain about it. I said, 'Sorry, but you remember the service charge you promised to us.' He said the typical answer: 'If you are not happy, the door is open for you.' Since that happened to me I felt, 'What a small thing I am. I have to do something because there is not only me but lots of other friends and colleagues who are in the same position.' So, I started be a little bit annoying around, always look after friends, and the manager decided to do something about it, so the assistant manager put in a grievance against me on a sexual harassment case.
Felicity Lawrence: They turned it against you. You were complaining and demanding the money they had promised, and they turned it against you.
Katicia Giordani Bendo: Yes. Afterwards I was, like, 20 weeks suspended then. I went to the union. My mum gave me an application form and it was fantastic. I do not just get help from them, my job back, my money back, but help for my colleagues and support. I am an activist now and I feel proud of it to be what I am. It is a very good experience to come from a country which is poor and to come here, especially to come to a TUC Congress and say that there are people who can support you. The main thing is, do we know that there is support? Do foreign people know that there is a union out there? They think many times that the unions were only for British people, which they are not. This is what we have to show them, that we are here, and if they need our help we will help them because together we are stronger.
Felicity Lawrence: Emmanuel, you are from Sierra Leone and you came here and were granted asylum having suffered like so many of your countrymen terrible experiences in the war. When you found work it was with a contract cleaning company and, as with many of the cleaning jobs in this country, they have been privatised and outsourced. It was one of the largest, was it not, in one of our largest office complexes in Canary Wharf? Describe to me a little the conditions there and how you were made to feel as a worker.
Emmanuel Sillah: When I started working with a very big company known as ISS Morgan Stanley, it was a very big surprise to me because, firstly, when I came into this country based on my past experience I tried to help myself, to improve my state, to have a better life, and then to take away the bad memory from me I decided to work. Indirectly, I now discover that we are not in the 19th century, we are in the 21st century, but slavery is still in existence indirectly in my place of work. The way they treat staff, those who are working, they are not important, cleaners are not human beings, they see them as ghost workers.
Felicity Lawrence: You were treated without dignity but also one worker was required to do the work of many people, as I understand it, and when people were sick, as often happens when they are working night shifts, you had no sick pay. Tell me a little bit about some of the things that happened in terms of what you were asked to do.
Emmanuel Sillah: There are great differences which happen in the place of work in terms of asking new staff -- a new worker who has not been given a feasibility study about what the jobs look like, how it needs to be done, what procedure you need to take before carrying out your job -- asking the cleaner to clean 15 toilets at a go, which makes the job more difficult, more frustrating, and then at the end they now start victimising, harassing, using some abusive language without recognising that they are dealing with people with dignity, people that have families of their own and have been respected, they are putting them down as if they are nothing, not to be respected in this society.
Felicity Lawrence: You said you always lived in fear of security, that you were never sure when you were going to lose your job. Then you discovered that you could join a union. Tell me a little bit about what happened with the union.
Emmanuel Sillah: First of all, before the union came into existence people were living with fear and harassment, victimising them at their place of work, asking them to do things that they do not want to do, that is, they have no choice in doing the type of job they need to do and that it is their own responsibility or duty to carry out that job. At a point when they were asking staff to clean 15 toilets, the job was too much for him or her to carry out without any assistance, so then they just insulted the staff at that point and started searching, checking them, making them to feel different, that they are not equal with other staff in the place of work.
Felicity Lawrence: They were searching you, assuming that ----
Emmanuel Sillah: If anything goes wrong in the place of work, the first thought is that it is the cleaners, the cleaners are the ones who are doing the bad things, stealing and all that, even though it may be the contractor or the staff members in the place of business who are doing it.
Felicity Lawrence: Katicia described earlier to me that she had not known that the union was there, at first she did not know what to do, and then she discovered she could join the union. How did you find out about the union?
Emmanuel Sillah: First of all, two individual members of staff when they felt tired of being harassed at the place of work, and they could not speak out, they said, 'There is a form.' They brought the form in. They introduced it to everybody to join the union, but one thing was they could not follow it up. Then I had to call my senses back to who I was before I had experienced a lot of slavery and a lot of pain in life. So immediately I asked them for the form and I took the form home, I thought about the form, and that the union is about unity.
The union is two things that I am going to describe, that I want to give a description about. If you look at this bunch of papers, the union is just like this bunch of paper. When you hold it, you try to tear it but it is not easy. You can see I am squeezing but I am not able to tear it. It is not easy. That is unity. That is what is called union, with togetherness we stand and with togetherness we become stronger. Then when you want to act individually, literally this single leaflet, if I hold it up, it is easy for me to tear. You can see there is no need for me to squeeze it; it is already torn. I told the entire staff at work, 'This is what union is about. If we act together and we ask this organisation to come in and act for us, then the fear will be out of your life. With the trade union you will have a fair deal and respect in the place of work.'
Felicity Lawrence: That is a wonderful example of how, having suffered fear in your previous life, you come to find there is no dignity here, and you rediscover it through help with colleagues, and through the union. As I understand it, in Canary Wharf there is now a big campaign of recruitment and conditions are improving.
Janice, you are one of the nurses that we hear so much that we desperately need to fulfil our skills shortages, qualified in the Philippines. You were recruited there and came here thinking that you could take the extra qualifications needed to get the British qualification to work in a hospital, but that was not quite how it worked out, was it? Tell us what happened to you.
Janice Caranday: I came here in June 2000 and we know that we are going to work in a nursing home. We are hoping that we are going to have a registration within a 3-6 months adaptation period, but it did not work that way. We ended up doing manual tasks, doing the cooking, hovering the floor, and doing the laundry.
Felicity Lawrence: And long hours?
Janice Caranday: Long hours as well, 48 hours a week, and we would start at 7 o’clock in the morning and finish at 8 o’clock at night.
Felicity Lawrence: Describe a little your living conditions because they were very classically awful.
Janice Caranday: Yes, we came here, the ten of us, and we lived in one house, a four-bedroomed house, so we ended up having two or three people in one room.
Felicity Lawrence: How much did you get paid at the end of the month?
Janice Caranday: In our contract before we came in here it was stated that the air fare will be free but they have deducted it within the first six months. Can you imagine living with just £286 in your pocket for a month; how could you live as such?
Felicity Lawrence: This is after a 13-hour day, as you have told us.
Janice Caranday: Yes.
Felicity Lawrence: At one point they asked to take your passports, and this is something that keeps cropping up with people that I interview, that you have no freedom because the agencies try to remove your documents.
Janice Caranday: Yes, there was a time that they wanted to confiscate the passport but the group had a meeting. We knew that this is a free world country and we stood firm, we did not want to give our passports to them, so they did not force us to do such.
Felicity Lawrence: How did you escape this awful life that you suddenly found yourself trapped in?
Janice Caranday: After a year and two months working in the nursing home, after those experiences that we had, after the exploitation, a Filipino aunt of one of my colleagues gave us the leaflets on Unison and we discussed it and we filled it up. I personally contacted Father Kiro(?), a Filipino missionary priest, and Eileen Reilly as well. With the help of Unison we escaped from the nursing home and with the help of Unison as well I started my freedom here as an overseas worker, and with the help of Unison as well I found a great job in the NHS, and am presently working in the Epsom & St. Helier NHS Trust.
Felicity Lawrence: You are doing a much needed job; well done. Very briefly because we do not have much time left, Katicia, explain to me some of the things that were barriers to you getting help. Did you know about unions before you came here?
Katicia Giordani Bendo: No, I did not. Foreign people know what unions mean because they do have unions in their own countries but they do not know that they can use the unions here; they do not know this. So, what I really think would be nice is to have more activists, more migrant people as activists, to pass the message in their own language. I am from Brazil. I will trust a Brazilian person who comes to me, or a person who is speaking my own language, to let me know that there is help here for me, instead of hearing an English person saying it in a way of not understanding, but in a way of trust. That is where is born the trust. Once you have the trust you pass it over and over and over, and then you build the big whole thing. That is when it works.
Felicity Lawrence: And when it works for everyone.
Katicia Giordani Bendo: For everyone.
Felicity Lawrence: Emmanuel, your experience of the union in the workplace was that when you started joining and recruiting others, that actually the company tried to set up something separate and actually ask you to run a separate sort of workers organisation. Is that right?
Emmanuel Sillah: Yes, of course. The T&G, in particular, has done a very great thing in my place of work. First of all, immediately I joined the T&G union the one thing I admired in the organisers was that they were very sensitive, that is, to know the right person before they appointed me to be a shop steward. When they came in they just started making changes in terms of, first of all, they granted recognition in the place of work. Then the day after when the company started realising that the union had been sent in, they formed what they called SEG, what they called a staff consultative group to oppose the union. Then they tried to rally me round. They said that they wanted me to be the president, that is the head, to be the head of their committee. They said: 'SEG is a voluntary organisation and the committee is set up by the management, and every decision will be by us. They cannot do anything. They cannot help the situation.' They were telling me that SEG started in Japan, that there is no union in Japan, and that SEG performs a lot of good rules in Japan; so that is what they wanted to do.
Felicity Lawrence: They wanted the model of a workplace where there were no real unions. We do not have time for more but I think these stories are very powerful examples of some of the extraordinary conditions that migrants are facing in this country, and organising them presents challenges; often people are moved from job to job and do not have job security, and there are often language barriers. But in each of these cases extraordinary progress has been made and conditions have been improved. As I say, this is the reality for millions of workers in the UK today. Thank you very much for coming and explaining your stories to us.
The President: Thank you, Felicity, and thank you all for coming along to give us the benefit of your experience. Delegates will hear more on this subject tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m. at the TUC fringe meeting on Organising Migrant Workers, and some of our three contributors here today will be taking part in that as well; details are on the flyers on the chairs. Thanks also to Felicity, who will be signing copies of her book at the bookstall later this afternoon. As you may know, the TUC has also produced a range of publications in migrant workers’ own languages, which are also available at the TUC bookstall.
International
The President: Delegates, we now turn to Chapter 7 of the General Council Report, International, on page 78. I call Motion 79, Migrant Workers.
Angela Roger (AUT) moved Motion 79, with two amendments.
(Insert Motion 79 - Migrant Workers)
She said: What an inspiring start we have had to this afternoon’s business; well done, sisters and brothers. Thank you.
I am also going to start on a positive note. Migrant workers are of immense value to the UK. In my sector, particularly, in higher education, they are a success story. In fact, it is hard to imagine how our universities could operate without our international students and staff. In total, nearly a quarter of staff in higher education come from overseas and we are looking more and more to international sources for new recruits to the profession. Overseas students themselves spend over £3bn a year on fees, goods and services.
This motion celebrates the contribution of international students, migrant workers, and refugees; the country would be the poorer without them. One specific example that will be of interest to fans of The Thin Blue Line, and Queen the Musical, traces three generations of talent. Victor Ehrenberg, a refugee from Czechoslovakia, was an eminent historian. Lewis Elton, his son, became the first professor of higher education before his retirement. Ben Elton, his grandson, is a well-known comedian and author. This is just one example showing that the UK has a proud tradition of welcoming and nurturing talent from abroad.
Since 1933, CARA (the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics) has helped academic refugees from all over the world, 18 of these have won Nobel prizes, 16 have been knighted, and 120 have been awarded prestigious fellowships. Across the UK as a whole, over 2.5 million workers were born outside the UK and this figure does not include those working here illegally. Many of these are professionals, employers and managers. Across the country in the health service alone nearly a third of doctors and 13 per cent of nurses are migrant workers.
The House of Commons Education Employment Committee got it right when it said: 'From fish and ships to the field of psychoanalysis, from founding of the Labour Party to the mini, the evidence is all around us that the economy, the arts, and sciences, and above all our humanity, have been enriched by those who have sought sanctuary here.' But we also have to recognise that UK workers become migrants too when they go abroad to work, so it is vital that their rights are protected both at home and abroad. But, Congress, there are large numbers of migrants working in sectors other than my own where the story is far from a success story -- in cleaning, in food manufacture, agriculture, hospitality, and construction.
Throughout the business of Congress, we have been hearing about the horrendous abuses of migrant workers here in the UK, about the appalling abuses of migrants who are exploited for their labour, and about the obscene trade in human beings by despicable traffickers; these are crimes against their human rights as much as their workers’ rights. According to the TUC report, in 2003 fewer than one in four migrant workers has the protection of a union. We need to go out and organise among these workers, to reach out, to provide our support, and recruit them. The TUC has already taken a lead in this work, for example, through its Portuguese workers project, and by producing the leaflet on workers’ rights in six languages.
I urge all unions to provide resources for migrant workers, to recruit them in numbers into union membership, to enrich our great Movement by adding them to our numbers, and to champion their rights.
Tom Lannon (UCATT) seconding the motion, said: Brother President, Congress, trade unions are about providing a voice and representative to workers but it is often the weak and vulnerable who need representation, who are the most difficult to organise. The example of the tragedy of Morecambe Bay underlines this point: Chinese workers were placed in a dangerous environment, working in freezing cold conditions for a pittance, with no regard given to their safety whatsoever. It was clear that something had to be done. I will quote the Scottish bard, Robert Burns, who said: 'Man’s inhumanity to man would make countless millions the world over mourn.'
