Decisions National Affiliated Political Forum 2002

Decisions

National AffiliatedPolitical Forum 2002

Macintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Decisions APF Forum 2002.doc 1

PUBLIC SERVICES

‘This Forum welcomes the extra resources recently committed to public

services by the Labour Government. However, we do not believe that public

services will be improved by PFI, PPP schemes or an increased role for the

private sector. on the contrary, such schemes have been clearly shown to

be inefficient and unsafe and to increase inequality within our society. While

PFI refinancing deals are netting contractors multi-million pound windfalls,

an opinion poll commissioned by UNISON shows that 83% of the public do

not want their public services run for profit. We will continue to campaign

vigorously against all forms of privatisation and congratulate the TUC on

organising Public Works Day, a rally in celebration of public services and

public service workers in Central Hall, Westminster on 4 December 2001.

Such campaigning should not be restricted to general celebrations of

existing public services or to the defence of particular groups currently

threatened with privatisation. It should also relentlessly expose the injustice

of private profiteering from public need and campaign for public ownership

to be positively extended.

This Forum also believes that the Government should work to agreed long

term plans to increase investment in staff and our national infrastructure,

celebrating the successes of public services. Effective reform and

modernisation will come from within the public services, tapping into existing

experience, skills and expertise.

This Forum expresses full support for UNISON’S Positively Public campaign

and will work with UNISON MPs, MSPs and AMs and through Labour’s

Policy Forums to:

i) oppose privatisation in all its forms, arguing in favour of direct service

provision;

ii) highlight private sector failures to deliver quality services to the

public;


iii) ensure effective co-ordination of our work in Scotland, Wales and the

English regions and with service groups and self organised groups;

iv) maximise and highlight the support within the Labour Party and the

public for public services and UNISON’s position;

v) co-operate with other affiliated unions e.g. the TGWU, the GMB, the

rail unions, UCATT and the CWU opposed to privatisation;

vi) develop a reform agenda within the public sector to prove that

existing staff hold the key to further improvement;

vii) and instructs the General Secretary to write to all MPs urging support

for Early Day Motion 503. This Forum undertakes to publicise

responses in each constituency.’

In particular, we call upon the NAPC to ensure that UNISON and all its

Labour Party representatives oppose all forms of privatisation, and that

UNISON demands of this year’s Labour Party Conference both an end to

privatisation and PFIs and also the full public funding of our vital public

services.


PUBLIC SERVICES

Forum notes the stated commitment of the Government to improve our

public services, but does not believe that this can be achieved through

increasing the role of the private sector. The Government continues to use

privatisation as a tool for breaking up local government and other public

organisations.

Forum remains committed to the public service ethos and believes

improvements can only be made in partnership with service users and with

the commitment and involvement of staff with decent pay and conditions of

service, and their trade unions.

Forum deplores the fact that in England, unlike Wales and Scotland,

hospitals seen to be “failing” could have private management imposed, and

that “successful” hospitals can effectively opt out the NHS and develop an

autonomous role.

Forum believes that the promotion of externalisation, housing stock transfer,

sell off, private finance and private partnerships has led to the demise of

quality public services. Forum’s experience is that citizens receive reduced

services, quality falls and staff have their pay, sickness and holiday benefits,

pensions and all other conditions of service cut.

The Forum agrees to campaign for:-

1. Recognition that quality Public Services require investment in decent

pay and conditions of Public Servants.

2. Labour Leaders to recognise the failure of the market economy to

deliver good Public Services and to end their slavish support for

policies that support big business against the interests of Public

Service.

3. A massive investment in public spending, the Health Service,

democratically accountable and directly provided local services and

an end to PFI and outsourcing.


4. The immediate cessation of the plans to privatise (or part privatise)

London Underground, Air Traffic Control and no privatisation of the

Postal Service.

5. Re-nationalisation of the railways for the sake of an integrated

transport system and the safety of the public thus allowing all monies

which are currently identified as profits are reinvested into the

service.