Jim Sheridan deserves a great deal of credit for steering the gang masters bill through Parliament, an excellent job of work was done. This bill introduces a register of labour suppliers in the agricultural sector and the gathering of shellfish for the first time. I am sure there are other sectors of the economy that should benefit from similar licensing regimes in time. I would like to see the registration of gang masters in the construction industry. At present labour suppliers pray on migrant workers coming into the many ports in this country where we have people standing outside the gates waiting to exploit them as soon as they arrive. These workers are providing the skills industry needs and they deserve the same rights as the other construction workers. Let me say to Digby Jones, if he is listening, if this is not a valid reason for the need to have a trade union organisation, then I do not know what is.
My union, UCATT, is looking at ways to reach out to migrant workers coming into the construction industry. We have already had some success in recruiting and representing East European workers and we are also looking at new schemes we can introduce to help migrant workers with legal representation, but trade unions cannot be everywhere and that is why the gang masters bill is important. UCATT is at the sharp end of this issue. For example, as a convenor steward in a major construction site in London I have actually organised these mainly East European people coming into the country, have given them minimum standards under a working rule agreement, holiday pay, and continuity of employment, but a registration scheme will never be the only answer. Those importing illegal labour will try and find ways around the law but it does mean that clients and contractors can insist that labour is sourced by registered agencies that comply with UK law. Sheridan’s bill was an important landmark in dealing with illegal gang masters. It is time to drive these parasites out of business for ever. Thank you.
Jack Dromey (T&G) speaking in support of the motion, said: Two years ago I had an argument with two of our own building industry shop stewards. 'Jack,' said one, 'building sites all over London are brimful with workers from the Balcans and Eastern Europe. You see them standing on Kilburn and Cricklewood corners at 6.00 a.m. on a Monday morning waiting to be picked up by gangers in white vans to work cash-in-hand at half the rate.' The other complained: 'Jack, they are difficult to organise and they undermine the rate for the job.' I asked: 'What corners in Kilburn and Cricklewood are you talking about?' My dad stood on precisely those same corners in 1938 when he came from County Cork to dig roads in London; he, too, was desperate for work; he, too, was exploited by wide-boy gangers. He fought back and became a pillar of the trade union Movement.
Congress, our task is to challenge the country and sometimes those in our own ranks. Our task is not to fear migrant workers but instead to welcome them to our shores. Our task is not to allow migrant workers to be scapegoats for taking jobs or driving down wages and conditions but instead to argue that it is bad bosses who drive down wages and conditions. Our task is not to allow the BNP to exploit the fear of undercutting but instead to end undercutting by organising migrant workers. Our task, therefore, is not to exclude but instead to organise. That is why the T&G took through Parliament the historic gang masters act to end the shameful exploitation of the most vulnerable in our society, exploitation which starts in the boardroom and ends with the terrible death of 23 cockle pickers on Morecambe Sands. I pay tribute to the remarkable coalition of support that we had and to the leadership of Jim Sheridan, who united Parliament in grief post Morcambe leading to welcome action by the Government. That is why we are organising right now the African and South American cleaners at Canary Wharf, the veritable citadel of capitalism. We are determined to end the shameful contrast between fabulous wealth and the forgotten twilight workers who clean the buildings whilst their bosses sip champagne.
I want today to celebrate diversity. I live in Hearn Hill, Brixton with its thriving Afro-Caribbean culture and next door is Peckham with the largest African community in Britain. I know of no more decent and hardworking peoples, including Emmanuel. Give me the Peckham African community any day to the brain-dead boot boys of the BNP in Burnley.
Finally, our message today to migrant workers is: You are welcome to our shores in search of a better life. You bring skills and energy to our economy and public services. Migrant workers contribute 10 per cent more in tax than they claim on the public purse. You enrich our country. You enrich our trade union Movement. Let us together organise to win a better life for all, migrant workers and British workers here for generations alike. Support the motion.
Shirley Rainey (CSP) speaking to the amendment, said: In July 2004, John Hutton, MP, Minister of Health, announced a new strategy to integrate refugee nurses and other health professions into the UK NHS workforce. He noted that it was crucial to ensure that intensive language and communication skills training is available for those who need it.
The CSP welcomes the extra £500,000 funding he announced that would go to support refugees with health professional skills. We recognise that asylum seekers and refugees with health professional qualifications and experience are an untapped resource who could be used to help fill the many vacancies across the health sector, or they would be if the Government in 2002 had not withdrawn the concession which allowed asylum seekers to apply for their work restrictions to be lifted after six months of applying for asylum. Now they can only work when granted refugee or humanitarian status and, of course, it takes at least 18 months for their applications to be processed.
Asylum, as we all know, is one of the most contentious political issues in the UK with the media continuing to report that many arrive on our shores so that they can 'sponge' off our welfare systems, but it is our experience that many are professionals who are keen to offer their skills and contribute to society; also, of course, they want to work as the low incomes they get make it very difficult to support themselves and their families. So it is not surprising that many turn to doing unregulated illegal work and, as we have heard already, the working conditions are often atrocious.
We are asking you, and the TUC, to continue to press for asylum seekers to be granted the right to work legally in the UK. Please support.
Bahram Mokhtare (UNISON) speaking in support of the motion, said: Congress, the free movement of labour deserves closer attention. It is not about race, culture, or victims, nor is it to do with enriching societies by introducing diversity, it concerns economics and at its root the selling of commodities, literally people in this case. Whether workers’ labour is free, moving, enslaved, or otherwise, it is always a class question. The importation of labour is an abusive term, 'free movement of labour' because it is about exploitation. The Chinese cockle pickers, the farmhands, the workers stuffing goods for supermarket chains, are all about employers getting away with paying rates of £1 per hour, or less. The situation has only begun to change in recent years with unions vigorously enforcing the minimum wages as a starting point. The 44,000 overseas doctors, nurses, and health professionals, working in the NHS reflect the refusal of this Government to train and adequately pay the numbers required to fill those jobs from workers of all races already resident in Britain. Meanwhile, health services worldwide are sucked dry, and developing nations are plundered of the skills and resources required to build and staff their own health services. If they want to tackle racism then they should address the unemployment rates among black British youth running at three times their white and Asian peer groups by getting that group into work. We should assist any worker who comes to Britain to join their union, learn English, and understand the history and culture of these islands. The culture is very simple, there are those who exploit and there are those who labour. Unite to defeat the former. The lies and myths about migrant workers and asylum workers peddled by the right-wing press and fascist parties must be countered by trade unions and the Government. We have a responsibility to challenge xenophobia and racism when it occurs. We need to fight, which Unison has done for a number of years, for all work to be paid well, for all workers. Finally, Unison and the British trade union Movement must show migrant workers and asylum seekers that we are their friends at work. We must work hard to organise migrant workers and be with them when they need us.
Ron Waugh (GMB) speaking in support of Motion 79 said:
They would not walk through a picket line -- remember that, Conference -- to mark the extension of the EU. The gutter press went into overdrive. The theme was quite clear: Britain should brace itself for an invasion of unskilled Europeans here to milk our immigration laws. The truth is, of course, that the complete opposite happened and the real facts are very different from what the Daily Mail would have its readers believe. The flood of migrants has failed to materialise. Of those who have come, many are being treated appallingly and are victims of exploitation from criminal gangs and others.
The GMB believes that the TUC has an important role to play in developing support and advice for migrant workers, and also in countering some of the racist and right-wing myths put about. The truth is that migrant workers play a vital role in providing many of the services we all rely on, such as healthcare, hospitality, cleaning, food manufacturing and agriculture. As a Movement, we must demand fairness and respect for migrant workers, many of whom are paid scandalously low rates and charged exorbitant levels of rent to live in overcrowded rooms with other workers.
There have been a number of disturbing stories about disgraceful exploitation of migrant workers, including 11-hour working days, seven days a week, workers being sacked for being ill, unauthorised deductions from pay, and pay rates as low as £1 an hour. The lack of legal protection for migrant workers gives gangmasters, rogue employers and employment agencies the ideal opportunity to exploit them.
The GMB has also come across examples of employers seeking to use migrant labour to lower pay rates for an existing work force. In those workplaces, we are fighting back, organising both sets of workers and uniting them to fight for better terms and conditions across the board. We welcome the Gangmaster Licensing Act and the extension of the full protection of the law for workers in those industries. However, we must do more. The TUC and affiliates should take the lead in taking some of the focus away from so-called illegal immigrants and on to the illegal behaviour of employers and criminal gangs. We must recruit migrant workers into our unions so that we can offer them protection, legal advice and other services.
The President : The General Council is in support of Motion 69.
* Motion 79 was CARRIED
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
The President: I call Motion 80, which the General Council supports.
Jeremy Dear (NUJ) moved Motion 80:
(Insert Motion 80 and amendment - Refugees and Asylum Seekers)
He said: Britain is being invaded. Our towns and cities are being flooded. Everywhere you turn you see another one. Pick up any newspaper and the evidence is staring you in the face. There is a flood of myths. We are swamped by lies. We are facing an invasion of stereotypes. Racism sneaks in and bogus facts are everywhere masquerading as the truth. We want to wash the dross down the drain. Illegal immigrants, bogus asylum seekers, bootleggers and scum of the earth drug smugglers have targetted our beloved coastline. We are left with a backdraft of a nation's human sewage and no cash to wash it down the drain.
Once the German Army had positioned giant guns here to lob shells across the Channel. Yesterday the French sent us asylum seekers. Such stories would be bad enough if they were true but they are not. I do not believe the media create racism, but such stories embed stereotypes and myths and help to reinforce racism, giving ammunition to those who would use such bias for their own political ends. Let us smash some myths. We are not being swamped. Most asylum seekers are not bogus; asylum seekers are not mostly criminals; they do not milk the system and live a life of luxury. Britain is not a soft touch; Britain has some of the strictest immigration controls of any European country. It detains asylum seekers for longer with less scrutiny than any other European country.
Above all, do not believe the lie that we cannot afford it. Immigrants contribute £2.5 billion more in taxes than they receive in benefits. A recent Mori poll asked which word the media uses most when referring to asylum seekers and refugees. Sixty-four per cent said 'illegal immigrants'; 22 per cent said 'bogus'. Such terms demonise, dehumanise and create an environment in which attacks on asylum seekers are legitimised, and the abuse of their human rights is seen as a just response. Instead of pandering to this language, instead of reacting to these myths and stereotypes, politicians of all parties should be challenging such racist attitudes. That is why it is shameful to hear David Blunkett attack BBC journalists for exposing racism in the police rather than attacking racist attitudes amongst the police.
In response to this crisis, press regulation has failed. Of the 3,600 complaints last year, the Press Complaints Commission adjudicated on just 0.6 per cent, rejecting every single complaint of discrimination against groups of asylum seekers. Of course, it is no surprise. The Press Complaints Commission is supported and run by the representatives of the very papers fuelling such racism, those like Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond or Lord Rothermere who, through creative accounting, starved the NHS, schools and councils of millions of pounds whilst blaming asylum seekers for milking the system.
We should not despair. There is good journalism too that exposes the reality of the issues faced by asylum seekers, which exposes abuses of human rights, that reports growing levels of racial abuse, physical attacks and harassment, that exposes inadequate housing and healthcare -- journalism that highlights the positive contribution in economic, cultural, political and social terms that refugees, asylum seekers and the ethnic minority communities make to the UK. There are those who fight back like our members at the Express who have threatened to strike if any member is forced to breach the union's code of conduct.
But in order to support those who stand up for such journalism, rights at work must be strengthened. In particular, journalists must have a right to protection from unfair dismissal for refusing to carry out any assignment that breaches industry codes of practice. To us it may just be a matter of employment rights. To many refugees and asylum seekers it may be a matter of life and death.
Please support.
Andy Ballard (ATL) speaking in support of Motion 80, and in particular to the amendment, said: Refugees and asylum seekers bring their children to this country because it has the reputation of being a good place to live, a safe place to live, where citizens are treated equitably and fairly. The families of refugees and asylum seekers, and especially their children, are often traumatised by their experiences and are vulnerable as a result. As a nation, we must do all we can to alleviate their concerns, reduce their anxieties, make them welcome, make them safe. For most children, school is more than just a place of learning; it is a calm and secure environment, a caring community and what better place for the children of refugees and asylum seekers. For these children, school may be the only place of sanctuary, the only place with structure in an otherwise turbulent and frightening world.
Schools provide so much more than just lessons. Our own children benefit from contact and comradeship with peers from a diversity of backgrounds and thus they quickly learn to accept those from other ethnic origins and those of other religious persuasions, an acceptance that is sustained. But - and, Congress, there is always a but is there not? -- this is not cost neutral. Our schools have benefitted from increased funding in recent years, but only enough to offset 18 years of systemic underfunding under the Tories. Schools resources are already stretched paper thin. These schools are extraordinarily willing to open their doors to the children of the world, but they will be asking how will they meet additional need, for example in meeting the needs of pupils who have a language other than English as their mother tongue or in meeting the needs of emotionally fragile children in terms of counselling and support. Clearly, we must require of government that they must facilitate the education of all children of refugees and asylum seekers by providing new additional funding, not passed by means of arcane formulae but directly to local education authorities and schools targetted to where the need arises. The risks of failure to do this are that the most vulnerable children may be alienated and may grow up disengaged and incapable of integration into our society.
I urge your support.
* Motion 80 was CARRIED
Aid, trade and unions
Paul Gates (Community) moved Motion 81.
(Insert Motion 81 and amendments - Aid, trade and unions)
He said: The carnage in Beslan in Russia two week ago was so appalling because innocent children were the targets and we could easily identify them through are own kids. We saw it develop before our eyes, hoping for a peaceful outcome but being completely powerless to do anything about this crime against humanity.
How should we feel then about other crimes against humanity that kill 100 times as many children every day, not from bombs and bullets but from the wretched and lingering impact of hunger and preventable disease? There is nothing unexpected about these 25,000 deaths. The lives are being quenched out in Africa, Asia and Latin America today. Tomorrow another 25,000 will die. There is nothing inevitable about it. Unlike Beslan, there is something we can do to end this misery. We are not individually responsible for these deaths but the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF are major accessories in this crime against humanity and they act in our name. These are international organisations like the United Nations, but the power and influence of the rich member countries is even stronger there than in the UN. They are represented there by politicians, democratically elected and accountable to voters like you and me.
That is why I think Congress should applaud the role our government have taken at home and in the international organisations to end world poverty. Arguably their greatest achievement since 1997 has been the doubling of the share of national income we devote to development aid, and they have also set 2013 as the target year for raising our aid contribution to the UN goal of 0.7 per cent. It is pressing hard to reform the Common Agricultural Policy that pays a subsidy of £2 a day for every European cow. Three billion people exist on incomes of less than that. They are well on their way to ending the export subsidies that deliberately undermine and starve farmers in developing countries. Gordon Brown is taking the lead in promoting debt forgiveness and the International Finance Facility Initiative that will greatly extend the access poor countries have to credit on reasonable terms.
In this area and in trade generally the rich countries have far to go. The unfair trade rules, policed by the WTO, take an estimated 1.3 billion out of developing countries every day. The world desperately needs fair trade and strong international organisations to ensure that globalisation serves human needs and not the greed and megalomania of the rich. British workers can only benefit from the defeat of world poverty, not just because peace depends on justice and freedom from hunger but also because British manufacturing would gain from the massive markets that would grow in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
There has been a further great advance recently in the government's approach. Hilary Benn understands that trades unions are partners in development and not obstacles to it. We ask Congress to put to him the case for resources to be used for trade union training in developing countries. This really is a most cost-effective way of promoting development and democratically accountable governments. Look at what unions achieved in South Africa under apartheid. While Nelson Mandela was in prison, the unions gave black people a voice and the muscle to enable them to take on the regime and the system. They did it with much help from the TUC and its affiliates.
It is not just in South Africa that the trade union Movement has played a leading role in bringing about accountable and just government. They did it in Poland and, by extension, throughout central Europe. They did it in Chile, and in Zimbabwe now it is a former trade union leader who is leading the opposition to an oppressive and tyrannical rule. In Swaziland the leadership of the movement against the feudal system is the Trade Union National Centre.
I urge you to support the motion and back the international fight against poverty and injustice.
Amarjit Sing (TSSA) seconding Motion 81 said: Our amendment to the motion asks you to challenge the General Council to develop a common ethical investment policy. On behalf of TSSA, I make no apologies for placing this challenge before Congress.
Since ethical investment became an issue over 30 years ago, the sad fact is that we have not taken it up as a Movement in the way it deserves, and progress has been extremely slow. This is not to deny the excellent work that is currently taking place under the auspices of the TUC, nor indeed the way in which some unions have sought to publicise the reactionary practices of some employers at annual general meetings. But, in our view, we need to broaden our strategy and to intensify our campaign.
Allow me to explain to you the TSSA's approach to ethical investment, as I am proud to say that my union has been investing all its cash on an ethical basis since 1999. Initially our progress was slow but it was only when we began to focus on our general fund, which amounted to several million pounds, rather than our pension fund, that real progress was made.
When we were developing TSSA's own Ethical Investment Charter, which I hope some of you will have seen this afternoon -- if you have not, please see at the back near the door and you can get one -- we faced the key issue of what we meant by ethical standards. Many people measure ethical standards using different yardsticks. This is certainly true of our members. However, after examining nearly 150 ethical topics we focused on the principles of the ILO. We did this for one simple reason: these principles unite every single member of the union. These ILO principles cover a broad range of freedoms and rights. They include freedom from discrimination, from forced labour, from oppression; they include the right to recognise, to organise, to collective bargaining and equal bargaining, plus elimination of the worst form of child labour.
Now we only invest money in companies that have told us specifically that they comply with the terms of the TSSA's Ethical Investment Charter. Its terms apply to suppliers and sub-contractors too. I am pleased to tell Congress that since our Charter was established all our investments have been 100 per cent compliant.
In moving the amendment, we are not asking you to support the TSSA Charter specifically. Every union must have a set of ethical principles that suits its own members. We are asking you to give support to the principle of establishing a common approach to ethical investments across our trade union Movement.
Please support the amended motion.
Judy McKnight (NAPO) supporting Motion 81 said: I would like to highlight the particular issues that were set out in our amendment, which calls on the TUC to produce advice for affiliates on how best we, as trades unions, can promote the principles of fair trade, but also calls on the TUC to press the Fair Trade Movement to play their part in upholding and promoting the principles of free trade unionism.
NAPO's last Annual Conference agreed a motion calling on our union to take up the Fair Trade Campaign and to promote the use of fair trade both in our negotiations with employers, in the services that we purchase and use, as well as producing advice for our members. Bringing this issue to the TUC is not just about us asking the TUC to help us achieve the terms of a Conference motion, but it is also about recognising that if this sort of action is going to have any impact it is action that we have to take together as a wider trade union Movement and, ideally, as part of the international trade union Movement acting in a coordinated strategic way.
Congress, we are all increasingly aware that we live in one world and that the impact of globalisation affects us all -- as workers, consumers, as citizens. The Fair Trade Campaign is an example of a successful campaign that has secured large-scale and growing support and has a particular resonance with young people. It is a campaign that is based on actions not just by organisations and trades unions but can also involve individuals, using consumer power to influence policies of governments and employers.
A classic example of a very effective campaign that the TUC was involved in earlier this year was the Play Fair at the Olympics campaign. The TUC played an important role in that campaign that ran in over 30 countries, a campaign which used the focus of the Olympics to highlight the need for an industry wide approach to stop the sweat shop conditions still used by many sportswear companies. This motion is effectively asking the TUC to build on the example of that campaign and to help us, as unions, promote fair trade but also to use our collective strength to ensure the Fair Trade Movement is promoting trades unionism.
Please support Motion 81.
Paul Talbot (Amicus) speaking in support of Motion 81 said: It is in debates such as these that we remind ourselves of the international dimension to our Movement and the importance we place on global solidarity. Amicus is proud to support the motion and to highlight one aspect of it, namely the role that trade unions can play in this issue.
The hard truth is that millions of our sisters and brothers across the globe live out their lives in poverty, sleep in the streets, exist on inadequate diets, with little or no education, ravaged by drugs and HIV/AIDS -- the young, the elderly, the dispossessed, those who spend their lives in fear and despair and without hope. As the 2004 International Labour Organisation's International Report Organising for Social Change shows, for millions of people in this situation the principal route out of poverty is work. We must within the Movement help to create opportunities for investment, help with job creation and sustainable livelihoods, as envisaged in the Millennium development goals, in ways that do not affect adversely on people here.
In the process it is essential that we seek reform of the World Trade Organisation and that we include people themselves in decisions that affect their lives. The key to all this is the question of international labour standards, the right to organise and bargain collectively, the right not to be subject to discrimination, the right of no forced labour, and the right for people in developing countries to have their children go to school rather than be forced into work -- in short, the core labour standards of the ILO.
In accepting this conclusion, this motion asks Congress to urge the government to direct funds for trade union training as part of its international package.
We welcome also the recognition -- for the first time ever -- given to the trade union role in the Department for Overseas Development in the recent publication Labour Standards and Poverty Reduction. My own union has taken its initiative in forging bilateral relationships with trade unions in Africa through our Africa Matters campaign, a programme of informing at first hand what is happening across Africa In reply to: term of social justice.
I finish on this note: it has been said that the greatest political challenge of our time is to end mass poverty, to create opportunities, not just for the free and the fortunate but for all. I urge you to support the motion.
The President: The General Council supports Motion 81.
* Motion 81 one was CARRIED.
Address by Sebastian Coe - London 2012 Olympic Bid
The President : We now come to the presentation on London's Bid for the 2012 Olympics. As you will have seen from the article in the Congress Guide, there is more to the Olympics Games than gold medals, although one or two people have their share of gold medals. Being awarded the Games results in thousands of jobs for the winning city -- jobs in construction, transport and the hospitality industry to name but a few. The question that we, as trades unionists will want to ask, is: if London get the 2012 Games will these jobs be quality jobs with union recognition, high safety standards, training and equal opportunities? Can we use the Games to promote fair trade in the countries that produce the equipment and clothing used in the Games. The Sydney Games in 2000 showed what can be achieved with union influence, but it does not just happen; it requires engagement between the trade union Movement and the organisers from an early stage.
At his Congress reception earlier this week, the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, made clear how important he regarded the Games and the importance he places on working with the trades unions. Today we have with us the Chair of the London bid, Seb Coe, but before we hear from him let us hear from some of the people who will be playing the key roles in the London Olympics in eight years' time.
(Video shown)
The President : It is now my pleasure to invite Seb Coe to address Congress.
Sebastian Coe : I have always set myself targets; I suppose it is a by-product of past days. My target today is to get a response to my speech at least as warm as the one you gave the Prime Minister on Monday!
So, let me start by thanking you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I want the whole country to feel involved in our efforts to bring the Olympic Games back to this country. The more support we have the more likely we are to win. I believe that the more people know about the bid, the more they will want us to win. I come today to ask for your support, to explain our strategy, hopefully to enthuse and excite you about what the Games can deliver for jobs and for the economy, for our environment and the sporting ambitions of our young people, and above all perhaps for our confidence and ambition as a country.
Sport has been the passion of my life. I was lucky; I was able to devote much of my life to it, competing at the highest levels. The passion I have for sport is shared by millions. It drives so much of what we are as a nation, what we feel, what we talk about, what we care about. It matters. I know that if we get Games that passion for sport in Britain will ensure that they are a huge and overwhelming success.
As we build our case, I think of the young athletes -- now in their teens maybe -- who have caught that bug for sport, who train hard, who dream one day of being a success at their sport, the young athletes who, like me, watched the Mexico Games on a flickering black and white television set in Sheffield, an experience that changed my life. I want to help bring the Games to London and give those young athletes the chance of changing their lives too, of competing on their own soil in front of the most passionate sports fans anywhere in the world.
The bid is for London, but this is a project for the whole country. Ask anyone who was in Greece recently during the Athens Games. It did not just give the capital a lift, it gave the whole country a lift, a sense of pride and fulfilment at what they were able to achieve -- achievements that produced a lasting change. I know that whatever it takes to deliver the best Games that London can have, London has it. It is twenty years since I competed in the Olympic Games. Since then I have worked as an International Commission member, an Olympic broadcaster, an International Federation member, and now -- as the Chairman of a bidding city -- I feel I have entered the last lap of my own four lap Olympic odyssey.
Our vision is clear and concise. It is to re-unite the world's most vibrant and culturally diverse city and country with the world's largest celebration of sport. In doing so, we can unlock our nation's passion for sport, provide a lasting legacy for our children, release the creativity and diversity of London and the United Kingdom and deliver the best possible conditions for athletes to compete in. The detailed plans we are putting together include a brand new Olympic Park in East London, sited around the transport hub of Stratford. It will include a new athletic stadium, swimming pools, three indoor arenas, a velodrome, a media centre and, of course. an athletes village -- all state of the art and all to be returned to the community after the Games. But we will also use Wimbledon, Lords, the Dome, Eton Dorney -- our first-class rowing facility just to the west of London -- and the capital's historic beautiful and unique parks that will provide stunning backdrops for all our cultural events. Our bid is a mix of fantastic new design and internationally familiar venues, and legacy will underpin every new build.