6. The Probation Service - the latest target for 'outsourcing', where

some three hundred of our members in Hostels particularly will be

drafted onto the private, profit-making sector.’

7. The Government to state clearly that it will refuse to enter into any

agreement under the General Agreement on Trade in Services which

obliges it to introduce liberalisation or privatisation of any public

services.

8. A moratorium on further progress with GATS until all its impacts are

fully assessed.


POST OFFICE PRIVATISATION

Postal services are a key part of the United Kingdom’s economicinfrastructure, providing a vital means of communication between citizens,business and government. The postal services market in the UnitedKingdom provides a universal service at a uniform tariff, which should bemaintained.

The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons produced areport on 1st May 2002 raising serious concerns about the future of ourpostal services.

The most serious concerns are

a) the announcement of 15,000 job losses with a possible further

15,000 depending on whether other financial savings can be

made. This is unsettling for the whole workforce without whom a

service cannot be provided

b) plans to open services to competition faster than the rest ofEurope allowing private companies to cherry pick the profitablebits.

c) Consignia is considering abandoning its target of delivering mailto domestic customers before 9.30 a.m and to all parts of thecountry at a constant price.

The National Affiliated Political Forum expresses its full support to theCommunication Workers Union in opposing these plans.

The National Affiliated Political Committee agrees to campaign for theimmediate cessation of plans to privatise all or any part of the PostalServices.


LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

This Forum pays tribute to the staff in Public Services.

‘The Forum welcomes the increase in total resources for Local Government,

and the continuing priority given to education. It calls on the Labour

Government to increase funding into Local Government and Health

Services. (This funding to be real cash, rather than PFI credits or similar tied

funding).

It expresses regrets that there were no extra resources for personal social

care beyond those already announced last year.

It condemns the apparent increase in ring-fenced funding despite a

commitment in the Local Government White Paper to limit these grants.

It expresses its concern over the knock-on effects of education and social

transfers on authorities, which do not carry out these functions, such as

shire districts.

It is very concerned at the proposals for area cost adjustment and calls for

Government funding between regions to be levelled up rather than levelled

down.

It regrets that the increase in resources devoted to personal social care

have not been increased by any more than the forecast totals in the 2000

spending review. This comes at a time when our UNISON members are

reporting severe and increasing levels of demand for social services,

particularly for children and the elderly. It is reported that local authorities

are spending more than £1bn over total SSA in order to meet this demand.

This Forum calls on the National Affiliated Political Committee to lobby the

Government to rethink its plans and put more resources into personal social

care as a matter of urgency.’


BEST VALUE

‘This body recognises the current review of the Best Value regime (which

requires Local Authorities to fundamentally review all of its services over a

five year period) and notes that the recently published Government White

Paper – Local Leadership Quality Public Services – does not address the

current requirement of Best Value to achieve year-on-year efficiency

savings. In the light of these circumstances, the government review body is

urged to accept the following amendment to the policy.

That the requirement to achieve year-on-year efficiency savings be

removed as a requirement of the philosophy.’


PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE

‘Whilst still being totally opposed to PFI/PPP in any form. We endorse the

twin track approach and call upon the NAPC to campaign for major reforms

of PFI. These reforms to include: -

i. No staff to transfer under PFI all staff to be seconded over for the

period of the contract.

ii. Terms and Conditions to be protected for the term of the contract.

iii. Pensions to be protected for the term of the contract.

iv. Local Authorities to be given the right to borrow money from banks

for large projects.

v. Local Authorities be allowed to compete for the right to bid on a level

playing field.

vi. Hospital PFI should only be funded if there will be no reduction in

services or beds as a result of the scheme or to pay for the

repayment costs.

vii. Financial Accounting for PFIs should be brought into line with Public

Accounting. No more assumed savings in the private sector or

inflated risk assessments for public sector.

viii. Unions should have a right to see all information relevant to the PFI

on request, not wait several months.

ix. Unions to be involved before bids are forwarded to Treasury.

x. Unions to be included in all consultation.’


COMBATING RACISM

‘This Forum welcomes the reports into the civil disturbances that occurred in

a number of towns in the summer of 2001 and notes the complex range of

social and economic factors which have divided communities and left many

excluded. The Forum condemns the way the British National Party seized

the opportunity to incite racial hatred against Asian communities, using the

politics of hate to try to achieve political success at the ballot box.

We believe that, as the major employer in most communities, and as

community leaders, public authorities have a major role to play in providing

access to employment, in regeneration and in bringing communities

together.

The Forum further notes that although legislation will soon be in place to

implement the EU Employment and Race Directives, further work is needed

to ensure that measures apply across the private as well as public sector.

This Forum welcomes the excellent practical work done by UNISON

regional groups and the Black Members’ Committee to progress the

Equalities agenda and calls on the APF to work through Labour’s National

Policy Forum and links with Government to:

a) further develop policies to boost social cohesion and inclusion,

building on the recommendations in the Cantle report and

Community Cohesion Review;

b) monitor and ensure that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000,

is increasing the employment of members of the Black and Asian

Communities in public authorities;

c) ensure that anti-discrimination legislation is applied effectively to the

private sector.’


PROVISION OF CARE FOR OLDER PEOPLE

‘This conference is greatly concerned over the widespread closures of local

authority residential homes for older people, changing the focus of care for

older people into the private sector. Many local authorities have dressed up

radical changes in the provision of care as a “modernising agenda for

investing in care” but in reality is it the large-scale privatisation of older

people’s care. Private homes are already closing, abandoning care in

favour of property speculation or more profitable line of business, the care

system is at breaking point with inadequate provision of home care, and

hospital beds blocked though lack of residential places. UNISON believes

that well trained and well motivated local authority workforce provides the

best quality care and that QUALITY should be at the heart of service

provision to older vulnerable people.

UNISON believes that public money is urgently needed to improve the

quality of residential homes which have been inadequately funded for many

years.

This Forum believes that means-testing care is degrading and unfair and

currently penalises people with small amounts of savings or assets such as

ownership of their home. It also discriminates against older and disabled

people by requiring them to pay for care which is provided free in other

settings to younger people and those who are not disabled. We note the

different arrangements being proposed in Scotland and believe that there

should be consistency of provision and equitable access to care throughout

the UK, and that such care is no worse than that being proposed in

Scotland.

A further concern is that should this “privatising agenda” be carried through

the private sector providers will be in a position to hold commissioners of

care to ransom. With a quality in house provision commissioners at least

have a comparator in terms of both quality and cost of care.


We ask for the APF to campaign on behalf of the most vulnerable to ensure

that quality care provision run by Local Authorities is at the heart of every

local authority and encompasses home care, day care, residential and extra

care accommodation.

“Furthermore this Forum welcomes the introduction of free nursing care for

older people introduced in Scotland through the Scottish Parliament from

July 2002.

This Forum should also be aware that the private sector in Scotland is in

decline and those private sector providers still in business are holding the

statutory bodies to ransom in relation to the fees they are demanding and,

as a consequence, are placing a heavy financial burden on local authorities

and a significant anxiety for older people and their families who currently

use these.”


OUR NHS

‘All grades of staff in the National Health Service are committed to providing

high quality services to patients. Motivation of staff is key to the

revitalisation of the NHS.

Announcements by the Secretary of State to “redefine the NHS from a

centrally run monopoly” and “time to let go” and “the last great nationalised

industry” flies in the face of discussions with UNISON’s General Secretary

Dave Prentis which had indicated progress for our members employed in

the NHS.

This Forum cannot support the pronouncements from the Government

about its proposals to ‘privatise’ failing and successful NHS hospitals. When

making speeches leading labour party figures should recognise that by

excluding references to some NHS workers it does not help the process or

encourage the concept of team work that is vital to motivate staff in the NHS

We believe that quality public services are best provided by public service

workers. This policy change will not only prove to be detrimental to National

Health Services but is taking the heart out of UNISON public service

workers who have, to this point, supported the Labour Party.