For the residents of east London, an area of inordinately high deprivation, their whole environment will be dramatically improved. A winning bid will deliver the biggest new urban park seen in Europe for the last 200 years. The waterways, canals and wetlands of the Lea Valley will be cleaned, rejuvenated, restored and returned. Over 9,000 new homes will be created from the athletes village within weeks of the Games finishing. Of course, there will be a real and guaranteed sporting legacy for London, with as many as six new major sporting facilities to be used both by local communities and elite and aspiring athletes.
London's Mayor has already committed up to £10 million a year after 2012 to fund this legacy. Nation wide we will see economic and sporting benefits, new jobs in construction and tourism and new facilities to host Olympic training camps and international sporting events. But there are also the unquantifiable benefits of the UK hosting the Games, inspiring our children to achieve, to respect, and to aspire. I was in the West Midlands last week, in Belfast this week. In both those places the sporting community understood fully the impact an Olympic Games and the Kelly Holmes effect has had on the young people they coach and they educate. They also know the even greater impact the seven-year build up to a UK Games can have on those same young people.
London is involved in the most competitive field ever bidding for a Games. Madrid, Moscow, New York and Paris are our opposition. It is an impressive line up and our bid is in good shape, all the stronger because of the Herculean efforts of Team GB and the incredible support and passion of over 20,000 British fans in Athens, neither of which has gone unnoticed by the International Olympic Committee or the great governing bodies of our world sport. They know that a London Games would be played out in front of noisy, knowledgeable and full stadia. The presence of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Sport, Richard Cabourn, and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in Athens was vital. Internationally it demonstrated that we have clear political backing, a crucial factor for many IOC members. Domestically the message was just as important.
The five bidding teams also had the opportunity to present their plans to the international media, and although it is still early days in the race I am encouraged by the fact that we were judged by commentators who matter to have come out on top in this rare opportunity to go head-to-head with the other bidding cities.
We are gaining ground at home too. The four London boroughs in east London, home to the Olympic Park, granted outline planning permission only last week. We are ahead of the game and that is where we must remain. We are also just a few days from completing our candidate file, which must be submitted to the IOC by 15 November. This 600-page document outlines our plans in detail, covering venues, transport, security, accommodation, media facilities and, of course, financing. It has been a massive task to put this document together in the space of six months or so, but I am delighted to say that in that too we are ahead of the game.
But that does not stop with the candidate file. Next spring the IOC will send a team of around 20 people to road test our plans. Their evaluation team will also visit our competitors and, a few weeks before the final vote in Singapore next July, they will lay down before us their judgment. Whether or not we are successful is in large part down to the strength of our partnerships -- partnerships between the host city and the IOC, partnerships between central and local government with the business community, with local residents, with environmental groups, employers, employees or the wider Olympic movement. Working together with mutual respect is crucial.
If London is to win the bid and deliver the 2012 Games we need your support; we need your support in developing the strategies for the organisations that will successfully deliver the Games. Our aim must be to draw as much of the workforce from the local community and complement it by local training initiatives run by the London Development Agency and other partners. In setting up the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, we will develop a Fair Employment framework, policies to cover issues such as remuneration, terms and conditions, and health and safety. We will implement this ourselves, and take it into account when evaluating tendered and awarding contracts. These should also be our guiding principles for our national sponsorships.
We should never forget that the Olympic Games do not happen without the selfless legion of volunteers. Sydney was a towering example of this, as were the Manchester Commonwealth Games. A London Games would require upwards of 70,000 volunteers. To maximise the opportunities available to them, we would set up a voluntary job programme and local job brokerage schemes so that people can develop transferable skills through voluntary work opportunities.
Working in partnerships with trades unions and developers we can ensure that the infrastructure is delivered on time, on budget and with appropriate levels of investment in skills, training, health and safety all enshrined in common practice. I will also encourage trade union representation on the new Organising Committee and the development of a framework agreement in line with the experience of the Sydney Olympic Games.
When we make our case to the IOC, we must be able to say that we have firm, unequivocal and enthusiastic backing of government. We must also be able to demonstrate that we have the firm backing of trades unions and a business. They too will strengthen our case. Tomorrow, in a further expression of political support, I have been invited by the Prime Minister to brief the Cabinet on where we are on the bid to get the whole government fully involved. I will be able to tell them that we are in a strong position. A combination of political and public support, planning permission, a strong technical bid, a fantastic array of venues, sporting success at the Games and the phenomenal support of the British fans there has given us a real sense of momentum. I will also be able to spell out the benefits I believe the Games can bring not just to sports policy but also to trade, tourism, jobs, housing transport and the environment.
No Olympic Games must ever be allowed to simply drift through a city or a country without leaving a lasting impression. For that reason I will set out ways in which we intend to involve the whole of the country in the planning and staging of those Games. Above all, I will be saying as I say now, that the more the country unites behind the bid, the more the sense of momentum will build.
I left Athens enthused as never before, excited about our prospects, confident about the new case we are putting, convinced we can win. I hope you can help me bring that about. Thank you. (Applause)
The President : Thank you for that address, Seb. You can be assured that we will be not only watching the progress of the bid, but the TUC has decided to support the bid. We want to see those quality jobs, we want to see them with proper union agreements. We will be engaging closely with London 2012, with the Mayor of London and with the Organising Committee, so good luck from us. You have our support.
I would now like to introduce the Director of the International Labour Organisation Office, who is an honoured guest today, an old friend of ours, a former General Secretary of IPMS, now Prospect, Bill Brett. Welcome. Keep up the good work on hunting out those labour violations.
Iraq
Mary Davies (NATFHE) moved Motion 82.
(Insert Motion 82 and amendments - Iraq)
She said: To its credit the TUC opposed the war, and to its credit last year we passed a motion calling for the withdrawal of troops from this country and from the United States. The next step is practical solidarity, and that is what this motion concentrates on. At the same time, however, there should be no mistake whatsoever about our opposition to war and occupation. We do not support Anglo/US imperialism masquerading as a moral crusade to rid the world of tyrants. We want the cost of this war to be counted, both for the Iraqis and for us. How many hospitals and schools could have been built with the appalling waste of money on this continued occupation. We want an end to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners. We want an end to military and economic occupation.
The only sure way of defeating occupation, defeating Bathism and the threat of fundamentalism is by strengthening the forces of civil society so brutally crushed for 25 years under Saddam Hussein. Chief amongst these forces are the forces of the working class represented through their trade unions. This is the untold story of Iraq. Since the war the media would have us believe that Iraq has descended into barbarism. Look at today's front-page headline in the Guardian. It says 'Iraq, a descent into civil war'. The truth is that despite the devastation of war, the horrors of occupation and the misguided fundamentalist elements -- I cannot call them an opposition if they target Iraqi civilians -- civil society, once so rich in Iraq, is being re-born. Chief amongst them, and most significant amongst the elements of civil society, is the development of the Iraqi trade union Movement, in particular the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions.
Within 17 months hundreds of thousands of workers have been recruited to trades unions in 12 single trade unions in the Iraqi Federation. This is a very enviable rate of recruitment that we would do well to emulate in this country. Amongst those recruits women are a very important factor. They are 35 per cent of the workforce and they are playing a significant role. For example, Hashima Hussein, a woman, is the new President of the Electricity and Energy Workers' Union -- I think it is a male dominated membership but a woman President.
So why has this happened? Why has there been this success of the Iraqi trades unions? It is because Iraq actually is a highly developed society and has a long history of a strong and powerful labour Movement. Just for example, in 1959, on May Day, one million workers marched in Iraq out of a population of 6.5 million. Saddam Hussein, like all fascists, sought to smash the organisations of the working class first and therefore he concentrated on the trades unions. He set up his own stooge corporatist unions, just like Hitler did, but the underground trade union Movement was formed, the Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement, men and women of great bravery who still organised in Iraq and outside Iraq. This is the backbone of the new trade union federation now existing in Iraq. The federation has no resources. It needs support, not just for its own sake; it is key to ending the occupation and privatisation, and the development of a democratic secular Iraq. Support and solidarity are needed. Individual unions have already done much and the TUC fund is very welcome, but we need greater coordination of efforts as contained in the motion, including in particular solidarity between women trades unionists.
We do not need to tell the Iraqi Federation what to do; they know what to do. They have a clear program but they need the means to do it. Solidarity is not just a word, it is the core of what it means to be a trade unionist. In supporting our sisters and brothers in Iraq we can re-discover what is best in our own Movement. They deserve their solidarity and that is the key to building the secular Iraq that will end the awful privatisation, the dreadful occupation and the devastation that has been wrought on Iraq after years of war and occupational opporession.
Please support this motion. Workers of all countries unite.
Dennis Doody (UCATT) in seconding the motion said: I am very very disappointed.
Four or five minutes ago we heard from Seb Coe speaking about the possibility that we might create jobs as a consequence of the Olympic bid. I hope this Movement is not suffering from convenient amnesia because let me tell you what he was part and parcel of. He and his Party destroyed thousands upon thousands of jobs in mining communities the length and breadth of this country. It is an absolute disgrace! It is about time this Movement got back to its grassroots and where we emanated from. We should not be inviting people like him and Digby Jones here.
Two years ago this Congress was bitterly divided about Iraq. The majority opposed the conflict without United Nations backing. A minority opposed the war full-stop. As it turned out, the Movement was united in opposition to the war, and rightly so. It is important that we are also united today and that we send an unambiguous message to this Government that the forces of occupation, British included, the United States and the coalition, need to be removed from Iraq rapidly. As long as the US and United Kingdom forces are in Iraq there will always be instability and continuing resistance. The occupation prevents the Iraqi people from developing their own society, a society free from Saddam and a society free from foreign occupation. It is for the people of Iraq to determine their own future and not the coalition of the criminal masquerading as liberators.
The trade union Movement in Iraq will play a vital role in the reconstruction of that country. The trade unions are no friend of Saddam Hussein. Under the then Iraqi labour code trade unions were banned in the public sector in 1987 which, at that particular time, formed a major part of the Iraqi economy. Trade unions could not operate independently from the regime. It is hardly surprising that the trade union Movement in Iraq is divided politically.
Earlier this year the ICFTU organised a fact-finding mission to Iraq, which included a representative of the TUC. This should give us the confidence that independent trade unions will help to develop Iraq, provided of course they are give the freedom to organise.
Whilst in Iraq the ICFTU found a vibrant grassroots organisation dealing with day to day issues such as non-payment of wages, unemployment and poor management. Whilst trade union organisations are still hampered by the code left behind by the old regime, 17 months of the collapse of the Hussein regime, the ’87 labour code still exists.
I have to wind up now. If I had been given a real opportunity without having to make some interventions because of what the ex-Minister for Sport said, I would have got my message across more clearly. The Iraqi trade unions deserve our support. I hope that delegates in this hall do not believe that the new organisation is a stooge to American imperialism. It is not.
Mitch Tovey (TSSA) speaking in support of the motion said: We are seeing in Iraq day by day the logical and completely foreseeable results of the US inspired attack backed by Britain and others with the destruction of that nation. This daily barrage and slaughter of Iraqi people continues apace, so much so that we have no absolute idea of how many Iraqis have absolutely died, and certainly Bush and Blair do not seem to care. It appears that the so-called coalition have a very unsectarian approach to the slaugher, be it oil workers, bakers, railway workers or teachers. It does not matter. Be they men, women or children, it does not matter. Any religion, any time and in any way, it doesn’t matter. All of this is paid for by public money. Blair and Brown seem to have no trouble in finding the money for munitions that destroy another country’s infrastructure. There is much more difficulty in funding building at home. It is cheaper and easier to destroy a hospital in Bagdad than to build one in Britain. Before the war people marched in vast numbers to try and stop the war. School children, including my own daughter, came out on the streets but Blair ignored them. We should not be too surprised if, come the General Election, those people ignored Blair.
An important and increasing aspect is the willingness of the families of those service men and women killed in Iraq to speak out, to demand answers, to make clear their opposition to the war, and I pay tribute to the courage of those relatives for speaking out. They have let the population know the real angish, agony and tragedy of the reality of war.
The key aspect and reason for the war was, of course, oil. The Bush Government knows fullwell that a cheap oil supply owned and controlled by American-based multi-nationals need a flexible and cowed workforce. If they are not non-union, then they want passive and controlled unions like some of those around under Saddam Hussein. What it cannot afford is an organised and independent workforce. That is the reality behind the systematic wrecking of the offices in Baghdad of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. It is vital for the Bush regime that the Iraqi people are not allowed to organise, and that is why a small office with a dozen laptops could not be tolerated, and that is why it was ransacked by US forces. We must offer our full and unqualified support to our comrades working in the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in this hour of need. Destroying the Trade Union Federation in Iraq would be a great achievement for Bush. He must be stopped and he can be stopped. Support the motion.
Keith Sonnet (UNISON) speaking in support of Motion 82 and amendment, said: Congress, each day we watch with horror the continuing carnage in Iraq. We must remember who is to blame for the chaos - George Bloody Bush and Tony Blair. Just as we know that there will never be peace in the Middle East until Israel stops occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and an independent viable Palestinian State created, so we know that there will never be peace in Iraq until the occupying British and American troops leave. We demand in the motion that our Government take immediate steps to end its occupation of Iraq and to return Iraqi assets back to the Iraqi people. The war was illegal, based upon lies and deceit, and it has spawned continued human rights abuses by occupying forces and now by the so-called interim government headed by a former US intelligence agent.