This Forum calls on the government to listen to people working at all levels

within the NHS rather than pursuing pre-determined solutions such as

private management trusts, Foundation Hospitals and PFI schemes which

result in a two tier workforce.

We ask, as a matter of urgency, that the National Affiliated Political

Committee does everything in its power to see this proposal withdrawn.


TRADE UNION RIGHTS

‘This Forum acknowledges the limited measures taken by the Labour

Government to extend employment rights

The Forum regrets, however, that in the Prime Minister’s own words, British

Law remains “the most restrictive on Trade Unions in the Western World”,

and recent court judgements on the definition of a Trade Dispute and

Industrial Action balloting requirements have made the situation even

worse. The Forum further deplores his condemnation of the lawful strike by

RMT members on South West trains and other rail companies. The present

Government still sometimes seems to pay more attention to the special

pleadings of the CBI (e.g. for a 2 – tier workforce) than to the just

representations of Britain’s loyal but long-suffering Trades Unions”.

The UK remains in breach of Internationally accepted standards on Trade

Union Rights including ILO conventions 87 and 98 and, more specifically,

the European Charter of 1961, Article 8 of which provides for the right to

strike.

The Forum will campaign for the following measures within the Labour Party

and within the Trade Union Movement as a whole to be implemented by this

Labour Government as a matter of priority:

1) Removal of the blanket prohibition on all forms of secondary action;

2) The definition of a Trade Dispute broadened to include social,

economic, health and safety and political issues;

3) The law amended so that the Contract of Employment is suspended

during a dispute rather than leading to an automatic breach of

contract and the possibility of dismissal;

4) The right to strike upheld as a fundamental human right for all

workers and not undermined by the Government of the day.

Furthermore we challenge the Labour Government to affirm its

commitment to uphold the right to strike for all workers, public and

private sector;


5) The right not to be discriminated against on grounds of union

membership together with the right to be represented by a union and

seek collective bargaining;

6) Full recognition with any employer where a majority of employees are

members of the union or vote for such recognition;

7) A Trade Union be allowed to uphold its own rule book and

democratic procedures and spend its funds and conduct its own

activities in accordance with the rules and free from employer and

Government interference;

8) The right for workers to peacefully picket at all appropriate locations

where their work is, or related operations are, carried out; removing

the current restrictions on ‘mobile workers’ and on so-called

‘secondary picketing’

9) The right to appropriate paid release for trades union duties and

activities, a fundamental review of the ACAS guidance to time off for

trades union duties and activities and a recognition that such paid

release is an essential element in developing the government's

approach to partnership working.

Further, the Forum calls upon the Labour Party and the Labour Government

to support the Charter of Trade Union Rights published by the Institute of

Employment Rights in March 2001.’

This Forum believes that, if the Government pays proper regard to the basic

rights of workers and their organisations, it will not only enhance its own

chances of re-election but also deserve full credit for helping to build a fairer

society.


PENSIONS

‘This National APF Forum notes with concern the growing trend for

employers to replace final-salary pension schemes with inferior money

purchase arrangements.

The Forum also notes that the new stakeholder pensions are money

purchase arrangements, with inherent investment risks to the members.

This contributes to low take-up, and without compulsion on

employer/employees to pay sufficient contributions, will result in adequate

pension at retirement.

The Forum further notes that:

1) Occupational pension schemes cover only half the workforce, and

half of those are under threat from money purchase arrangements;

2) Inferior schemes for new employees, and poorer arrangements for

those transferred under competition or contracting out, are creating a

‘two-tier workforce,’ and reducing the numbers in the major public

sector pension schemes;

3) Existing union policy calls for pension schemes providing a minimum

income on retirement based on a proportion of final earnings.