We have seen the systematic abuse and torture of prisoners in gaols throughout Iraq, just as we know takes place in Guantanamo, personally endorsed, as we learn in the newspapers this week, by Donald Rumsfeldt. We have seen the bombing of civilian areas in Faluja and in Najaf, with bodies piling up in the streets. We have seen the harassment of journalists and the closure of Al Jazera in Iraq because they do not want the full horror of the situation in Iraq being reported. Congress, we have no moral right to be in Iraq or to remain there, and we must leave completely. There must be no bases left behind to guard the oil fields.
As Mary Davis said in moving the motion, the motion and amendments are calling for support for the Iraqi trade unions. I was proud that the General Secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions was able to address my union conference in June and that a group of Iraqi trade unionists will be coming to UNISON in early November, and other initiatives are planned. It is important for all the unions to develop relationships to assist the emerging Iraqi trade unions. Equally, we must keep the pressure up at home. We cannot simply concentrate, as some people would like, on domestic issues whilst the suffering continues to take place in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. That includes building support for the anti-war movement, including supporting the demonstration called by the European Social Forum supported by the Stop the War Coalition in London on Sunday 17th October I hope all unions here will be encouraging their members to attend. Let us stop the occupation and let’s stop another Bush-inspired war.
Stewart Brown (FBU) speaking in support of the motion said: What many of us opposing the invasion of Iraq feared has come to pass and worse. Iraqis - men, women and children - are paying a terrible price. We heard yesterday of at least another 47 people killed as a result of an explosion in a Baghdad market. In total some 14,000 civilians, men, women and children, have been killed according to some estimates. More than 1,000 American troops and some 70 British troops have been killed. Meanwhile, Britain continues to send working class young men and women to their deaths in Iraq. They are just teenagers with rudimentary training. Many are like 19 year old Gordon Gentle from Glasgow.
Coalition forces must withdraw from Iraq and Iraqis themselves must choose how they start to deal with regaining normal life with the help of the international agencies, if necessary. We must learn the wider lessons of the war in Iraq. The US and the UK must never again take pre-emptive military action against sovereign nations. The world’s hyper-power and its lapdog, Britain, must never again ignore the UN and the rule of international law. We must be immediately moved to reduce, with a view to removing totally, their giant arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. We in Britain and in the trade unions must not forget Iraq.
We have a special responsibility to help ordinary Iraqi people find a way out of their nightmare. We must work with them to build a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq. In particular, as trade unions, we must support the effort of the IFTU trade union federation to build a strong and democratic trade union Movement. We must support them in whatever way we can in achieving their aims. Practical solidarity is crucial.
A delegation from the FBU has visited the country twice in recent months; first, on a fact-finding mission and on the second occasion an FBU official returned with practical help for the country’s fire-fighters. He brought some fire-fighting equipment. Iraqi fire-fighters are in the frontline, risking their lives every day in ways in which those British public sector workers, like fire-fighters, would find difficult to image.
Great strides have been made in building trade union structures and building a trade union Movement which truly represents workers and is not an instrument of a former or current regime of occupying forces, but much more has to be done. It is time to stop the war. It is time for the UK to withdraw its troops. It is time for respect of international law. It is time for global disarmament led by the US and UK. It is the time to make peace, not war. We must strengthen links with the Iraqi trade unions, visiting the country and providing real practical help. Thank you.
The President: Motion 82 is supported by the General Council.
· Motion 82 was CARRIED.
Middle East
Vicky Knight (FBU) leading in on paragraph 7.9 of the General Council’s Report, said: Comrades, more than 7,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees are currently held in Israeli jails - including elected members of the Palestinian government, like Marwan Baghouti. More than 1,000 are held without charge.
'We live in one big prison', Shaher Sa’ed, General Secretary of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, said yesterday. Or, maybe, a death camp.
The assassinations of the Palestinian leadership, the killing of men, women and children, including those who come to help and bear witness, like, Tom Hurndall, whose mother spoke at the fringe meeting on Palestine yesterday must stop.
Poverty, malnutrition and an economy in total collapse, with 480,000 Palestinians without jobs, and half-a-million Palestinians unable to support themselves or their families, plus 50% unemployment.
The Wall has been built on occupied territory to consolidate Israel’s hold over its expanding colonies, with more than 200 illegally built settlements of 400,000 settlers scattered in the occupied territories, often built on land confiscated from Palestinians, and served by Israeli-only roads and electricity grids, controlling water resources and frustrating any true exercise of Palestinian statehood. The Wall violates international law, as the International Court of Justice found in July.
Along with 24 other members of the EU, the United Kingdom endorsed the ruling and yet the settlements continue to expand and the Wall still stands.
The UK must hold Israel accountable for a failure to abide by international, law - on this and a string of other UN articles it continues to ignore.
Sisters and brothers, the fight for Palestinian justice is not about anti-semitism. About a third of Britain’s Jews are critical of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories according to a recent poll.
The peace movement in Israel is growing. The problem is the Israeli Government, the Israeli state, not the Jewish people. Silence about this tragedy from the rest of the world is our biggest problem. We must shout out loud and clear. We must spread the message, we must lobby the Israeli Embassy and we must tell our Government, that justice cannot continue to be denied to the Palestinians.
The efforts of the TUC and affiliated unions, as spelled out in the General Council Report, are commendable in seeking to help promote peace. But things have got considerably worse in Palestine since the last Congress. We must be doing much, much more. The UK Government must come out in support of Palestinians’ legitimate demands for justice.
It must break with the United States’ slavish support for Sharon. The Israeli Prime Minister is currently under no serious international pressure. It should work to end the EU’s preferential trade agreements with Israel. Britain should consider sanctions. They worked with Apartheid in South Africa. They may well help end the Apartheid in the Palestinian territories. We, as trade unionists, must re-double our efforts to end the injustice.
Congress, I urge you and your unions to organise visits to Palestine to see the tragedy for yourselves.
I urge you and your unions to get active, to affiliate and to donate to Trade Unions for Palestine and Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
There was no motion on Palestine on this year’s order paper. It is important that we do not forget the Palestinian people.
The President: Thank you for that comment on paragraph 7.9. There is, of course, a full report of the TUC delegation that went to Nablus, Ramalla and Israel. We, of course, reported back to the General Council on the problems, many of which were just reported, and assistance and aid is being developed, particularly to the ILO and with the Confederation of Arab Unions. We will do everything we can to ensure that the kind of assistance asked for is given.
In closing that section of the debate, I draw your attention to the TUC Iraq Appeal, information about which was in all the wallets to this Conference. Many of the speakers before in the debate on Iraq did call for practical support and solidarity for the unions, including the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. This TUC Iraq Appeal gives our Movement the chance to be of help and assistance to rebuilding free and democratic unions in Iraq.
In my President’s Address on Monday I reported on my visit to Colombia and the fact that it is the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. A lot of work has been done in Solidarity. Many of the affiliated unions are involved, and Justice for Colombia, which is the organisation the TUC works with closely, has been very active indeed. They have produced a 25 minute film which is available from the Justice for Colombia stand at Conference, but the General Council has given an excerpt of that film in advance of the speaker from Colombia. After the video the speaker from Colombia will address Conference, and his interpreter will be the Secretary to Justice for Colombia, Liam Craig-Best. We have another Colombian colleague with us at Congress, Luchio Hernandez, who is President of the Public Service Workers’ Union, Sintraemcali, who we also saw when we were in Colombia in February. The office of Sintraemcali is where a bomb was placed on the same day as our visit.
Last night we heard terrifying news from the town of Cali that the newly elected governor of the province of Vali DeCalca, which includes Cali, who is based in Cali, Vanhela Garsonne, who was elected last January, was the subject of an assassination attempt last night. He is a long-standing trade union leader. He was Labour Minister in a previous Government in Colombia and now he is the governor. Although he is extremely heavily guarded, an attempt was made on his life. One of his body guards, an active trade unionist, was assassinated last night. At the moment we believe that Vanhela Garsonne is alive. We are seeking more information and we want to report to Congress when things are clearer.
The General Council decided this morning, as an emergency act, to send condolences to the family of the body guard. This is an example of how dangerous that country is. At this stage, colleagues, we will have the video shown to Congress. Thank you.
(Video shown)
Colleagues, it is my honour to introduce Hernando Hernandez, the International and former President of the Colombian Oil Workers Union, who has also been nominated for Colombia’s National Peace Prize by the CUT National Confederation. I shall leave Hernando to tell you how his union his struggled in the face of arrests, detentions and over one hundred murders just in his union in recent years, and about their struggle to save the National Oil Company from privatisation. He comes from a family of union activists. His father, who was also in the Oil Workers’ Union, was murdered. His mother and brothers have been arrested. Hernando himself has been the target of numerous assassination attempts. When I was in Colombia in February with the TUC/War on Want/Justice for Colombia delegation, he had just completed 13 months of detention and arrest with no obvious evidence against him. We called a press conference in the Colombian Senate and denounced his illegal detention. It became quite a big issue in Colombia. Within a week Hernando was released together with eleven leaders of the Health Workers’ Union. He still faces possible charges of murder, terrorism, kidnapping and anything they want to make-up.
We are very proud that he has been able to come to Brighton to join us as part of our international solidarity with the Colombian people and Colombian trade unions in their struggle. We are delighted to have you here today, Hernando, and I invite you, on behalf of the TUC and Congress to address us this afternoon.
Address by Hernando Hernandez
Hernando Hernandez (Interpreted): In the name of the Colombian workers and in particular the oil workers of Colombia, I would like to bring warm greetings to this Congress. I also thank Brendan, Roger and all delegates at this Congress.
I also give our greetings to the other international visitors and a big thank you to the TUC and Justice for Colombia for inviting me so that I could come and be with you today.
I want to denounce to this Congress and to the world the deterioration of the human rights situation under the policy of democratic security of the Uribé regime is using in Colombia.
Every day the social situation is getting worse under this government’s rule. Today unemployment is running at 25% and during the time of this new government we have had 70,000 workers fired. Every day privatisation policies are becoming stronger and growing and hospitals are closing all over the country. There are systematic violations of human rights.
In my trade union federation, the CUT Federation, which has been around for 18 years, up to this date the Colombian government have murdered 4,000 of our members. Since the new President, President Uribé came to power, 137 trade unionists have been shot. This government has also detained and locked up 7,000 social activists and trade union activists. We are all accused of terrorism by the government. I was held under house arrest for 14 months and 14 days accused of terrorism, but in the end the Colombian state found that there was no evidence against me. Threats every day are becoming worse against union activists and the only reason why we are the victim of these attacks is because of our work to oppose things like privatisation. My union, the oil workers’ union, was recently involved in a 37 day strike to prevent the privatisation of the state oil company and to keep the oil in the hands of the Colombian people.
As a result, they sacked 248 members of the union involved in the strike, including myself. They are starting legal processes against many of us. This happened also in Cali where the public sector workers’ union, Sintraemcali, held a strike and they were fired from their jobs also. About two weeks ago during a raid in the city of Cali a document was found that was produced by military intelligence officers which listed the members of this union and it said that they had to be executed. The document listed, for example, Luchio Hernandez, who is with us today, the head of Sintraemcali. It mentioned the progressive members of Congress, namely, Alexander Lopez and Wilson Borja and many other members of Simtraemcali also. It said that they must all be got rid of - executed. We think that the killing yesterday of the body guard of Vanhela Garsonne was the beginning of what the army has called Operation Dragon. That is what the document was entitled.
The Colombian trade union Movement demands that the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom stop giving military aid to our government. Those three governments are currently complicit in the violations of human rights in my country.
We need assistance and solidarity with social developments and in our efforts to produce peace with social justice. I was very happy to read the motion proposed by the Fire Brigades’ Union and I hope that the entire Congress will support this motion.
While it is very difficult to continue with union work in my country and to be a trade unionist in my country, I can tell you that we will continue struggling and continue fighting. With your help and solidarity, this strengthens us and make us able to continue to fight for a free and sovereign Colombia. Thank you.
(Applause amidst a standing ovation)
The President: Thank you so much for being with us, Hernando. You can take back with you to Colombia the total solidarity of the British trade union Movement, all of the affiliates to the TUC and the branches and activists. Once they get this video and hear what is happening, I am sure there will be an outpouring of support and aid to our Colombian sisters and brothers. Thank you.
Colombia
The President: The General Council supports the motion on Colombia.
Ruth Winters (FBU) moved Motion 83.
(Insert Motion 83 - Colombia)
She said: Let me say what an honour it is to be able to stand on the platform and follow a comrade such as Hernando. Nothing has changed in Colombia when we bring the issue of Colombia before this Congress. It is great to see and hear the full backing of the TUC. The one thing that Hernando never told you in too much detail was about his house arrest. There are two sides to Colombia. There is the public face that the Government wants to portray in Europe, America and the rest of the world, and there is the reality of what is happening. When Hernando was under house arrest and accused of mass murder, terrorism and being a guerilla, at the same time they would let him out from house arrest now and again because he also sat on the Peace Commission. He would go along to the Peace Commission and then be sent back under house arrest. We talk about international solidarity and practical things that can be done. Hernando on one occasion had to go to hospital. When he was in hospital he was under attack all the time, so much so that the international community in Cuba took Hernando in and looked after him when he needed medical treatment. That is the reality of living in Colombia as a trade unionist.
We met so many people on this trip with the joint delegation of Justice for Colombia and War on Want. I know there are people in this hall, including Roger, who were on the delegation with me. We met so many people that it is too difficult to tell you the stories that people were portraying to us. One story that I have tried to link with our members, because all of our members are the same, is 'What have international issues got to do with us?' Everybody has got branch members who say that. This is a man who I never met in this picture. This is a man whose mother I met when I was in Colombia. This is a man who was a community worker. This is a young man who was a volunteer fire-fighter and trade unionist. This is a young dead community worker trade unionist and volunteer fire-fighter. That is the reality of living in Colombia.
The reality of all things we talked about this week, such as trade disputes, strike action and meetings like this, result in those attending being charged with rebellion. This hall could have been the most rebellious place ever in Colombia. Just for sitting here and just for getting up and saying what you have to say you would be charged with an offence in Colombia. That is the reality of the situation of living in Colombia.
We even met government ministers in Colombia, the same government ministers who are talking about Plan Dragon. This is the reality of living in Colombia.
The United States of America under George Bush is feeding in hundreds of millions of dollars to support the regime of Uribé. The military aid that our Government gives in our name should be stopped and stopped now.
We met the British Ambassador who knew nothing about military aid. We met Vice-President Santos who knew something about military aid. We met the Minister for Defence who knew a lot more about military aid from the UK but who would not tell us about it because he did not want to give the game away when we were there. This situation has to stop and we can never let the issue of Colombia go away. We visited a women’s prison and a men’s prison. There is no such thing in Colombia under law as a political prisoner, but they ushered us to the political wing. How that works, I do not understand. We met many people who need our help. We met many people who need our support and we met many people who want you and I to go and see Colombia to see the reality. I would happily go back to Colombia. The only downside to that is that it would be an opportunity missed for another trade unionist to visit. We should encourage, pay and send delegations to Colombia to meet the people. There is no doubt that the stark reality of death and threat on families exists.
Luchio Hernandez, who was mentioned earlier, has to move house every week. He has to change his ‘phone number all the time. He and his family cannot live together because of the threats to their lives. Again, nothing has changed in Colombia. There is no doubt about that. We have to stop what is happening in that country. We have to support our brothers and sisters.
The women’s movement in Colombia is very strong. The saddest side to that is the fact that the majority of those involved in the movement are widows, who have also lost their sons and fathers yet the Government go out on a limb to make it difficult for them to see any of their relatives who are in prison. They, themselves, are under threat.
In the video you saw some guns. We were standing by them as well. It was the most oppressive atmosphere that I have ever been in in my life. We met a woman trade unionist at the university, and she said to me 'It is okay to feel scared here'. The strange thing is that I never felt scared in Colombia. I did not feel scared for me or for the delegation because the public face of the Colombian government is such that they would never have let anything happen to us. We were over-guarded to the point of being unbelievable. I said that we experienced a most oppressive atmosphere. I have never lived in a police state, but having lived there for a week I now know what it is like.
I will tell you what I was scared about, and that is that we are not going to do enough to support people like Hernando, Luchio and all the other comrades we met in that country. I am really scared that we do not do enough about that.
You must not forget that the Uribé government is clever. It is a clever government backed by the United States of America. It is about capitalist oppression of a country and it is stepping on brother and sister trade unionists in that country.
Comrades, five minutes to talk on Colombia is not enough. I know there will be other speakers in this debate. Please support Justice for Colombia. Get information from them. Support War on Want and all the other organisations, and support our brothers and sisters in Colombia. We want to see them back again and the same people back again. Thank you.
Alison Shepherd (UNISON): I am very pleased to be seconding this motion, which was moved so movingly by Ruth and introduced so eloquently by Roger Lyons, our TUC President. It is absolutely obvious that they have been to Colombia and they have had their lives changed by what they have seen, as I had when I went three years ago.
I am pleased to second this motion to show our continuing commitment to our sister trade unions in Colombia. We have been working with the public service union, Sintraemcali, since 2001. What brought us together was a shared interest in fighting privatisation, sustained by our belief that trade unions do make a difference to the communities that we live and work amongst and represent. The difference, as Ruth has said, is that we in UNISON, or those of us in any trade union in this hall, do not risk death and intimidation either towards ourselves or our families from government authorised and paramilitary death squads. That is one reason why I am always so pleased to have Luchio and Luis Hernandez from Sintraemcali amongst us, and to meet Hernando who has come over here to a place of relative safety. I am always relieved to have news, but the news we have just heard is not good in terms of so many friends and trade unionists who we work with in that country.
I was very unhappy to hear about the sackings of many of the Sintraemcali executives from the company that they worked so hard for and fought so hard to keep from privatisation and the vicious struggle that we have followed over here with our solidarity.
As Ruth and Hernando have said, the since the current President came to power privatisation has accelerated. Fifty per cent of public utilities have been privatised. Seventy per cent of public hospitals have been privatised and workers rights and wages have been reduced. Colombia is a rich country made poor by international policies. Money is poured into arms from the US and the UK Governments. It does not educate children or help displaced adults fight poverty. It is poured into arms. It is disgraceful.
In the three years since we have visited Colombia there has been a groundswell of interest throughout UNISON. The flow of information from Colombia is strong and missing trade unionists lead to a bombardment by faxes, e-mails and callers to the government both here and in Colombia from concerned UNISON members. This is as well as the pressure that we can make as a union directly to ministers and visits to the embassy. An awful lot of us have got to know the Colombian Embassy very well. This situation has been replicated by the other unions and I hope we hear some more testimonies.
The motion sets down what we can do. UNISON works with a range of organisations. The motion is very specific. As far as UNISON is concerned, the reasons for our solidarity are simple. As Alexander Lopez, the former President fo Sintraemcali, said, 'It makes it more difficult for them to kill us'. Please support the motion. Trade unionists do not have to die.
Barbara White (Musicians’ Union) speaking in support of the motion said: I will be very brief. The Musicians’ Union wanted to add their voice to their brothers and sisters in Colombia.
It does seem very strange that a Government as committed to war on terror as the current British Government may actually be contributing military aid to the most extreme terror the trade union Movement faces in the world. Ninety-five per cent of trade union assassinations are the work of paramilitary groups. The British Government have not, surprisingly, kept a tight lid on details of its military assistance. A report in The Guardian suggested that the UK is now the second biggest donor of military aid to Colombia.
As a previous speaker said, Colombia is a very rich country. It has resources such as oil, gold and very rich soils, but it is a country that contains fantastic inequalities in poverty. Just one per cent of the population still owns 58% of the land and, approximately, eight million Colombians have incomes below a nutritionally defined subsistence level.
Colombia is a young country with 38% of the population under the age of 18. Last year eleven student activists were assassinated, 155 received death threats, 53 were displaced and six were arrested and detained without charge. The Colombian people do not want military aid. They have made that very clear. They need help in alleviating the appalling social problems that Colombia suffers from. I support.
· The Motion was CARRIED.
Trade and Labour Standards PRIVATE
Nigel Gawthorpe ((GPMU) speaking to 7.6 of the General Council’s Report on trade and labour standards said: The GPMU supports wholeheartedly the ETI and, indeed, shares the platform with Sir Tony Young, who is the trade union co‑ordinator for ETI.
The Play Fair Campaign at the Olympics was an excellent campaign and highly commendable, but there is still work to be done there by persuading sportswear manufacturers to ensure their codes of conduct in their supply chains are not undermined by contract demands.
However, it is not just sportswear manufacturers that need to be targeted. For those of us who go to gigs and buy the merchandise, we can bring pressures to bear on the bands and their managers to ensure that t‑shirts are made in unionised companies and that when they are made overseas, they are made by companies that treat their workers fairly, ethically and with dignity.
It is not difficult. By the click of a mouse you can help thousands of workers who desperately need your support. We want to see the General Council continue to support ethical trading. If your union is not affiliated to the ETI, I urge you to ask your union to support the ETI to ensure that we bring an end to exploitation.
Bob Oram (UNISON) : Last year we unanimously passed a resolution committing us to solidarity with Cuba. We all saw the reaction to the moving and powerful speech made by Pedro Ross Leal this morning. He spoke of the respect and the friendship that our solidarity and internationalism gives to the Cubans as they struggle against unbelievable odds to survive.
We all know the USA in its attempts to destroy the Cuban revolution has used sabotage, assassinations, terrorism, biological warfare and a 43 year‑old economic blockade. To us, solidarity is important and when Roger stood in Revolution Square on May Day, the Cubans understood they were not alone.
We are also doing good work with the TUC. On the back of last year’s resolution, like Pedro, I would urge everyone to attend the TUC and Cuba Solidarity Campaign conference on 6 November this year.
However, like UNISON and a lot of other delegates here today, we are extremely concerned about the second paragraph in this section of the report. The inference that Cuba somehow supports slavery anywhere in the world is nonsense. Are we really saying to our guest, a man who himself, like so many other Cubans, fought for years in Angola and ultimately defeated the South African army, paving the way to end apartheid, that they support slavery? Do we really believe the first country that Mandela visited after his release from jail supports slavery?
These words are an insult to the millions of Cubans who themselves are descended from slaves, and should be removed. Do we honestly believe that Cuba supports death squads in Columbia? The inference that they do is outrageous.
As for the criticism of Cuba labour laws, let us not fall for Bush‑inspired propaganda. I urge you all to read the excellent Institute of Employment Rights booklet on Cuba and labour laws. In 22 states in the USA, the so‑called Rights to Work Act denies collective negotiations. Where are the ICFTU demands that the USA provide explanations at the Standing Commission of the ILO against its violations of international conventions?
As part of its unrelenting attacks on Cuba, Bush has recently endorsed strategy which seeks to use the ILO to condemn so‑called labour exploitation in Cuba. He wants to use NGOs, like the ICTFU, to promote independent or exiled trade unionists to finance these people who are, in essence, paid agents of the US Interests Section in Havana.
Let us be absolutely clear. We do not support Bush’s agenda for Cuba. As Fidel Castro recently said, Cuba fights on the side of life in the world. The USA fights on the side of death. While the United States bomb indiscriminately civilians all around the world, Cuba saves hundreds of thousands of children, mothers, old and sick people.
Our internationalism and solidarity work with Cuba deserves better than these words in our annual report. I was going to ask for reference back, but I am happy to hear what the General Council will say in response to our concerns.
Bernard Regan (NUT): The National Union of Teachers is proud to support the position of the TUC in defence of Cuba solidarity in opposition to the United States’ imposed blockade and for the Hands Off Cuba campaign.
The economic blockade that has been conducted by the United States threatens the educational gains that have been made by Cuba. In Cuba, class sizes for secondary children are 1 to 18, aiming for 1 to 15 and, in the primary sector, 1 to 20. Those are targets that we would be proud of if they were achieved in this country, but they are a long way off.
Cuba has surpassed the United Nations’ objectives for education. The United Nations aspires by 2015 that every child will be in a school. At the current period in time, two‑thirds of girls are not in schools. Cuba far surpassed these objectives many years ago. However, these and other gains in health, in education and social services continue to be under threat as a result of the economic blockade. That blockade has actually intensified since we made our decision in 2003 that we opposed it.
On May 6, the United States announced eight further major developments in intensifying that blockade which are restricting the right of Cuba to trade freely, are preventing United States citizens from travelling to Cuba and are impinging on the rights of Cuban citizens.
The Torichelli Act, for example, denies food and medicine to be traded with the United States, so that children, for example, in hospitals in Cuba recovering from cancer treatment are unable to get the kind of palliative treatment that would alleviate the pain they suffer. That is absolutely inhumane.
However, it is more than that. It is not just the economic blockade which has been intensified. In the last few months, President Bush established the Commission for Transition in Cuba. That Commission was under the direction of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. It drew on the expertise of various sections within the United States administration and specified what is really a post‑invasion plan for Cuba at the core of which is a massive privatisation programme that would attack education and health specifically. That is something that we must be absolutely opposed to.
On November 6, the TUC, together with the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, is organising a trade union conference which will give an opportunity for people to learn about the role of trade unions in Cuba, to learn about the social gains that have been made within Cuba and a massive opportunity for us to develop practical solidarity between the TUC and the CTC.