The Forum calls upon the APF to work through UNISON MPs and Labour’s

National Policy Forum to press the Labour Government to:

i) legislate to prevent employers unilaterally changing the rules of

existing pension schemes to reduce employee benefits

ii) strengthen regulation to protect transferred workers and ensure

that TUPE legislation covers pension provision and ensures

adequate pension at retirement;

iii) promote the advantages of good final salary pension schemes

and counter the arguments for closing them down.’


ELIGIBILITY FOR LABOUR’S NEC

‘This Forum believes that members of the house of Lords/Second Chamber,

as parliamentarians, should not be eligible for nomination/election to the

constituency section of the Labour Party NEC. We note that an appropriate

rule change/constitutional amendment has been submitted for the next

Labour Party Annual Conference and we urge the NAPC and our

conference delegation to support it.’


INVOLVING RETIRED MEMBERS

‘This Forum is concerned over the exclusion of retired members from taking

any role in the APF at Branch, Region and National level.

There are many retired members that are individual members of the Labour

Party and these members feel frustrated that they are excluded from

participating in the activities of the APF.

This Forum feels we are missing an opportunity to capitalise on a valuable

asset, which could assist in the work of the APF and asks the NAPC to

explore the possibility of allowing some involvement of the retired members

within the APF Section.

The Forum asks that the National APF report back to the 2003 National

APF Forum on recommendations and rule changes where appropriate in

order that the retired members may be included within the APF.’


SOUTH EAST WEIGHTINGS

‘This APF Forum welcomes the Government’s introduction of financial

allowances for Thames Valley police officers, qualified nurses and other

health professionals; to compensate for the high cost of living in the region

as an acknowledgement of the need to provide those working in the public

service with the recognition necessary to secure their loyalty and

commitment. However, while all public sector staff within London receive a

London weighting, the majority of public sector workers in the South-East

receive nothing and struggle to cope with the increasing expenses they

face.

Last year the average Oxfordshire house price of £180,444 exceeded the

average house price in 12 London boroughs and within Oxford the average

price of a terraced house (£182,540) was greater than that in 15 London

boroughs. This has forced public sector workers to live in outlying areas,

resulting in more time and money spent travelling between work and home.

For public sector employers, retention of staff in this context (particularly

where many private sector employers pay a South East weighting) becomes

increasingly difficult. This scenario is replicated across the South East and

areas of Eastern England particularly Essex, Herts and Cambridgeshire.

This APF Forum calls upon the Government to recognise that quality public

services are essential to people’s quality of life, and that these services rely

on the recruitment and retention of a well-trained and committed workforce.

Within the South East, this can only be achieved by recognising that the

ever-increasing cost of living in the area must be met by a fair and realistic

weighting allowance for all public sector workers. It calls upon the National

Political Committee to raise this issue with appropriate ministers, in the

National Policy Forum and elsewhere within the Labour Party, and to

encourage and provide support for members to raise it within local policy

forums and elsewhere at all levels of the Party.’


DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYORS & LOCAL COUNCILS

‘Forum notes that campaigns to promote directly elected mayors are still

taking place in some areas. However, Forum notes that local people have

tended to display little enthusiasm for the idea when they have been

consulted about it (by end January just 6 out of 18 statutory referendums

have produced ‘yes’ votes – with many more rejections in other forms of

local consultation). Forum believes that there are strong arguments against

the adoption of directly elected mayors, including:

• Concentrating power and influence into the hands of just one person

leads to less accountability and transparency

• Directly elected mayors will foster a climate of personality politics rather

than dealing with real issues

• Fears that the vested interests of the private sector will be the likely

winners in more centralised decision-making

• The further removal of powers from ordinary councillors will do little to

promote active engagement in local democratic processes

UNISON therefore believes that the model of directly elected mayors in

local government is fundamentally flawed. Forum calls upon the NAPC to

publicise this policy and to provide support through Regions to branches

and local groups mounting ‘no’ campaigns in local referenda.

Where a mayoral election is triggered and a yes vote is achieved, UNISON

should use all of its influence to ensure an appropriate Labour candidate is

selected and supported, in consultation with local branches.’


Decisions National Affiliated Political Forum 2002

Documents