I hope every union, like mine, will participate and be involved in that programme. We should leave this Congress with the kind of united response which was affirmed last year when we expressed our opposition to the blockade by the United States of America. I think we should echo the words of President Roger Lyons in his response to Pedro Ross Leal’s magnificent speech, when he said: 'We want to strengthen the fraternal and sororal relations between the TUC and the CTC.'
We should leave this Congress with a determined resolution to defy the blockade that is being conducted. We should call for an end of that blockade for the defence of Cuba’s sovereignty. Hand off Cuba. Solidarity with the Cuban workers.
Brendan Barber (General Secretary) : Congress, may I begin by saying I am happy to accept the point that has been made and accept that the wording in this particular paragraph was clumsy and was open to misinterpretation. We entirely accept that the Cuban Government and trade union Movement do not support slavery or death squads in Colombia or anything of that sort.
However, Congress, there are differences of perspective between the TUC and other members of the workers’ group in the ILO and the CTC. The report referred to some of those issues and we need to continue to discuss those. However, what today’s historic address by Pedro has been about is demonstrated in the growing friendship between the British Trade Union Movement and our Cuban colleagues.
The TUC wants to explore too whether our influence can be used to promote a wider dialogue between the CTC and the wider international trade union family. As part of that, we are organising the conference in November jointly with the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. We have also been stepping up our efforts in opposing without any equivocation the totally unjustified US blockade and aggression against Cuba and pressing our Government for action and for action from the European Union as well.
Congress, I think this has been an exceptional year for our work on Cuba and Pedro’s presence here this week, I think, is testimony to that. Let us now take that work forward positively together.
Judician Review on the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003
The President: We come to Motion 20. General Council support the motion with a reservation.
Mary Page (NASUWT) moved Motion 20.
(Insert Motion 20 ‑ Judicial Review on the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003)
She said: I am a member of the TUC’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Committee. Last year, we passed a motion calling on the TUC to co‑ordinate a legal challenge to the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Thank you to all of you who generously responded to that call.
The unions who took the challenge to the High Court are mentioned in the motion, but many others contributed to the fighting fund. Lesbian and gay trade unionists can be proud of the stance that all our unions are taking. Whilst we did not win on the religious exemption, we can be satisfied that the High Court ruling restricted its interpretation. So were I a teacher in a faith school, I could not now be dismissed because of my sexuality. Congress, a victory for common sense and one in the eye for the religious extremists in the Evangelical Alliance.
The challenge to Regulation 25, which allows discrimination in survivor pension rights, was lost too, but the judge was unsure of his own decision and said he fully expected an appeal. An appeal has been lodged, but the legal position remains extremely complex. However, we need to continue to put pressure on the Government because they are wrong; wrong to exclude same sex couples from the right to leave their partner a survivor pension.
I have been with my partner for 25 years, so this is an issue close to my heart. At the end of August, I resigned from full‑time work, from full‑time teaching, and began to draw my pension. If I die on the way home this evening, she will not receive one penny from the pension fund I have paid into for 32 years. That is not right.
The TUC in the past 12 months has done much to flag up the pension issue. The march and rally in June was one great example. Brendan Barber gave a clear message to London Pride that we will not rest until this injustice is righted. There are moves to amend the Civil Partnership Bill now passing through parliament to give same sex couples the rights married couples enjoy. We need to get our sponsored or supportive MPs to sign up to that early ^ day motion. Get your MPs to support the amendment when it comes to the Committee stage, but let us keep the pressure on the Government through the legal channels as well. Let us send a clear message to the Government that we will not go away and make sure that I and thousands of others can know their partner will be financially safe after our deaths.
At the LGBT conference in July, I asked the Equalities Minister, Jackie Smith, if she considered my situation to be fair and she said, 'No, but lots of things in life are unfair.' Earthquakes and hurricanes are unfair; the bad weather we have had this week is unfair; growing old is unfair, but they are acts of nature. They cannot be changed, but unfair laws are acts of government and they can and must be changed.
I want to end by going back in history. I think it was exactly 20 years ago, I think perhaps in this very town at TUC Congress, the general secretary of a major trade union ‑‑ it is no longer extant ‑‑ when discussing the reasons for Labour’s defeat in the 1983 election put the blame on what he said was its 'preoccupation with lesbians and other queer folk'.
We have come an awful long way together since then, so please support this motion and give us, lesbians, and other queer folk the full rights and equality we deserve!
Emmet O’Brien (PCS) seconding Motion 20 said: Like the TUC, PCS has played its part in ensuring pensions has become a key political issue. Equality in pensions has to be a key part of that campaign. PCS is clear that the injustice lesbian and gay members face in pensions is unacceptable. PCS is proud to be party to the legal campaign.
PCS saw the Sexual Orientation Regulations as a major step forward in the fight for equality, but the Government were wrong to include Regulation 25. That allowed discrimination to continue based on marital status.
PCS has reservations about the Civil Partnership Bill as it creates a two‑tier system in the UK of recognising relationships, marriage for heterosexuals and civil partnership for same sex couples. However, we will work with our supporting MPs to get that Bill amended around the issues of pensions to ensure equality with married couples.
The trade union Movement has been at the forefront of taking equality forward and challenging injustices that are recognised by the LGBT community. The issue of the same sex pension rights is, after all, a number one priority for lesbian and gay members in the trade union Movement. Certainly, my own LGBT group, PCS ^^ Pride and PCS, is heavily involved in the campaigning. The work we have done for the lesbian and gay community is also noted.
We have heard yesterday that the Civil Partnership Bill is being delayed because the Right Rev. Ian Paisley wants to explain to parliament that there are no lesbian and gay people in Northern Ireland. It might be interesting to find out how he actually knows that. Let us wait and see. It is notable that there were thousands of people that attended the Belfast Pride march this summer and we were there with the PCS banner. This appears to disprove his own theory. Let us wait and see what happens.
We need to keep this issue at the top of the trade union agenda, united in that campaign to win pensions equality for lesbian and gay couples. Let us mobilise the Trade Union Movement in this campaign. Lobby our MPs to support an amendment to the Civil Partnership Bill on pension rights.
Nick Rowe (Accord) speaking in support of the motion said: I very much welcome the spirit of the motion that calls for solidarity and co‑ordination in looking for the best possible opportunity to achieve equality in the field of pensions.
My employer is Halifax Bank of Scotland. We have a concept called 'Total reward', a benefit package jointly agreed and supported between the union and the employer that reflects a number of key elements of remuneration. This year has seen the production of Total Reward statements by the bank sent to all staff members to underpin the context and help colleagues understand and appreciate their benefit package. The pension element forms part of the analysis. Pensions are, after all, deferred pay. We contribute to them as do, in some cases, some of our employers. We should all be treated equally within them.
Some pension schemes recognise same sex partnerships, but most do not. In the pensions debate yesterday, we heard adjectives such as 'outrageous', 'indefensible' and 'socially unjust' to describe the pensions crisis in the UK. These adjectives are just as valid, just as appropriate, to describe the current state of affairs for the provision of equal pension benefits to lesbian and gay workers. We need to find a remedy to end this inequality.
The conference report draws attention to the cross‑campaigning around the legal challenge and the proposals contained within the Government Civil Partnership Bill as it is difficult to see Regulation 25 in isolation. However, if the provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill become law, given where it is at present with the potentially wrecking Tory amendment, there will be no retrospection to survivor benefits in occupational schemes.
So where exactly does this leave us? Technically speaking, I believe the description is 'up Pooh Creek without a paddle' with long, continuous serving contributions to pension funds failing to be recognised prior to the introduction of the Bill for survivor benefits. Potentially, we could also see existing schemes that do recognise same sex partners acting regressively and reverting to restricting benefits.
The President in his opening address said, in reference to the pig with the somewhat surprised look on its face, used in the TUC’s pension rally, in its tendency to take off, proof that pigs will fly before employers get to grips with the pensions crisis. Well, may I also add that the securing of equal non‑discriminatory pension provision should not be pork pie in the sky for our members.
Brendan Barber (General Secretary) : The General Council strongly supports the thrust of this motion and the demand that it makes for action on this gross injustice, but the General Council has asked me to indicate one point of reservation.
As the motion records, five unions, Amicus, NASUWT, PCS, RMT and UNISON, have pursued a legal challenge to the exemption in the Sexual Orientation Regulations on pension rights for same sex partners. The case is currently listed for a Court of Appeal hearing in December this year.
The motion also acknowledges that the TUC is still pursuing the possibility with the Government of agreeing a favourable amendment on this issue to the Civil Partnership Bill currently completing its passage through the House of Commons. The General Council urges all affiliated unions to support such an amendment.
However, as Congress will recognise, it is, of course, a matter for all of the individual unions concerned to make final decisions on any further legal action and carrying the motion cannot prejudge those decisions. On that basis, I ask you to support the motion.
The President: The General Council supports the motion with the reservation.
* Motion 20 was CARRIED.
Europe
General Council Statement on Europe
The President: The General Council has agreed a statement on Europe and I will be calling Kevin Curran to move the General Council’s statement.
Kevin Curran (General Council) leading in on chapter 6 of the General Council Report said: I am moving the General Council’s statement on Europe and giving the General Council’s attitude to the composite motion.
The debate over the European constitution is likely to be a long one and the referendum is over a year away, possibly longer. Everyone agrees that we should not adopt a position on the referendum too early. Most people, I think, agree that now would be too early.
That is a pretty simple position. It is a pretty unanimous position. It is the reason that this is an historically short General Council’s statement. Going into more detail and expressing a view one way or the other, negative or positive, would only pre-empt the debate, which is not one which could be resolved in the space of a Congress debate, not this year anyway. That is why the General Council’s statement takes out of the composite motion and the amendments the bits we can agree on that do not pre-empt the debate, and that keeps the trade union Movements’ powder dry.
The General Council, therefore, welcomes the decision of the movers of the amendment to withdraw and we would very much like the movers of the composite to either remit or withdraw too.
Bob and Steve, we are not going to ask you to do it without addressing Congress. That is clearly your right. I know Congress always enjoys listening to Bob’s contributions. We would not want to deprive you of that. However, that is where the General Council’s 'nice guy' act ends because I am afraid the General Council will be urging Congress to oppose the composite, if it is not remitted.
We want to unite our position with colleagues, not divide, and the more we say for or against the constitutional treaty at this stage, the more scope for disagreement and disunity there is. We would like you to vote for the General Council’s statement. We would like the composite remitted or, if not, then we would, with regret, urge you to vote against it, but at this stage let us not be for or against the constitution.
Europe
(Insert Composite Motion 17 - Europe)
Bob Crow (RMT) : We are asking conference here today to accept the General Council’s statement as well as our resolution. It is a shame really that we are debating this resolution so late in the day with such consequences. Year after year, we are putting off a debate that really affects workers’ rights fundamentals which are what this conference stands for.
Not being personal, I find it hard that Sebastian Coe can come here in his former life, trying to get the Olympic Games in London, when that same bloke sat in Parliament for five years carrying out anti‑trade union legislation against you, and now you allow him back here to speak!
Let us make it clear why the RMT is speaking at the rostrum. Some people might say, 'Well, you are not really a manufacturing union, Bob, are you?' We are not, but I will tell you what is going on with our members right the way across Europe. It is the liberalisation of the railway network, all the freight to be liberalised by 2006 and all the passenger train services to be liberalised by 2008.
Some people believe, and I believe, that 'liberalisation' means 'free'. It is not 'free'. Liberalisation is privatisation, but they hate the word so much, they will not even use it. It is not free to you. There is not one person in this room, not one of your relatives, not one of the pensioners, who can put his hands in his pocket and buy the railways of Europe. It is going to be given to the billionaires, the big businesses of Europe and multinationals to run the railways in a worse state than they tried to run the British railways at this time.
That is what 'liberalisation' stands for. It stands for the destruction of the shipping industry, the fishing industry and the steel industry. If anyone believes that there is some illusion that this great European Union is going to give you workers’ rights, that one morning you are going to wake‑up and get it, you are living in cloud‑cuckoo land. We want the debate for and against the constitution.
Why should we, as a trade union, want to stop something that is going to give workers better rights? But it’s not, is it? You are not going to stop shoes and trainers being made in China as a result of the European Union. The only way you are going to prevent that kind of happening is by getting Chinese workers to help to get the same wages as British workers to stop them moving the manufacture of their shoes and trainers.
The fact is we have been accused in the union that all we are concerned about is keeping the Queen’s head on a £10 note. Let me make it quite clear. I couldn’t care less whether the Queen’s head or the Queen’s backside is on the £10 note. You can pay me in rubles or in shekels -- you can pay me in what you want -- but I will tell something. You are here this week taking democratic decisions on behalf of your union to carry those views forward. If you are not going to have an economic policy any more, if you are not going to have a policy in government any more and if you are not going to have a policy on the army any more, then you are not a government any more because you cannot control your own destiny.
Whether the Conservatives, Labour or Liberals are in power, you, as independent citizens, can have a say. Who you are going to hand it over to are the likes of Mandleson who has been appointed a European Commissioner. Some of you might say you are going to get workers’ rights out of the European Union. Well, you are not, because if you look at the 900‑page document, and I do not profess to have read the whole 900‑page document, it says it will be left to the domestic legislation whether you have those laws or not. So it is back where you started. The repeal of the anti‑trade union laws has not come in and Europe can decide what they want, but you are not going to have the laws that you want unless you repeal them in this country.
The fact of the matter is that we want decent rights. You do not have to tell me about solidarity. You have had the Columbians here this week, you have had the Cubans here this week, Israelis and Palestinians; why does it have to be Europe? Why can’t it be the world that we are supposed to look after in the form of unity for the workers?
I ask people not to get fooled that you cannot have debates at conference. That is the reason why people are falling asleep so much this week because there have not been the debates that we should be having year in, year out!
I ask people to have a look at the General Council’s statement. It has been extracted from our resolution anyway, so support the General Council’s statement. Let us have a proper debate next year and let us not keep on worrying about that general election coming before we take decisions. Let us take decisions in this Trade Union Congress for working people and not start worrying about what political parties are doing. Put the workers’ interests first and let us have a proper debate on the European Union Constitution.
Steve Kemp (NUM) seconding Composite 17 said: Let me make two things clear at the start of my contribution. Firstly, we also, like Bob’s union, do not have a problem with the General Council’s statement. Secondly, if this composite would have contained any reference for us, as a trade union movement, to oppose Britain being in Europe, then we would not have touched in any way, shape or form the original motion submitted by the RMT.
That is not to criticise unions like RMT who are sceptical with regard to Europe and, indeed, other unions that are pro‑Europe. This is because the NUM, and I would suspect many other trade unions, have not formed a formal position on the proposed constitution for the European Union. I would admit, along with Bob, that I am baffled by some colleagues outside of this conference in their hostility to this motion. No doubt, in a few minutes Kevin is going to tell me where I have gone wrong in that, but for the motion itself, it does not seem either to oppose the proposed constitution or, indeed, support it.
It calls for this Congress to note that there are genuine concerns about the constitution, that we should welcome the proposal for a referendum and, in particular, what the NUM supports is that at long last after the scaremongering, false and not genuine views of the right wing media and others, we can now have a genuine and constructive debate on this important issue. I am staggered that we are not going to have that here today.
The composite gives power to the General Council to look at the impact of the proposed constitution. What the hell is wrong with that? I warn Congress that if it is the intention not to have the debate and not to take on the concerns of the people, then we will be seen as the ones who are attempting to stifle discussions on this very question, because there are legitimate concerns by trade union members.
It is a disgrace on such an important issue that once again this issue has been media‑led. It has been a frenzy; both sides of the argument, to‑ing and fro‑ing, while some members of our Movement have been left as the proverbial piggy‑in‑the‑middle wondering who to believe.
We are set for the debate, I thought we were, at long last, and in the near future the people of this country will decide. Thirty million householders could be getting a copy of the constitution. We welcome that. The Minister for Europe confirmed from the Despatch Box last week that the constitution is an international treaty and that Britain can withdraw from international treaties. This is one of the many fears that trade unionists have throughout Britain.
I am not suggesting that Minister was telling lies, but I want those questions, questions that are there in the workplaces, to be scrutinised, answered and advice given by the TUC and the General Council. Nothing, surely, can be wrong with that.
Doug Nicholls (CYWU) : As this debate continues over the coming months, we should expect from the TUC the highest quality objective assessment. We do not want spin. We want accurate, unbiased briefings looking at reality and not the song of the sirens. What the General Council has given us so far is biased, partial and ill‑informed.
The General Council report says that the EU is a full employment economy. This does not explain why unemployment in the Euro zone is double hours at 9 per cent and at one stage, as the Maastricht criteria struck, it was equivalent to the entire populations of Belgium, Denmark and Ireland being out of work.
The General Council Report says that the constitution gives legislation protection to public services. It does not. The terms of convergence for the Euro remain and the legislation they are proposing is, in fact, to open up health and education - the richest prizes to privatisation.
Often, the significant thing about General Council Reports is what they leave out. There is no mention in the report or the statement of manufacturing. Under the constitution, we would not be able to have an independent national industrial strategy to rebuild domestic energy supply and factories. Even Government procurement across the board will have to be subject to even more competition.
However, the General Council is silent on the very biggest issues tied up in the proposed constitution, the economy and government. The General Council should look at economic reality a bit. We are the fourth largest economy in the world, which means that in real terms only 48 per cent of our exported goods and services are traded with the EU. However, if we look at what we produce and buy and sell as a whole, we trade 10 per cent with the EU, 11 per cent with the rest of the world and about 80 per cent within our own domestic economy. As the Chancellor continually warns us, the EU is still the lowest growth area and all eggs in that basket would be fatal.
However, an economy has to be managed and the General Council is not getting to the political heart of the matter. Even the proponents of the new constitution describe it as 'the capstone of an EU federal state'. In a federal state, a national state loses the basic right of self‑government, a right which our predecessors and many of our guests here have spilt their blood for.
Until now, independent governments in Europe have been relating to each other through various treaties, but the constitution is a new instrument of government with power over them all, described best as the biggest slow motion coup d’etat in history. Under an EU constitution, Westminster becomes a subsidiary, an implementor of laws, exclusively initiated by unelected commissioners and subservient to economic policies made by the unelected bankers and invented by the Chicago School monetarists.
We all want a third term of a government we elect and help to direct. An EU constitution would not allow that.
Tony Dubbins (GPMU): I have been at this rostrum on a number of occasions at TUC conferences arguing very strongly on a pro‑European line. That has been our union’s position and it remains it. However, let us be clear, this constitution is very difficult and it is a very sensitive thing that we are dealing with now. I am not too far away from what Steve Kemp said, because I understand people’s concerns about it. I believe that people need to be assured of what that constitution actually contains.
I have to be honest, I am not sure what the constitution contains at the moment. I am certainly not sure what the implications of the constitution are. I will say something else as well. I do not think our government has helped in this debate very much. I really do not. The kind of line they were taking on fundamental issues, particularly social questions and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I do not believe has been reassuring to working people in this country.
So I understand what Bob says about workers’ concerns. It is right that those workers’ concerns should be addressed and it is right that they should be assured. However, they will not be assured by going down this path.
The comments of Jack Straw were most unhelpful for all of us because the gloss that was put on that by the Government, in terms of the social implications and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, has created difficulties, and rightly so, for all.
You heard what Brendan said earlier in this week. He pointed out in the article he produced: 'Do not confuse the matters.' Our anger with the Government’s attitude about the Charter of Fundamental Rights should not become opposition to the constitution itself. We need to have a look at that constitution. There are different views on it.
Brian Bercusson, the well‑known professor of Labour law who specialises in European issues, takes a very positive view of the Charter and argues the Government do not have the guarantees they sought. On the other hand, Robert Taylor, who is an entirely pro‑European journalist, has doubts about the Charter itself and doubts about the implications.
The problem with the resolution is it is pre‑emptive and it is Euro‑sceptic. I do not think that will help the debate. I do not think anybody who listened to Bob today could have any doubts that Bob’s view of this is that we should not be in Europe anyway, and I understand that view.
However, I want the General Council to have a good look at this debate. I want our members to take part in this debate. I do not want debates stifled. I believe that would be the wrong approach. I hope when we have that debate we can have it on the basis of us in the trade union Movement treating each other with some dignity, respecting each other’s views and not conducting the debate in the way that the Sun and the Daily Mail do. So I hope you support the General Council’s statement and oppose this resolution.
Faiz Ibrahim (NATFHE) : I am very happy on behalf of my union to have this opportunity to support Composite 17. It is argued that the European Constitution will bring forward workers’ rights and improved conditions. Brendan Barber in his address to us on Monday said there are two options, two roads. We have the American model and we have the European model. There is a third way but it is not the Blairite third way, which has been discredited. There is the socialist model where those who produce the wealth in a nation own the wealth they produce. However, the European Constitution does not offer this. What we have is the European model.
Even if this is what we aspire to, and in spite of its inadequacies, why is it we are told we cannot have it unless we sign for a new European Constitution? Why is it we cannot achieve what that European model aspires to through the normal way that we achieve and secure all improvements, namely, by struggles here? Why do we have to sell our soul in order to get an improvement?
There is more to the European model than meets the eye. In fact, it is being used in a similar way to a piece of cheese in a mousetrap. People are not mice. They will see through it and will not bite.
The referendum on the European constitution will be dominated by the issue of our sovereignty, our right to determine our own affairs in this country. The fact that the European constitution will undermine our ability to determine our own affairs is almost indisputable. In fact, if you look at page 72 of the General Council Report, it is stated there the manner in which that constitution will give powers to the EU Commission over and above what we can do in this country.
The question of sovereignty is as non‑negotiable as the right to strike for a trade union. It is not a second‑hand car that can be traded in. It is non‑negotiable. It is important that a country should keep a sovereignty to make its own decisions. It is not up for sale.
The President: Does the RMT want to take up its right of reply?
Bob Crow (RMT) : I have one point on Tony’s contribution. That is exactly what we wanted, Tony. We actually want to have the merits and demerits of people’s views. As I said before, we do not know ourselves whether it is good for us or not, but we are sceptical about some of the points that we have examined. That is the question we are putting up at this moment in time. At the end of the day, we want a thorough debate throughout the trade union Movement on what is going to be the best advantage for British workers as they go in the future to trade.
The resolution for the General Council, if you look at it, is two paragraphs extracted from the original RMT resolution. All the RMT resolution would do, if you accept the composite with the NUM’s position, is basically put the microscope on certain points that the RMT has looked at. That is what it is all about at the end of the day.
We would ask people here today; we do not expect people to make a judgment on a 900‑page document by a few people getting up here and making contributions from the rostrum. However, what we would say is let us have this proper debate and put the microscope on the things that affect us.
All I would say at this moment in time is what we have seen for our railway workers throughout the length and breadth of Europe. German railway workers are telling us now in they have been privatised, they have lost 50,000 jobs within 18 months. Workers in Italy have witnessed thousands of jobs going as a result of liberalisation. Right across the board, railway workers are having privatisation forced on them all on the basis of a step‑by‑step process of privatisation, liberalisation and the effect of the constitution.
I would have rather a debate than waking up in two, three or four years, coming to this Congress and we are all sitting here worrying about how many jobs we are losing as a result of it and how workers’ rights have not come in.
We have no problem or worry at all about passing the composite. You can pass the composite and you can pass the General Council’s statement because those two paragraphs have been extracted from the original RMT resolution.
Kevin Curran (General Council) in exercising his right of reply on the General Council statement, said: I told you that you would enjoy Bob’s contribution, colleagues. I cannot think of too many of us in the room who can in a debate on the European constitution mention the peer of the realm and the Queen’s bum in the same sentence. We obviously respect Bob’s views and we respect Steve’s views, and we respect the views of everyone in this room, and we respect the views of affiliates, and we recognise they are different, and we recognise the need to have an informed debate, and to take it away from the right-wing press and their reactionary views. There is a balanced debate to be had. It is not about the Queen’s anatomy, it is about the future of the people of Europe, and our social agenda. Bob referred to workers’ rights, which concerned us all, and he also referred to the fact that Seb Coe was in the House of Commons supporting any trade union during those wilderness years. I remember during those wilderness years turning to Europe for some succour for the defence of workers’ rights, and from that period we obtained the health and safety laws, a period when we had a reactionary government and health and safety laws that looked after the interests of British workers.
So, we do need a balanced debate. Steve said he is looking forward to me correcting his view or correcting his misapprehensions about the case. That is not for me to do, Steve. I am not here to put anybody right, nor is the General Council. We recognise and respect the fact that a number of affiliates here have not come to a position on this issue. We do want the debate, of course we want the debate, but we want an informed debate and it is part of our responsibility to have an informed debate and to take full cognizance of that. Doug was saying that he does not want the General Council to stifle debate and he does not want spin. Again, it is not our intent to stifle any point of view or, indeed, to indulge in spin. The constitutional treaty as it stands is not a perfect document, it never will be, and it will not have all we want to see, but we are going to have the debate, we are going to have a referendum, and affiliates here will no doubt take a full part in it. Tony referred to his position as an affiliate and he understands people’s concerns about it, and we share those concerns. Bob is quite right in his right of reply, he wants a thorough debate, we want a thorough debate. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the need to have a thorough debate about this very very important issue.
I refer you back to the Council’s statement where it says, 'have the opportunity to consider in depth and assess its impact on key issues such as the rights of working people to decent work, the national democratic right of member states, public services, and equality.' Colleagues, I urge you to support the General Council’s Statement.
The President: Thank you.
· The General Council’s Statement was CARRIED
· Composite Motion 17 was LOST
The President: (Sounds of dissent from the floor) It is an overwhelming vote, at least 2:1, I can assure you of that; it was not close at all. On that basis, we have completed our business for the day.
(Congress adjourned until 9.30 tomorrow morning)
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox