Swindon Trades Union Council

We Have Moved Sites

2007-06-15T19:21:00.000+01:00

We have moved to http://swindontuc.wordpress.com

2007-06-05T09:33:00.000+01:00

Honda and WH Smith under attack from union

From the Evening Advertiser June 4th 2007

BRITAIN'S biggest union has criticised the treatment of agency workers at Swindon firms. Unite conducted a survey showing how much businesses rely on underpaid temporary staff, who have no job security.

The report showed that two of the town's biggest employers gave temporary workers less pay and time off.

Both Honda and WH Smith came under fire from the newly formed union, made up of Amicus and the Transport And General Workers' Union.

As reported in the Advertiser, Honda announced plans to take on an extra 700 staff in Swindon last September.

But, according to Unite, the firm has now decided that all new recruits must be hired through an agency on a temporary basis to start with.

Permanent staff get £9.62 an hour, but temporary workers are paid less than £8.

Honda's agency staff are also entitled to a third less holiday entitlement. They can take 20 days a year instead of the usual 33 days offered to their colleagues.

Jim D'Avila, the Amicus regional organiser for Swindon, said: "Temporary workers are treated as second class citizens. We are campaigning to ensure agency staff get treated the same as their colleagues.

"Honda advertised that they were taking on workers earning up to £22,000. People will have made applications thinking that £22,000 sounds good, but six months later they only get £14,000."

Mr D'Avila, pictured, said that new staff at Honda had to work as temps for six months first, then they could be put on a probationary contract with Honda for another six months.

"During that whole year they could be let go without any warning at all," he said.

"What this does is make the staff turnover higher, which is not necessarily the best thing for Honda."

Honda spokeswoman Julie Cameron said: "Car manufacturing is extremely competitive and, in order to manage the flexibility required in the sales fluctuations, we choose to recruit our production associates on a temporary to permanent' basis.

"As with all new starters holidays and benefits are accrued related to service. This process has proved extremely successful."

Unite said temps at WH Smith were paid £5.90 an hour, £2 an hour less than permanent workers.

Agency staff get paid the same rates for working overtime, while their permanent colleagues could be paid time and a half or double-time for extra hours.

WH Smith spokeswoman Sarah Heath said the union had got its numbers wrong.

"The figures quoted are not correct," she said. "We do pay the same rates of overtime to temporary staff.

"Temporary staff are also paid a variety of different rates from £5.90 up to over the figure for permanent staff, depending on their skill and the shifts they work."

But WH Smith could not confirm the number of temporary workers currently employed at the Greenbridge stationery firm, or how many were on the higher level of pay.

2007-05-29T14:15:00.000+01:00

Global Warming & Transport

“A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.”
Margaret Thatcher.

“The government has a somewhat contradictory attitude to local transport, on the one hand dictating on major road and public transport projects, while adopting a hands off approach to buses.”
House of Commons Transport Committee

Swindon Trades Union Council, together with Swindon Climate Action Network (SCAN - http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/) is organising a meeting on the theme of Climate Change and Transport on September 5th. This is hoped to be a focus for helping to develop a transport campaign.

It is commonly said that in order to tackle climate change it is necessary to make a significant shift from road to rail and from car to bus, in order to cut emissions. However, our transport system does not take account of the social costs of road transport and the dominance of car use. Whereas the railways have to sustain the cost of maintenance and renewal of their infrastructure, the cost of the road infrastructure is born out of general taxation. So the individual user and businesses do not have to pay the cost of the infrastructure they use. Subsidies for the railways were most often viewed as a ‘burden’ on the tax payer but subsidies for roads were not.

There are many reasons why this shift has not taken place. One of them is the fact that the railways were privatised and the buses were de-regulated. In the case of the railways, so patent has been the failure of privatisation that ‘bringing the railways back into the public sector’ is majority opinion in the country. However, despite the effective collapse of Network Rail, the government left the company as a private one, albeit one which is not quoted on the stock market. It is a ‘not for dividend company’ but even though it relies on government money it is run like a private business and the profit motive remains. The same applies to the rail companies, only more so. Profit is their game regardless of social needs. Moreover, last year the government set service frameworks for the private companies which led them to propose cuts in train services. This led to campaigns around the country against these cuts. In the South West we have seen the crazy situation that because of the concern of the companies to maximise profits, in some areas they have been providing too few carriages for the numbers of people who want to use the service.

Earlier in the year campaigners organised a ticket boycott to highlight the fact that there were insufficient carriages in the service from Bath. The RMT rail union supported the campaign, refusing to collect tickets. (See http://www.moretrainlessstrain.co.uk/ See also http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/ a campaign against cuts in services in Wiltshire) What sense environmentally does it make to drive people back into their cars when they want to use the train?

The profit making basis of the service has led to ticket prices climbing so much that there is a real prospect of people being driven off the rail and back into their cars. The fact that numbers of rail journeys have increased, despite these circumstances, is largely the result of levels of congestion on the roads, especially in the metropolitan areas.

What about the buses?

Road Transport accounted for an estimated 22% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, according to DEFRA. The only larger component, with 37% is the energy industry. In addition road transport is a major source of pollution, including ‘particulates’ which have a detrimental impact on health and is a cost which the NHS has to bear.

The House of Commons Transport Committee report (Bus Services Across the UK, Oct 2006) reached the not too difficult conclusion that Bus Deregulation has been a failure. The bus industry outside London was deregulated by the Transport Act of 1985. Road service licensing was abolished in 1986. Local authorities were no longer permitted to provide ‘blanket support’ for bus services. Deregulation has exacerbated the decline which resulted from the growth of car ownership. As Stephen Joseph of the campaigning group Transport 2000 said in evidence to the committee, real costs of motoring have declined whilst bus fares have been increasing above the rate of inflation.

Since deregulation of the bus industry by Thatcher there has been (outside of London) a decline in bus use. Since 1995-6 local bus journeys outside London have fallen from 2,660 million to 2,315 million. In London they have increased from 1,193 million to 1,810 million.

The Transport Committee says that “Modal shift from car to bus is vital if the United Kingdom is to properly tackle congestion and reduce carbon emissions.” However, as we shall see the proposals of the Transport Committee are timid, and unlikely to drive such a ‘modal shift’.

The current government introduced a Transport Act in 2000, which from February 2001 gave powers to local authorities to enter into ‘Quality Partnerships’ and ‘Quality Contracts’. The latter were supposed to replace open competition with a ‘licensed regime’. However, not a single contract has been entered in to, in large part because of the threat of legal action (Stagecoach considers such agreements would amount to “confiscating our business”).

The approach of the government reflects its philosophical infatuation with the benefits of ‘competition’, and the idea that ‘ownership does not matter’. But the consequences of bus deregulation was precisely what critics of the proposal had predicted: unprofitable routes would be abandoned, and competition would lead to a concentration of ownership into a small number of major companies. Whilst Thatcher’s legislation enabled some routes to be subsidised, only 16% of services receive subsidy today. Moreover, it has become a common feature for companies to pull out of providing services in some areas where the rate of profit is not considered high enough, only for them to tender for them when a local authority has to step in order to provide a subsidy for a socially necessary service.

In London where bus services receive a £550 million subsidy (on contracts worth £1.4 billion) bus usage has increased considerably. Spending on buses per head is £660 in London compared with £230 outside!

Many local authorities, particularly Passenger Transport Executives, argue that operators are earning excessive profits from their bus operations while they shrink their services, raise fares and fail to improve infrastructure. The companies themselves put their return on capital at between 6 and 18% for 2005-6. The Transport Committee recommended that the government commission a study to find the truth. The government has declined to do so since it would be contrary to its free market dogma.

The introduction of concessionary fares has increased the use of buses by between 20 and 100% in some routes according to Bus User UK. The Transport Committee has supported extension of the scheme to children under 16 and those in full-time education because of the benefits in terms of reducing congestion and car usage during the period of the ‘school run’. That said, the Transport Committee says that the concessionary fare scheme is a ‘mess’. Many local authorities believe they have been insufficient finds to carry out the scheme.

The main suggestion of the HCTP is to reform the system of Quality Contracts to make them easier to obtain, whilst indemnifying PTAs and local authorities from the danger of prosecution by bus companies. However, the basic problem remains that a competitive market for buses cannot provide bus services which are socially necessary nor will it produce the ‘modal shift’ necessary from car to bus since the financial pressure which local authorities are under means that they have little money for investing in socially necessary services which are not profitable.

As the HCTC reports, the reason for the decline of bus usage outside of London is the lack of reliability and frequency of bus services and the rising cost of fares. In non-PTE areas on England (using 1995 as 100) prices on local buses rose to 165.9 in 2005/6 (in London it is only 139.7).

Subsidising the private sector

In late March Stroud MP David Drew asked a Parliamentary question requesting a yearly break-down of the Bus Service Operators Grant paid to bus operators since the Transport Act of 2000. It is paid on the basis of how much fuel they use. It turns out that the subsidy (including an estimate for 2006-7) has been £2.5 billion.

RMT union General secretary Bob Crow commented that it was scandalous that private bus companies which are already making mega-profits have been receiving billions of pounds of public money just for burning fuel.

“At a time when there is a continued fall in passenger numbers outside London, it is astonishing that the most important source of subsidy from central government is used to pay bus companies petrol costs instead of improving services to passengers.

Public transport has a key role to play in reducing carbon emissions but subsidising fuel consumption is hardly a sensible way of meeting the government’s environmental objectives.”

The only serious means of getting people travelling by bus rather than car is if the services provided are convenient, frequent and affordable. The growth of passenger numbers in London shows what can be achieved with subsidies. However, the current government shares the same delusion as Thatcher did that market mechanisms can provide ‘consumers’ with what they want. In reality the step which should be taken is to abandon failed deregulation and municipalise bus services as contracts run out (like the RMT has called for the train routes to be brought back into the public sector when their contracts run out).

At the same time tax measures could be brought into play which would encourage bus use. For example, instead of subsidising company cars, they should be heavily penalised in order to make it so expensive that they were progressively phased out.

In Swindon we are lucky enough to have a municipal bus service. On a turnover of £9 million it produces a surplus of £100,000 (last year). However the Council takes a ‘dividend’ of £250,000 (so the surplus would have been £350,000).

Travelling to work

One of the aspects of the campaign which SCAN is launching will be related to travel to work. In order for a cut in the number of car journeys, there are a number of possibilities. Car share schemes exist in some work places already. Another possibility which might be applied to large companies is a subsidy to Thamesdown Transport in order to provide a work bus scheme or to increase services on an existing route at times when people travel to and from work.

{The STUC/SCAN meeting is on September 5th at 7.30 at the Broadgreen Centre in Salisbury St, off of Manchester Rd}

2007-05-01T17:26:00.000+01:00

PCS Pickets in Swindon

Below are two pictures of picket lines in Swindon, at the Inland Revenue and the Magistrates Court. This was part of national action by the union against job cuts and privatisation. More action could follow as the government job cull continues.

There is also the prospect of ballots for strike action for local government and NHS workers against the government's staggered pay increase which adds up to a miserly 1.9%.

2007-03-26T20:44:00.000+01:00

Swindon Trades Union Council Meeting
Climate Change & the role of the Trades Unions
Wednesday April 4th 2007
7.30 p.m.
Broadgreen Centre, Salisbury St (off of Manchester Rd)

Swindon TUC’s April meeting will hold a discussion on the question of global warming and what role the trades unions can play in tackling this global problem. Andy Parsons from the Swindon Climate Action Network will lead off the discussion. Anybody interested is welcome to attend.

Within the trade union movement there are differences over issues such as a new round of nuclear power stations which some unions (those with members who work in the industry) say will help to tackle global warming, whilst others point to the incredible cost and the dangers inherent in such a system exemplified by the disastrous accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

It is a commonplace that in order to cut emissions it is necessary to have a radical shift from road to rail. Yet the current government has left the privatised rail network in place, refusing to re-nationalise it. Without a cheaper and more reliable service there is hardly liable to be any significant shift from road to rail. Indeed in the last year train services were cut, encouraging people to return to their cars. In some parts of the South West the privatised train companies put on so few carriages that people who want to use the service are sometimes unable to board them because they are packed like sardines.

One of the questions which merits discussion is the relationship between individual action and collective action. Whilst individuals can take action in relation to their own lives is this sufficient to tackle global problems? The trades unions as collective organisations of working people historically have taken action which has limited the free reign of ‘the market’ and counter-posed social needs to the profit motive which lies at the heart of the economic system we live under. Nationalisation of the railways and the creation of the NHS were two examples carried out by Labour governments.

Can ‘market’ methods tackle global warming? Every political party professes to be ‘green’ today, whilst even the big multi-nationals are presenting a green image. As an example BP calls itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ even whilst it makes fantastic profits and continues to pollute the environment. Yet the infrastructure of the big companies relies on a distribution network which whilst rational from the point of view of making profits, is irrational from the point of view of the health of the environment and of human beings who suffer the consequences of pollution. The international financial system has pressured countries previously self-sufficient in food to turn to cash crops. Whilst many of their peoples go hungry these cash crops are flown to Europe and the US.

What can the environmental movements and the trades union learn from each other? Is it possible to combine individual and collective action? Can the current economic system be reformed sufficiently to tackle the environmental crisis or do we need to strive for an economic system in which production is based on human needs rather than the profit motive? These are some of the questions we will discuss. Come along and have your say.

2007-03-26T20:41:00.000+01:00

Report of the Isreali Workers Advice Center visit to Britain (March 2007).

Swindon TUC was pleased to help to facilitate a visit to Britain by the Israeli Workers Advice Center. The purpose of the visit was twofold:

To provide WAC with the opportunity of acquainting the British unions with their work organising workers, campaigning against the discrimination which Arab Israelis suffer in Israel, and against the closure which denies the right of Palestinians from the occupied territories to work in Israel.

To learn about the work of British unions and the struggles they are involved in.

To that end they were able to meet with:

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack and other national officers, including the union's international officer Dean Mills.
RMT General Secretary Bob Crow, President John Leach and members of the Council of Executives.
The TUC's International Officer Owen Tudor.
The GMB's international officer Joni McDougall.
Officers from UNISON's international department, Nick Siegler and Nick Crook.
John McDonnell MP, secretary of a number of union Parliamentary Groups.
South West TUC Secretary Nigel Costley.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Trade Union Officer Bernard Regan.

In addition they visited Camden UNISON, the GMB's Swindon office to learn about the union's migrant worker organising, and were able to speak to Bristol TUC and a special meeting organised by Oxford TUC.

The RMT was good enough to provide accomodation in London for the delegation which comprised Assaf Adiv (National Coordinator), Khitam Na'amneh (Women's Organiser) and Roni Ben Efrat (International Relations).

The visit succeeded in making WAC's activities more widely known and opening up a dialogue with British unions, with a view to developing fraternal relations. In particular the meetings with the TUC and the national unions mean that WAC is recognised as a legitimate element of the equation of the Palestinian and Israeli workers movement.

A number of offers were made such as a two page spread in the RMT members' paper, RMT News, regular exchange of reports, which will be followed up. Any trade union delegation visiting Israel and Palestine has an open invitation to meet with WAC.

The officially recognised union federation in Israel is the Histadrut. WAC organises outside this framework, in part because its activities were initially concentrated on the Arab/Palestinian Israeli population, which is not generally organised by the Histadrut. WAC concentrates its efforts on the massive task of organising amongst the 70% of workers who are unorganised.

As an organisation comprised of Jews and Arabs, working together as equals, it also seeks to organise workers regardless of their race, nationality or religion. For instance, it organises staff of Israeli Educational TV who are employed on a 'temporary' basis in order to deny them the rights of permanent employees. Most of these are Jewish workers. (See http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/tahi.html )

WAC originated, as the name suggests, as an advice and support centre helping workers who had no voice in Histadrut to deal with problems in the workplace (or the unemployment offices). However, it moved on to tackling collective issues. In the context of the Israeli situation one of its key tasks was to fight for jobs for Arab Israeli citizens, firstly in the building industry (many workers had been driven out of the industry by conscious government policy of important cheaper foreign labour under conditions of super-exploitation) and latterly in Agriculture. WAC had to tackle the racism and prejudice according to which Arab workers are 'lazy' or uninterested in gaining jobs.

Consequently WAC is a hybrid type of organisation, an NGO, but one with the aspiration to build an independent trade union movement, albeit it under very difficult conditions.

Whilst there are other NGOs doing good work in supporting oppressed workers, and the unemployed, campaigning for rights etc, WAC is unique insofar as it brings together Arabs and Jews with the perspective of building an independent workers' movement and a radical trade union which sees itself as part of the struggle of the working class internationally, challenging 'globalisation'.

It's opposition to the oppression of the 20% of the Israeli population which is Arab/Palestinian, makes it difficult to build support amongst the Jewish population, at least without a break with the Zionist outlook which sees Israel as 'a state of the Jews'. Nevertheless its work shows the practical possibility of building a movement which unites Jews and Arabs.

For more information on WAC visit its web site at: http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/

You can receive WAC's bi-monthly English language newsletter by emailing assafa@MAAN.org.il

The Israeli English language magazine Challenge, which is devoted to examining the Israel/Palestine conflict, has regular reports on the activities of WAC: http://www.challenge-mag.com/

Whilst the delegation was in Britain, The Mall, a short (12 minute) DVD about ‘Illegal’ Palestinian workers squatting in an unfinished Mall in Tel Aviv, was shown at an International Documentary Film Festival in Oxford. The DVD was made by Video 48, which works with WAC (see http://www.video48.com/ ). Also available are:

A Job To Win – a film about WAC’s campaign to get Arab Israelis back into the construction industry.
The Mission - a film of a visit by a European Trade Union delegation to Israel and the West Bank organised by WAC.
Breaking Walls – a film about a mural painted by US artist Mike Alewitz in an Arab Israeli village, Dani Ben Simhon who gave up a potentially lucrative art career to devote his efforts to organising for WAC, and Musav Salameh, a building worker, who is kept apart from his parents in the West Bank by Israel's separation wall.

Our thanks to those who helped with the visit and to the following organisations for their financial support which made the trip possible:

Bracknell Amicus
Bridgwater TUC
Bristol RMT
FBU
Oxford TUC
RMT
Socialist Unity Network
Swindon TUC
Waterloo RMT
Wiltshire & Swindon GMB

Martin Wicks
Secretary Swindon TUC

2007-03-04T15:38:00.000Z

BNP calls off 'trade union' launch

Two pieces of news on the BNP ffrom Searchlight South West

On the eve of Searchlight's exposure of the apartheid terrorism link behind Solidarity, the British National Party's trade union has cancelled its first annual general meeting and re-launch, due to be held in central London on 24 Febuary.

The BNP has cited public order considerations, but this is just a smokescreen. The BNP is running scared after Searchlight started asking questions about the South African apartheid connection and the BNP's secret think-tank. Solidarity's website is hosted by a man called Dr Lambertus Nieuwhof. He and his Herefordshire-based company, Vidronic Online, have also taken over most of the BNP's other internet operations, including the party's website for Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP had 12 councillors elected last May. Nieuwhof, known in the BNP as Bep, is also part of the BNP's secret think-tank, a small inner circle of men whose identity is unknown to both the wider membership and the general public. Their task is to form policy for Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, and give the party the intellectual underpinning it has hitherto lacked.

Nieuwhof, 35, is an immigrant but that has proved no bar to his rise to a position of influence in the BNP. Perhaps that is because of his past record as a white racist fighter. Fifteen years ago South Africa was in the process of dismantling apartheid. The white supremacists of the terrorist Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB) were doing their utmost to prevent the move towards majority rule and to restore the racist system. Three men had planted a home-made bomb at the Calvary Church School in protest against the school's decision to become racially mixed. When the bomb failed to go off, one of them lost his nerve. He gave himself up to the police and turned in his two associates. One of those associates was Nieuwhof. At the end of the resulting court case he received a derisory 12-month suspended prison sentence.

Leaving South Africa Nieuwhof set off for Britain, where he came into contact with Arthur Kemp, another South African extremist exile, who had been arrested for the murder of Chris Hani, a close colleague of Nelson Mandela, in April 1993 but released without charge. Kemp had been named by Clive Derby-Lewis, a far-right South African MP who is now serving life imprisonment for setting up Hani's murder, as the author of a hit list of prominent anti-apartheid leaders. Kemp too has become influential in the BNP. His articles appear on the BNP website and his 586-page tome March of the Titans comes highly recommended on the BNP's booklist. The book propounds the view that "all civilisations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else". Kemp still supports apartheid.

In an article in November 2004 on South Africa under the ANC he complained that: "... the Tory/Labour old gang parties, were all complicit in ensuring the creation of the new South Africa, working as hard as they could to bring about the downfall of the previous White government".

Gerry Gable, publisher of Searchlight, said: "The handmaidens of South Africa's murderous apartheid regime are unfortunately alive and well and pulling the strings in the British National Party. "

TUC welcomes 'union can expel BNP member' judgement

The TUC has welcomed today's decision by the European Court of Human Rights that unions can expel members of the far-right BNP, and that this is not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case was brought by traindrivers' union ASLEF, after the UK courts found in favour of a BNP member expelled from the union because of the incompatibility of BNP views and those of the trade union movement.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said, "This is an important and welcome judgement. The European Court of Human Rights has made the common sense decision that the right to freedom of association does not force unions to accept into membership people opposed to the basic principles of trade unionism. Instead it says that the European Convention's provisions protect unions from excessive interference by government in deciding how they run their own affairs, including how they choose their members."We will need to discuss further all the implications of this judgement, including what changes now need to be made to UK law, but every union will welcome this clear decision that they can now expel BNP members."

2007-02-22T15:13:00.000Z

Swindon TUC Health and Safety site

Swindon TUC has set up a new site dedicated to Health & Safety issues, following the February 5th Health and safety conference we held.

You can visit the site at: http://swindontuchealthandsafety.blogspot.com

It has a report of the conference and will have H&S news posted on a regular basis. If you have any news relating to H&S or you see an article or information which you think should be posted on the site please let us know by emailing us at: swindontuc@btinternet.com

2007-02-22T15:09:00.000Z

Defend Council Housing response to Hills Report

Professor John Hills yesterday published his report Ends & Means on the ‘Role of Social Housing’.

It is clear that someone – we presume Ruth Kelly’s Department for Communities – is briefing that Hills has endorsed an attack on the fundamental principles of council housing.

It is obvious that Ministers are increasingly desperate – losing the Brighton ballot (another 77% NO vote announced today) increases the pressure on them to listen to the people and agree the ‘Fourth Option’ but they are still intent on trying to find a way of getting rid of council housing. Hill’s position is less clear.

Professor Hills went out of his way at the LSE yesterday afternoon to preface his main remarks by underlining his commitment to the principles of ‘decent’, ‘affordable’ and ‘secure’ housing. He said:

"if you came with the impression that I was going to be recommending the ending of security of tenure, or that tenants if they're lucky enough to improve their circumstances will be thrown out of their homes, then you're going to be disappointed."… "security and stability are a fundamental part of their lives"

Tenants packed a room at Parliament after the Hills report launch to launch the new DCH pamphlet 'Dear Gordon' Invest in decent, affordable, secure and accountable council housing which challenges Gordon Brown to change government policy.

MPs attending included Michael Meacher, Frank Dobson, Ken Purchase, Jon Cruddas, Paul Holmes, George Galloway, Kelvin Hopkins, Brian Iddon, Alan Simpson, Harriet Harman, Mike Gapes, John Hemming and Brian Binley. Trade union leaders Gail Cartmail (Amicus), Jack Dromey (T&G), Iain McNicol (GMB) and Wilf Flinn (UCATT) spoke alongside Professor Peter Ambrose and tenants from local campaigns.

Alan Walter, Defend Council Housing chair argued “Government has been trying to get rid of council housing by privatisation. Now that they’re losing tenants ballots around the country they’re flying a kite to see whether they can regulate or legislate to take away our secure life long tenancies. 3 million council tenants will be outraged and MPs need to decide quickly which side they are on! Stop the deliberate stigmatisation of council tenants and council estates and start investing to improve existing council homes and build new ones”

Austin Mitchell MP, chair House of Commons Council Housing group commented “The Hills report is an endorsement of the principles behind council housing – the need and the right to decent, affordable, secure and accountable housing provided by elected local authorities. What he missed out was the need for the big build – to provide council housing for those who either can’t afford or don’t want to get on the home ownership escalator.”

The Hills report does open a door – he talks about ‘offering’ people who approach the council in housing need and existing tenants ‘alternatives’. Ruth Kelly has pounced on an opportunity. In government language ‘offer’ means force or coerce so she’s trying to fly some kites to whether people (council tenants and MPs) will stomach proposals on means testing the right to a council home; differential rents and/or time limited tenancy agreements. Any attempt to restrict the ‘right to rent’ decent, affordable, secure council housing from an accountable landlord will face massive opposition. It also makes a mockery of the government’s stated aim of creating ‘sustainable communities’. Restricting access to council housing to only the poorest creates distorted and transient communities and denies council tenants the right to a ‘home’ as opposed to somewhere just to temporarily lay our heads down for the night.

Kelly said yesterday this was a start of the debate. One day is quite long enough! Nearly 3 million council tenants across the UK and the 1.6 million households on council housing waiting lists will fight any attempt to reduce our security of tenure and we’re demanding government stop robbing council housing and agree the ‘Fourth Option’ to improve existing and build new council homes.

Professor Hills identified a number of problems with council housing in this report. Contributing to the debate at the LSE Alan Walter, chair of Defend Council Housing, suggested to him that tenant dissatisfaction on repairs could be largely solved if government fully funded council expenditure on management and maintenance (M&M) and dissatisfaction on overcrowding would be solved if more council homes were built. To loud applause Alan Walter invited John Hills to join with tenants and other supporters of council housing in urging the Secretary of State to fund the ‘Fourth Option’ as her own party conference has voted three years running.

Hills kept to his script replying it wasn’t up to him to comment on whether there should be a “first, second, third or fourth option” – that was up to Ministers. The alliance of council tenants, national trade unions, councillors and MPs across parties is waiting.

DCH also met with the Cave Review team at the Department for Communities (DCLG) on Monday to give oral evidence in support of our written submissions and to clarify the aims of the Cave Review into Housing Regulation. We will be discussing how to bring tenants together from around the country to make sure our voice is clearly heard.

See http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/ for background information on ‘Fourth Option’ for council housing, No votes against privatisation, press reports, Labour’s conference policy, ‘Ten Questions to Candidates’ in elections for Scottish and Welsh government, local elections and candidates for Labour Party leadership and deputy leadership elections (see back of Dear Gordon: Invest in decent, affordable, secure and accountable council housing pamphlet)

2007-01-26T14:39:00.000Z

Civil servants say yes to national civil service strike

23 Jan 2007
Members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) have overwhelmingly voted for ongoing national industrial action across the civil service as the government continue to fail to give assurances on job security, drive down pay and pursue a dogmatic policy of outsourcing and privatisation.

61.3 % of members taking part in the ballot voted for strike action and 77.9% voted in favour of action short of a strike as key services continue to suffer as a result of the government's drive to cut 100,000 civil and public service jobs, the use of consultants spirals out of control and staff face below inflation pay offers.

The first stoppage will be a one day strike on 31 January 2007 which is the deadline for self assessment tax returns and will be followed up by a two week overtime ban. In addition to hitting HM Revenue and Customs, the industrial action will impact on over 200 government departments, agencies and non departmental public bodies including, jobcentres, benefit offices, passports, driving exams, the Ministry of Defence, courts service and national museums and galleries.

Commenting, Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: "This overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action illustrates the depth of anger amongst the government's own workforce against crude job cuts and below inflation pay offers. Patience has worn thin with services suffering as a result of job cuts, billions being spent on private sector consultants and some of the lowest paid facing a pay cut in real terms.

"The people who have said they will go on strike to defend the services we all take for granted aren't high flying mandarins or faceless bureaucrats, but hard working and often low paid civil and public servants delivering everything from passports, tax and benefits to supporting our armed forces and driving tests. If the government are going to avoid ongoing industrial action, starting with disruption to the self assessment deadline then they need to give assurances over jobs, services and privatisation as well as making serious headway in tackling pay inequalities and low pay in the civil service and related bodies. I call on the management of the civil service to get around the table with us again and discuss our concerns."

2007-01-06T17:14:00.000Z

National conference for NHS campaigners

20th January 2006 - 11am - Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, London(opposite Euston Station)

Across the country local campaigns are starting up to protect local NHSservices. We are inviting all NHS campaigners to come together to findways to urgently intensify the pressure on the government to change theirapproach on the NHS.There will be speakers to provide an overview on the political situationand on what we have learnt from the campaign so far, along with workshopsessions where campaigning ideas can be developed in smaller groups.Speakers include Tony Benn, John Lister, Jacky Davis and Sally Ruane.

We are inviting NHS campaigns to send up to 3 delegates. All remainingplaces are available on a first come first served basis and we welcomeanyone interested in actively campaigning in support of the NHS. Toregister for places send delegate names to olivia@nhscampaign.org
01273234822.

There is a fee of £5 for each place.It crucial to build for the TUC led national event on 3 March and to worktogether where we can.More details from the KONP campaign, NHS Support Federation, 113 QueensRoad, Brighton, BN1 3XG

2006-12-14T11:33:00.000Z

Union Ideas Network

This is to draw to your attention a fairly new website which aims to serve as a focus for discussion on trade union issues, bringing together trade union academics with union activists. You can read the material without registering, but you need to register to post an article or comment on articles on the site. There are currently over 700 people registered.

The themed sections are: Conferences, Economic/Social Policy, Education and Skills, Employment Law, Employment Relations, Equality and Diversity, Europe/International, Health & Safety, Union Modernisation Fund, Union Organising, Unions and Politics.

You do not have to write some weighty theoretical article, the site can benefit from reports of trade union experience on the ground.

You can visit the site at: www.uin.org.uk

2006-12-07T16:54:00.000Z

Fury over homes snub

From the Wiltshire Times
By David Vallis

DEMANDS for heads to roll were made this week after council bosses suffered a humiliating defeat in their £600,000 bid to persuade tenants to transfer their homes to a housing association.

The South Wiltshire Defend Council Housing group has called for the resignations of community and housing portfolio holder John Cole-Morgan, and council leader Richard Britton, in the wake of last Thursday's ballot result.

That showed a massive 71 per cent of Salisbury district council's 5,400 tenants voted against the proposed transfer.

The group also called for the dissolution of the council's tenants panel, which had recommended backing for the housing stock switch.

But council chiefs remained defiant, claiming the stock transfer was actually thrust upon them by government, and they were right to hold the ballot.

Intense pressure was put on the city and district's council tenants to opt for a switch and 4,810 (74.2 per cent) of them voted in the ballot, conducted by the Independent Electoral Reform Society.

Of those 3,424 voted in favour of staying with the council and only 1,377 (28.65 per cent) for the transfer A similar defeat was suffered by the council when it balloted tenants on a proposed transfer in 1989, and now the current Tory administration has been accused of "not listening" and wasting taxpayers money.

Labour leader, Steve Fear, who warned the council a year ago it was "bound to lose," said this week: "All the indications from the start of this process were that council house tenants did not want their homes transferred to a housing association. Despite this, the council spent £600,000 in a pointless effort to change tenants' minds. That cost now has to be borne by local taxpayers.

"It is now time for the council cabinet to think long and hard about how to provide an improved and cost effective housing service."

Chairman of South Wiltshire Defend Council Housing, Colin Burden, said: "We are delighted with the result of the ballot and the emphatic rejection by the tenants of the housing stock transfer.

"We hope the council will respect the democratic decision for the second time and join with other councils, who have retained housing, and actively press the government alongside tenants and unions for the fourth option (creating a level financial playing field between councils and housing association).

Mr Burden added an enormous amount of taxpayers' money had been wasted by the council, and called for the resignations of Cllrs Cole-Morgan and Britton and the dissolution of the tenants' panel in its present form.

Of his group's campaign, he insisted: "This is a magnificent victory and a victory of substance over glossy style. It completely illustrates this proposal never represented the tenants' viewpoint, and was never likely to."

Councillor Cole-Morgan said: "I am, obviously, deeply disappointed by the overwhelmingly negative ballot, and very concerned by the adverse effect the decision against transfer will have on those living in social housing in Salisbury.

"Clearly, we either did not manage to communicate the benefits that transfer would bring well enough, or those who received the message things could not go on just as before did not believe us. In my view, we could not have done more to put the message over."

On the issue of whether it was right or wrong to go to ballot, Cllr Cole-Morgan added: "The stock option process was thrust on us by government, and has been monitored by them throughout.

"Half-way through the process, our tenants gave us sufficient grounds to believe a positive outcome was possible. In the light of that, it would have been unfair, indeed improper, not to give them a chance to vote for a transfer which most council members believe would have been greatly to their advantage."

2006-11-28T18:08:00.000Z

Death knell sounds for 200 tax office jobs
By Emily Walker

From Swindon Advertiser

MORE than 200 people working for the tax office in Swindon will lose their jobs by 2010.
Union leaders are in discussions this week, following the announcement of plans to leave just a handful of staff working for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Swindon office by 2010.

The Public and Commercial Services union has vowed the fight the closure of the Farnsby Street office that employs 210 workers on its payroll.

PCS's Swindon chairman Phil Robbins said: "The government has said it plans to close the Swindon tax office by 2010.

"The nearest offices will be Southampton, Birmingham and Bristol. Not only will that put people's jobs in serious jeopardy, but people using the service could also have to travel long distances."

Mr Robbins said the government programme to make the tax service leaner was the result of more people using new technology to pay tax bills, get advice and manage debts.

Staff at Swindon's HMRC office were told about the threat to their jobs last Thursday.

"We would have thought in a town as big as Swindon it would have been viable to keep this office open. More people in the area are now making payments with debit cards or online.

But not everyone can do that. And it is more likely to be the same people who would struggle to travel to Bristol to meet someone in person, " said Mr Robbins.

Union members have not decided to strike yet, but if a walkout went ahead, there could be hold-ups in tax bills being paid, and P45s being sent out and rebates being settled.

The union said the service already had more than a million tax credit repayments, tax returns, p45s, and tax codes in a backlog of unposted mail, and job cuts would only make problems worse.

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said the tax service would be "unfit" if 15 per cent of its budget was axed between 2008 and 2011. Mr Serwotka said: "PCS will fight these job cuts and office closures, not only on behalf of our members but to protect the public service we provide, often to the most vulnerable members of our communities."

An HMRC spokeswoman said:

"No concrete decisions have been made at the moment and staff in Swindon will get a chance to give feedback from February next year.

Swindon is part of a cluster of offices within a 25-mile radius so we would be looking to relocate staff within 25 miles.

People working similar jobs will work in the same office, which makes sense and saves money.

In places where we already have an inquiry centre, the inquiry service will be kept within a few miles. So people will be able to make inquiries in Swindon, but there would be a few people rather than few hundred working in the office."

2006-11-02T12:59:00.000Z

"Get ready to go out on strike"
By Daniel Knowles
From the Swindon Advertiser

LABOUR leadership contestant John McDonnell called on Swindon unions to join rolling national strikes he predicts for next year in a bid to overturn privatisation and job cuts. Mr McDonnell addressed a meeting of the Swindon Trade Unions Council at Broadgreen Community Centre on Wednesday night as part of a series of visits to Labour and trade groups across the country.

Mr McDonnell said while he was being written off by the "Islington New Labour" set, there was no reason why he could not be Tony Blair's replacement with the backing of rank and file party and union members.

He warned the party was "sleep walking in to losing the next election" if the policies of privatisation pushed by their "architect" Gordon Brown were not overturned. Mr McDonnell, the MP for Hayes and Harlington, said he was a "declared contender for the Labour leadership".

"You are either in favour of privatisation or public services," Mr McDonnell said. "You can not have it both ways. We are on the edge of losing the welfare state. We are on the edge of losing our public services. We need to wake up and wake up very quickly."

Mr McDonnell labelled New Labour "absolutely Thatcherite in some respects" for forcing through privatisation since they came to power in 1997.

"We have privatised more jobs in nine years than the Tories did in 18 years," Mr McDonnell said.

Mr McDonnell said the weakness of the Labour organisation was shown in the turn out to yesterday's NHS protest in London.

"We should have been marching in tens of thousands," Mr McDonnell said. McDonnell said union members and the wider public had the chance to turn privatisation around.

He said opposition was growing more vocal, united against vanishing public services, nuclear power and weapons spending and the war in Iraq.

He expected the turning point to be a ballot going to civil servants soon to decide on industrial action early in the new year.

If other unions joined it, they could reverse the New Labour policies and save the party from electoral defeat, Mr McDonnell said.

"It's not one day but continuous action," Mr McDonnell said.

"We need to be balloting our own members to see if we should coincide with that action.
We need to share information and look at joint campaigns."

Mr McDonnell's address won applause from the more than 25 people at the meeting, including representatives from postal, transport, health council and general unions.

2006-10-16T09:34:00.000+01:00

Campaigning against thegovernment’s privatisation agenda

A Swindon TUC Open Meeting

Swindon Trades Union Council - Media Release October 12th 2006

Wed November 1st
7.30 p.m.
Broadgreen Centre, Salisbury Rd (off of Manchester Rd)

The November meeting of Swindon TUC will be an open meeting on the above theme. The Blair/Brown government is comprised of ‘free market fundamentalists’. They have opened up the public sector to exploitation by big business despite the evidence that it has had disastrous consequences, both for the workers and the service users.

The recent Labour conference , for the third year running, passed a resolution opposing government policy of privatising council housing, and demanded the right of councils to direct investment, including building new council houses. But the government contemptuously ignores the decisions of its own party conference.

It’s policy in the health service has been to create a ‘market’ in healthcare. It’s a rigged ‘market’ though because the government has instructed PCT’s to hand over work to the private sector, with no competition, taking money away from the NHS. The contracts for this work are also rigged. Whilst NHS hospitals are being penalised for doing ‘too much’ work, private companies are being paid for operations they have not carried out!

Locally, Swindon’s Great Western Hospital is having some of its audiology work handed over to a private company, and a private hospital will be given imaging work (MRI scans etc).

Swindon’s Tory Council is carrying out New Labour policy by proposing to create a private Academy run by a religious organisation and Honda. It is threatening to privatise council services in the pursuance of its (and the Blair government’s ) dogma.

The government has also opened the postal market up to competition, threatening the universal service obligation by which we have a standard price however far a letter has to travel. Royal Mail is making cuts in service so as to ‘shape up’ to the new market.

Speaking at the meeting will be John McDonnell the left wing Labour MP who has declared he will stand for leader of the Labour Party against the privatiser Gordon Brown. John has played a key role in drawing together the trades unions to campaign against privatisation across the public sector. (see http://www.john4leader.org.uk/ )

Also speaking will be Dave Warren a member of the CWU national executive committee, the union covering Royal Mail and the Telecomms industry.

For further information ring Martin Wicks, STUC Secretary on 07786 394593

2006-10-06T10:12:00.000+01:00

Health & Safety Conference

Swindon TUC, with the assistance of South West TUC Education Officer Marie Hughes, and the Trade Union Centre at New College, is organising a Health & Safety conference on February 5th at the Oakfield Campus of the University of Bath (in Swindon), from 09.30 am to 4 pm.

The conference is for workplace Health & Safety reps, though any union activists interested in campaigning in relation to Health & Safety will be welcome.

We will be writing directly to health &safety reps and union branches shortly.

More detail about the day will follow. Please put the date in your diary.

2006-10-05T11:39:00.000+01:00

Royal Mail Closures

Royal Mail is proposing to close three major mail centres at Reading, Gloucester and Coventry. This would probably involve compulsory redundancies. From an environmental point of view this is a lunacy since it would mean mail from the three centres being sent to Swindon, Bristol and Northampton and then back.

The CWU isopposing the closures. Swindon Trades Union Council has written to the CWU expressing its support for them. Our letter is reproduced below.

To the CWU

Dear Comrades

Swindon Trades Union Council at its meeting yesterday discussed the proposed closure of Royal Mail centres at Reading, Gloucester and Coventry. As the ‘receiving’ town with the prospect of extra jobs we could take a selfish point of view. However, that would be completely unprincipled, at the expense of workers losing their jobs in three centres.

Moreover, from an environmental point of view, the idea of workers and mail travelling from Reading to Swindon (and back), Gloucester to Bristol, and Coventry to Northampton, is sheer lunacy, adding to environmental pollution at a time when we are supposed to be tackling the problem of global warming. I have already spoken to some people in the green/environmental movement who will support your opposition to the closures.

Undoubtedly, this proposal of Royal Mail is related to the liberalisation of the postal ‘market’ which the government has seen fit to push through. It is a cost-cutting measure which is directed at ‘shaping up to meet the competition’. This so-called commercial environment is, of course, a threat to the universal service obligation and the Post Office as a public service. Whilst liberalisation originates from the European Union it fits neatly with the government’s free market fundamentalism which has led it to introduce a ‘market’ in the NHS and privatisation and cuts throughout the public sector.

Obviously you will be discussing an industrial response to the threat of closure and of compulsory redundancies. We would like to offer our support in the wider public campaigning against these proposals which are socially and environmentally retrograde. Please let us know anything which you would want us to do in support of your struggle.

We will contact the Trades Councils in Bristol and Northampton, the other towns where distribution will be centralised and suggest we produce a joint statement, in support of the CWU and against the closures.

Fraternally

Martin Wicks
Secretary, Swindon Trades Union Council

2006-09-08T09:16:00.000+01:00

Swindon NUT opposes Academy

Below we reproduce the submission from Swindon NUT to the consultation in relation to the proposal to replace Headlands school with a privately run Academy.

The Swindon Division of the NUT opposes the proposal to replace three democratically accountable Swindon schools with a privately owned and run Academy.

We have serious concerns about the nature of the consultation process, the short term affect that the proposal would have on schools across Swindon, and the medium to long term affect that an academy would have on children in its catchment.

The Consultation
This has been based on two documents, neither of which even attempts to analyse the proposal in a balanced way. As the cover letter sent with the documents, signed by Ian Bickerton, states, “This document focuses on benefits that can be offered by an Academy”

None of the documentation indicates that the Academies programme is highly controversial nationally. Nowhere is it made clear that the education stakeholders in Swindon through the Education Partnership Board opposed the Academy plan.

DJB Consultancy does seem to have struck up something of a positive relationship with ULT nationally and has dealt with a number of consultations.

In Barnsley local papers reported a row which occurred during the consultation. The Yorkshire Post reports,

“A questionnaire on plans to replace The Elmhirst School, in Barnsley, with a £25m academy found 48 per cent of people were opposed, 39 per cent in favour and 13 per cent "not sure".
But the consultants employed to seek out local people's views insisted last night that their questionnaire was unrepresentative.” And “Dame Jocelyn Barrow, who led the consultation exercise, said: "The questionnaire doesn't represent large numbers of people. Large numbers of people didn't answer it.

"The union put out material that told parents their view and came to one public meeting and were encouraging parents to say no."”Dame Jocelyn said she had taken into account public meetings and interviews with interested parties in coming to the view it should still go ahead.”” (james.reed@ypn.co.uk,12 May 2005,Yorkshire Post Today. http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1023528 )

Are there any examples of DJB responding to consultation by saying an Academy is not appropriate?

If the consultation documents are one sided there have also been serious problems with their distribution. This ranges from the Local authority seeing interested parties as only existing amongst the three schools directly threatened with closure to, what seems to have been, haphazard delivery of the documents even in the areas directly affected.

The Academies Programme
The background to the proposal is the Government claim that the objective of the academies programme is to turn round failing schools. Specifically Swindon council came under DfES pressure in this respect over Headlands.
The problems here are:

Ø Academies have not taken over failing schools. (see: http://www.tes.co.uk/section/story/?story_id=2142770&window_type=print. TES 07 October 2005. “Not one of the 28 schools replaced by academies was in special measures at the time of closure, despite ministers' insistence that the £5 billion academies scheme is tackling educational failure.”
Ø Academies are not improving educational standards of their predecessor schools. (See Stephen Gorard, Professor of Education at the University of York, Journal of Education Policy Vol. 20, No. 3, May 2005, pp. 369–377.) In fact the repeated claims about improvement throw valuable light on the methods used to make the Academies take off; namely the highly partial and selective use of statistics. When the DfES uses the Bexley Business Academy as an example, stating “In its first year, the Business Academy, Bexley achieved an increase in pupils attaining 5 or more A*–C grades at GCSE from 7% in 2002 to 21% in 2003.” (DfES, 2004b) it fails to mention both the predecessor schools 24% at more than 5 A*-C grades in 1998 and OFSTED’s discovery of serious weaknesses at the school. Gorard reports similar patterns pertaining to a number of other schools.

Terry Wrigley of Edinburgh published a report which similarly challenges the claim of progress.
The Education Network (TEN) has also criticised the way in which partial and one sided presentation of information about academies is presented by the government.

Much effort has gone into preventing a proper look at the Academies programme as if Swindon could exist in a bubble, with outside experiences safely ignored. Claims have also been made about ULT success at turning round failing schools. Again this should be analysed.

Ø ULT replaced Canon Williamson CE High school with its Salford Academy. OFSTED’s 1999 report of the predecessor was not that of a failing school. Eg page 9 “The results in examinations have improved each year and are now above those of similar schools.” 26% received 5 or more A*-C. 38% have entitlement to Free school meals and 37% on the SEN register. Again, “Attainment in GCSE is increasing and is above that of similar schools.”
Ø ULT’s Northampton academy replaced Lings Upper school and achieved creditable headline figures for 5 or more A*-C, but it seems this is largely due to the effect of switching students from GCSE to GNVQ courses. 18% achieved A*-C grades which included Maths and English.
Ø The Manchester Academy replaced Ducie High school in Moss Side. Ducie faced challenging circumstances and under funding. 29% EAL, 65.1% FSM, 52% on the SEN register. OFSTED’s 2005 comments on the Manchester Academy are again to directly compare. They say 29% have learning difficulties and 10% are in the early stages of learning to speak English.

At the very least it needs to be said that there is no hard evidence to back the picture of failing schools being turned round through the application of dynamic methodologies. It is certainly not the case that Academy status leads to higher standards.

Admissions and exclusions
The March 2005 report of the parliamentary Education and skills select committee pointed to the high level of exclusions from a number of academies. They argued that some Academies may have improved headline results by removing children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The report specifically mentions

Ø The Kings Academy in Middlesborough which expelled more students than the seven maintained schools combined.
Ø The West London Academy which tripled its exclusions and
Ø The Trinity Academy about which parent complaints about a very strict discipline code leads them to believe it is designed to remove children who may not get good exam grades.

Many Academies have fewer children on free school meals than predecessor schools. There is strong evidence that admissions policies are cutting the number of deprived children.

Children now report, as a result of a request for information under the freedom of information act that ministers have made a deal with academies that allows them to exclude children more easily than other schools. (http://www.childrennow.co.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=details&UID=db9a6555-0e7d-43cb-bef4-3dc7fe1bb39a )

ULT are at present arguing that none of this applies to them. There status as a private owner of an Academy means that there can be no guarantee that their policies will not change. There is enormous pressure for results, to fulfil expectations and the easiest way for this to happen is for schools to change intake.

Governance
The ULT consultation document makes clear that: “The ultimate governance of the UCST Academies is the responsibility of the trustees of the ULT.”

The list of responsibilities written makes it clear that local governors have severely limited responsibilities.

Any dispute between local governors and trustees will inevitably be settled in favour of the governors. There is no democratic control of trustees.

The handing over of schools to an unaccountable private concern in this way has unpredictable consequences. The Manchester Evening News reported that the ULT’s Manchester Academy has made an arrangement with the private William Hulme Grammar school, to teach some of its students. The head of William Hulme’s says the Academy are paying a “fair rate”. This hand out of tax payer cash to a private school was made without being passed by any democratic forum. (In fact the Grammar school has decided to cut out the middle man and become a state funded privately run academy.)

Again, in 2004 the BBC reported that the not for profit private company 3E’s which was brought in to run the Bexley Business Academy was being bought by the for profit company Global Education Management systems (Gems). This company will take over 3E’s existing work and tender for contracts in the public sector. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4025345.stm) The report doesn’t say whether parents were originally told of this possibility. The loss of a public assett to a private concern makes this possible, indeed highly likely if the NHS experience is followed.

0-19 Provision
We are told the Academy must have a sixth form to provide educational continuity and role models. It isn’t clear why this idea has only now been discovered and only applies to a new academy. It certainly doesn’t feature in previous strategic planning by the LA.

The closure of two successful primary schools is a mistake and the wider provision of primary education seems the proper subject of a wider consultation.

Staff conditions
In national negotiations ULT have refused to apply the conditions outlined in the School teachers Pay and conditions document (STP&CD) and the Burgundy Book. Teachers transferring from LA employment will have these conditions but they are vulnerable in reorganisations. Also a two tier work force will exist with respect to pay and working conditions.

We are also concerned about the pressures on staff resulting from the high expectations of the academies programme. This is likely to be compounded given the marked change in structure of the school, (from 11-16 to 0 to 19), and will give rise at least to training issues.

The 2005 OFSTED report on the Manchester Academy says that most of the staff transferred over, but later says many staff are in their second or third year of teaching. (this could mean the school has employed many new teachers or that many teachers left.)

The 2006 OFSTED report on The ULT’s Northampton Academy says “During its first year the academy faced significant staffing difficulties including a high turnover in teachers and changes in senior leadership. The principal and one vice principal left during the first year.” And later goes on, “The difficulties caused by the high turnover of staff have been exacerbated by considerable problems with staff recruitment. In addition, teachers with experience in just middle or upper schools had specific training requirements and needed time to familiarise themselves with new curricula.”

Funding
The Guardian newspaper reported in May that only 4 of the first 27 Academies had received all the cash from the sponsors, most falling well short. (This was later corrected to only 5.)

In the fore runner City academy programme much of the promised sponsorship proved to be payment in kind. Eg use of a personnel officer for a day would be costed and become part of a headline figure.

There is no clarity about the position of Honda in the current proposal in this respect.

It has also been reported that to make the schools more attractive for private sponsors a great deal of debt has been wiped out. It is a pity that this could not have been considered for the benefit of students in community schools.

On 20th June 2005 the Times Newspaper reported that the Government had bailed out Middlesborough’s Unity academy to the tune of £1.4million. Does this cash disappear from another part pf the education budget? What happens when the project inevitable over runs in terms of cost? Do other schools find themselves paying.

This leads to the question of planning in a situation where we already have PFI funded projects in Swindon which will have first call on funding in any future crisis caused by falling roles or other demographic changes.

Christian Ethos
It is interesting to note that the Church of England Diocese of Chelmsford lodged an official complaint against the closure of McEntee comprehensive in Walthamstow to be replaced by a ULT Academy.

The ULT is a Religious organisation with history of running private schools.
It has no place running state schools.

ULT has redefined what Christian ethos means so that, by its definition, any atheist could define themselves as Christian, but this is a marketing strategy.
If community schools are given to private sponsors, including ULT, parents will have far less say in how they are run.

The proposal is part of a development that will lead to increasing segregation in schools.

In summary
The Academy idea has little support amongst teachers as a constituency. That it has any resonance at all reflects very poor levels of schools funding. Promised new cash is frequently tied up in various schemes and, as in the health service although not as developed, much cash leaves the system to go to private companies.

We do not object to philanthropists, charities, or companies providing cash or relevant expertise. We do object to schools being given to these bodies so they can control what is taught, how it is taught, who it is taught to and the conditions of work of those who teach it.

Specifically the Academy proposed presents the prospect of destabilisation of education across Swindon, for students who will not attend the school. It is also highly probable that there would be a problematic transition for current students at the three schools directly affected.

There are education reforms that would substantially improve the learning experience of our children. We could draw on the best international experiences and apply the lessons. Unfortunately the current proposed change is part of a package which will take us in precisely the wrong direction.

2006-09-06T09:18:00.000+01:00

Merseyside Fire Fighters Strike

Below are two bulletins from the FBU in relation to the Merseyside Firefighters strike which is in opposition to job cuts. Details of the Hardship Fund are included.

September 1st
Merseyside Strike Action Solid

Merseyside fire crews walked out on strike at 10am Thursday morning in a massive show of opposition to the planned cuts to the local fire service. Morale on the picket lines was high as off-duty members and officials from across the country – from the Highlands in Scotland to Cornwall in the South West of England, including the FBU’s national leadership – visited, showing their solidarity with Merseyside members.

At an FBU meeting in Merseyside 40 had been expected, but 500 turned up and the venue had to be changed to accommodate the additional numbers.Local fire crews are set to strike for four days until Monday 4 September, 10.00am, and will then be striking for a further four days from 1200 midday 4 September.

The Union on Thursday repeatedly asked for talks with senior management, including twice on Radio Merseyside. But the fire authority said it was “too busy” to attend talks, although some informal talks have been pencilled in for the weekend. As the first strike day kicked in, chief fire officer McGuirk admitted using staff from the fire authority’s personnel and finance department to provide emergency fire cover – saying that this was an acceptable move because they didn’t need to be “fully trained”. Further cuts to firefighter posts Enflaming the dispute, fire crews have learned that the fire authority agreed two days before the strike started - but not informed the Union - of a cut of a further 18 wholetime firefighter posts at Croxteth fire stations.

In a letter to McGuirk, FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack said the chief fire officer appeared to have “embarked on a confrontational strategy” which has “given major cause for concern.”The Union has called for independent inquiry into significant industrial relation problems which have dogged Merseyside fire service for several years.

Members in the brigade voted 3:1 in favour of strike action over cuts they say will compromise firefighter and public safety. The strike is in protest at plans to cut 120 emergency response firefighter posts – one in ten of the workforce - 15 emergency fire control operator posts and axe four fire engines at night time. There will be fewer rescue appliances, fewer firefighters on fire engines and a longer wait for crews to arrive to all 999 emergencies. Cuts will damage operational capabilityThe loss of one in ten fulltime firefighter posts – in addition to the 68 posts lost last year - will inevitably damage the overall operational capability of the Merseyside fire and rescue service. Fire crews say this will clearly compromise their safety and the safety of the public.

Solidarity

Members and officials are urged to show soldarity with Merseyside members by sending messages of support, visiting picket lines while off-duty and contributing to the strike fund.

Merseyside Hardship Fund
HSBC BankSort code:40-29-28
Account number: 913201650

5 September 2006
Merseyside Fire Crews Turn Up Pressure on Fire Authority as Union Announces Eight More Days of Strike Action

Merseyside fire crews are taking eight more days of strike action. The fire authority has been given the statutory notice of the start of strike action from 10.00 on 12 September until 10.00 on 20 September.The strike is in opposition to proposed cuts which include:

Cutting 120 firefighter posts – one in ten of the workforce –in addition to the 68 posts cut last year;
Introducing a 96 hour week at some fire stations;
Cutting 15 emergency fire control operator posts –one in four of the workforce Axing four fire engines at night time;
There will be fewer rescue appliances, fewer firefighters on fire engines and a longer wait for crews to arrive at all 999 emergencies.

Les Skarratts, Chair of Merseyside FBU said: “We’re happy to reach a negotiated agreement in talks. At present the talks have stalled and they will give us no dates for future meetings which is bitterly disappointing.

Merseyside fire crews, including those in emergency fire control, are absolutely determined to maintain momentum and keep up pressure on the fire authority. We are leaving senior managers in no doubt that we will have either thrashed out a deal by 12 September or the next set of strike action commences.

We have formally proposed bringing in the specialist national fire service negotiators to assist us in resolving this dispute. That is the correct procedure and they have huge experience in assisting the resolution of disputes, especially on those issues covered by national agreements and which are not only local issues.

Our morale is high, our determination to stop savage cuts across the Merseyside fire and rescue service is unwavering. We have tremendous support from a public which has rumbled managers who claim they can improve a public service by cutting it. The public know we’re not doing this because we want more money or better conditions. It’s not about what’s in it for us, it’s because we know these cuts are wrong and will impact on our safety and public safety.”

2006-08-02T15:40:00.000+01:00

Health & Safety Conference ?

Swindon TUC and the Trade Union Education Centre are looking to organisation a day conference for Health & Safety reps in the area. Below is the letter being sent out to union branches, together with a feedback form to guage the level of interest.

Swindon Trades Union Council, in conjunction with the Trade Union Education Centre at New College, is considering organising a one day conference for Health & Safety reps in the Swindon area.

One of the most positive things about the TUC Health & Safety courses is that they provide the opportunity for reps to meet people in other unions, industries and workplaces, learning from each others experience. After they finish the Stage 1 and 2 courses, there is no framework for meeting other reps again. Some unions run their own courses so their reps never meet H&S reps from other unions.

The one day conference we would like to organise would be an opportunity to bring together H&S reps in the area to:

• Discuss contemporary issues relating to H&S law and its operation;
• Provide the opportunity for reps to report on their experience in their own workplace – successes and problems – and to learn from the experience of others.

Currently there is not a means of generalising from the work of reps in individual workplaces. If the local labour movement had more idea of common problems across workplaces, we could help H&S reps to develop ‘best practice’ in order to improve H&S in the many workplaces in the area.

We would envisage the day comprising an opening session with speakers talking about H&S policy – government policy, problems with the HSE etc - to be followed by discussions in small groups, which would provide delegates with the opportunity to discuss their workplace experience and problems in a more informal setting. These groups could report back on their discussions. A final session could discuss how useful delegates found the proceedings and what we might do together in the future.

• Should we have an annual meeting?
• Might we organise an event on Workers memorial day?
• Might there be an email information/discussion list for H&S reps in Swindon?

Other ideas may well emerge during the course of discussion.

Before we set about organising a day’s event, however, we are writing to union branches and asking them to circulate this letter to their H&S reps, together with a questionnaire (enclosed), to test out the level of interest and potential attendance. If you think the event would be useful please fill in the questionnaire and return it to us asap.

Please let us have any ideas or suggestions.

Many thanks

Martin Wicks
Secretary Swindon Trades Union Council

If you are interested in attending such a conference please email the detail requested below.

Name

Address

Union

Workplace

Phone

Email

Would you be able to arrange for release to attend on a weekday? Y / N

Comments (please write down any suggestions for issues that you think should be dealt with on the day or any general comments)

2006-07-21T13:17:00.000+01:00

TUC win 'Pole tax' reform for Polish workers over-paying tax

The TUC today (Thursday) welcomed a major victory for Polish workers in Britain who have been paying double tax on their earnings. A campaign by the TUC South West region has led to a treaty being signed today between the Polish and UK Governments that will make sure Polish workers do not pay both tax in the UK and high level tax on the same earnings when they return to Poland. Thanks to this treaty, UK tax paid will count against Polish tax.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber is visiting the Polish church in Bristol today where the problem was first raised with the TUC by the Polish support group, Polski Bristol. The South West TUC took up the campaign with Dawn Primarolo, Bristol South MP and Paymaster General, highlighting to the Minister the complicated tax rules and the fact that workers in other countries such as Ireland get better tax treatment. The Government has subsequently reached an agreement that will benefit thousands of Polish workers employed in the UK. Dawn Primorolo has signed the treaty today on behalf of the British Government.

Speaking at the Polish church in Bristol this evening, Brendan Barber will say: 'Unions, campaigners and community groups in Bristol have worked together to secure an important victory for thousands of Polish workers across the whole country and end this unjust 'Pole tax'. The Government rightly recognises the value that Polish workers add to the UK economy and has responded quickly to union concerns that they were not being treated fairly.'

Julia Verne , Polski Bristol, said: 'This is great news for Polish workers who have been penalised with unfair tax demands when they go home. The current double tax system doesn't take into account the high cost of living in the UK and is especially punitive to workers on low pay. The system means that workers are left with very little disposable income. When we first raised this issue, the church was packed with workers who wanted to know why they faced double tax.

This treaty is great news and we are indebted to the TUC for helping us tackle this issue.'
Nigel Costley, South West TUC Regional Secretary, said:'Unions are giving on-the-ground support to Polish workers to make sure they are treated properly at work but we've proved we can also tackle bigger problems. I didn't realise that they had to pay double tax and was pleased to help them campaign for reform. Dawn Primarolo has been very quick to respond to this issue and make the system fairer for workers in her own constituency and across the country.'

2006-06-22T18:26:00.000+01:00

GMB calls 5 day strike at ASDA distribution depots

You can read below the GMB press release of the decision to organise strike action against ASDA/Walmart. The nearest depot to Swindon is at Didcot. The GMB will be calling on trades unionists to demonstrate their support for the strikers at Didcot. More detail will follow.

GMB MEMBERS IN ASDA WAL-MART TO STRIKE FOR 5 DAYS FROM JUNE 30TH TO 4TH JULY (INDEPENDENCE DAY)

GMB Shop Stewards National Council agree programme of industrial action including an initial period of 5 consecutive days strike to be followed by comprehensive further industrial action
22 Jun 2006

GMB Shop Stewards National Council meeting in Manchester today agreed a comprehensive programme of industrial action in Asda Wal-Mart's 20 distribution depots to secure their objectives. From 00.01 Friday 30th June until 23.59 Tuesday 4th July (Independence Day) there will be a complete withdrawal of labour by all GMB members in all Asda Wal-Mart depots. This will be followed by a further comprehensive programme of industrial action.

GMB members working in Asda Wal-Mart's 20 distribution depots across the country voted by 3 to 1 (74.1% in favour) to take strike action in support of their outstanding claims with the company. They also voted by an even bigger margin of more than 4 to 1 for industrial action short of a strike to secure their objectives.

GMB members who will take part in the industrial action work as HGV drivers and warehouse picker and loaders at Asda Wal-Mart 20 distribution depots including Bedford, Chepstow, Dartford, Didcot, Erith, Falkirk, Grangemouth, Ince George in Wigan, Lymedale Staffordshire, Lutterworth in Leicestershire, Portbury in Bristol, Skelmersdale, Teesport, ADC Wigan, Wakefield and Washington. They move 30,000 tonnes per day of ambient, fresh, chilled and frozen produce from 20 distribution depots to 300 Asda Wal-Mart Stores around the country.

GMB members in Asda Wal-Mart's distribution depots want to see the establishment of proper national bargaining structures between the company and GMB covering pay, conditions and union facilities in all 20 distribution depots.

Once established the first thing GMB members employed in the depots want is an agreement, via the new national negotiating structures, that Asda Wal-Mart pay the unpaid 2005 bonus of £300 per worker. The second issue GMB members in the depots want dealt with via the new national negotiating structures is an end to the unilateral introduction of new technology leading to higher work rates in the depots which health and safety experts say will seriously injury GMB members over a long period of time. (See Note 5). GMB members want an agreement that safe work rates are established by a panel of independent experts.

Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary said, "GMB members know full well that Asda Wal-Mart are gearing up to try to break this strike. This decision today to set a comprehensive programme of industrial action starting with the 5 days stoppage shows that GMB members are determined to win national collective bargaining rights which are common across British industry.

There appears to be a clear clash of cultures between the way workers do business in Britain and the way Wal-Mart does business. It is significant that the strike dates set by the Shop Stewards covers Independence Day. GMB members in Asda Wal-Mart want independence from the anti-trade union tactics of Wal-Mart worldwide.

GMB members spoke decisively yesterday. The Shop Stewards decision today shows they are prepared to follow it up with decisive action.

GMB will also step up the campaign against the agencies that we know are collaborating with Asda Wal-Mart to break this strike and GMB will use the full force of the law against them."

Ends

Contact: GMB Press Office: Steve Pryle on 07921 289880 or Rose Conroy on 07974 251823.

2006-06-16T14:50:00.000+01:00

Academy Meeting

A brief report of a meeting in Penhill to discuss the Academy proposal.

I attended a meeting at Penhill called to discuss the proposal for an Academy to replace Headlands school. Councillor Garry Perkins Lead member for Children’s Services was invited along to speak in favour of the proposal. The meeting was organised by Penhill Councillor Andy Harrison as a means of giving local people the opportunity to hear the arguments and express their own view. The first thing to be said is that the Council did not give the opportunity to opponents of the scheme to present their case in the public meetings which they organised. On the other hand the presence of Garry did provide the audience with an indication of how little he seems to know about some of the issues!

There was a great deal of anger over the seeming incompetence of the Council. Many people present had not received the consultation documents.

It would be true to say that most people present did not engage in the debate on the concept of Academies. The trades unionists present were opposed to Academies in principle and have examined what has happened around the country in those that have been set up. But unless you have an interest in education or you have children is school it is not an issue which you would necessarily have looked at. Garry Perkins did not argue with the teaching unions on this ground, he simply said this is the only way to get a new school so take it or leave it.

Many people were perturbed to know that he did not seem to have any idea about the ‘footprint’ of the proposed new school, or the potential traffic problems. He expressed a lack of interest on the question of which organisation is putting in how much money, even though the teachers present reported that the United Learning Trust had told them that Honda was putting in the majority of the £2 million whilst Honda had told them that ULT was putting in the majority!

There was concern expressed about how far some of the children would have to travel to the proposed site at the Pinehurst People’s Centre.

ULT are making all manner of promises (such as sticking to the Local Education Authority’s admissions policy), but the question was raised as to what mechanisms there were to hold them to these promises. Hilary Pitts from the LEA had to admit that once the Academy had been set up there was nothing to prevent the new company (for that’s what the Academy would be, a private business) changing it mind.

All in all Garry was given a hard time by the local people. The situation was well summed up by one member of the audience when he said we had been given the same ‘choice’ for the hospital, the University of Bath and now the Academy – this is what you are going to get or you will get nothing! This is the government’s ‘choice’ agenda, supported by the Tory Council.

Martin Wicks

2006-06-01T20:50:00.000+01:00

Councillors unite against Academy

This is a press release from Penhill Councillors Andy Harrison (Independent Socialist) and David Glaholm (Labour) on the proposed Academy to replace Headlands school.

Penhill's Ward councillors, Andy Harrison and David Glaholm are taking a united stance and urging all their constituents to vote NO in Swindon Councils consultation on Academy proposals.

Speaking out against the academy Councillor Harrison said the whole academy concept leaves much to be desired. There are major issues with academy schools, from their higher exclusion rates and parental concerns regarding child religious indoctrination to academy selective admission practices and the total loss of any local accountability.

Sponsors gaining unaccountable control of over £25 million pounds worth of public investment without any guarantees that even one child’s education will be significantly improved certainly doesn't sound like the Value For Money that both the government and council insist upon even when investing much smaller amounts of taxpayer’s money.

Academies are still very much an educational experiment and the pupils, parents and whole community deserve better than to have their children's education subjected to such a further hit and miss approach. We must remember that Headland pupils have already had to endure being failed by Swindon's education department and they deserve better than to be used further as academy guinea pigs.

Councillor Glaholm said "I have asked many times for reassurance on how the children from Penhill would be able to safely access the new school but without success.
I feel the children will take the shortest route across fields and parents should seek reassurance their children will not be at risk before supporting the proposal.

Councillor Harrison has arranged a public meeting for 6:30pm on Monday 12th June at the John Moulton Hall, Penhill, so that Penhill ward residents can hear both sides of the arguments before making their minds up on such an important issue.

Both ward councillors are increasingly finding that the promised consultation by the council, which ends on the 16th June, is not only extremely one sided but believe that Penhill ward residents are being deliberately excluded from the consultation process.

END
For further information please contact:
Councillors
Andy Harrison 07720 484540
David Glaholm 07952 862929

2006-05-30T13:48:00.000+01:00

Some questions for the scrutiny committee

A letter from Jean Saunders on behalf of the Save Coate campaign.

Dear Councillor Small

We are writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny
Committee and in response to your request to contact you with issues that
should be subject to scrutiny.

We suggest that the Committee examines decisions related to the Coate
Development proposals.

We believe that Swindon Borough Council has failed to take account of public concern related to the proposals, has failed to consult with the public before pushing forward with substantial policy changes in the emerging Swindon Local Plan and Wiltshire Structure Plan and has broken all promises related to granting planning permission for the new hospital at Commonhead with the understanding that this was a "one-off" and would not open up the Coate area for development.

We do not understand how an area that has been protected fiercely for years through planning policy as a high landscape value area can, over-night, seemingly become valueless. We are angry that no-one is taking account of the concerns of at least 27,000 people who have signed the Save Coate petition and who have called for a one kilometre of buffer of countryside to be left around Coate Water in order to retain its status as a COUNTRY park and not a town park and to protect the environmental,
social and historic assets of the area.

We want to know why the University of Bath has been allowed to dictate planning policy. We want to know why the University of Bath was invited to sit on the Urban Regeneration Company and then the New Swindon Company when its remit was to take part in the urban regeneration programme for Swindon as a result of North Star being identified as the site for the university campus.

We want to know why English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency weren't consulted about the proposals before the planning policies were formulated in draft.

We want to know why the Borough Council has not organised any public meetings where the public might express their views on the matter.

We want to know why the Borough Council has not seen fit to look at the literary importance of the area in relationship to Richard Jefferies' life and works.

We want to know why the Borough Council keeps referring to the COMMONHEAD development area when the development is not taking place on the top of the road junction.

We want to know why the planning applications lodged by the Swindon Gateway Consortium in April 2005 haven't been taken to planning committee and refused planning permission. The applications run contrary to policies in the emerging local plan for this area.

Yours sincerely

Jean Saunders
on behalf of the Save Coate! coalition

2006-05-30T13:02:00.000+01:00

Parents rebel at 'Dickensian' school run by millionaire evangelist friend of Blair

We reproduce a Guardian article on the situation at the Trinity Academy. Whilst the organisation running this Academy is different to the one seeking to launch an Academy in Swindon, the experience at Trinity raises issues which relate to the proposal for Swindon.

Backlash over emphasis on religion as suspensions soar in 'covert' selection

Matthew Taylor
Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian

Among the parents who had gathered in the back bar of the Moorends Hotel there were tales of curious expulsions and strange practices. One mother said her daughter had been removed from school after being accused of wearing the wrong trousers, another that her son had been permanently expelled for smoking.

A father claimed his son had been sent home for walking the wrong way down the corridor, another that his 16-year-old daughter was kicked out after getting a kiss from her boyfriend at the school gates. And underlying it all was a feeling that Trinity, the third state funded secondary to be run by an evangelical Christian and friend of Tony Blair, Sir Peter Vardy, was pushing an aggressive religious agenda. Cindy Denise, whose two children are both at Trinity, claimed pupils were disciplined if they did not carry the Bible on certain days and summed up the mood at the meeting, describing the school as "a complete joke". "They are kicking children out for nothing and won't listen to anyone who wants to know what is going on."

Trinity opened last summer next to the chicken factory in the former mining town of Thorne, near Doncaster, and is the latest school in the government's controversial academy schools programme. In its first six months 148 children have been suspended, leading many parents to claim that it was using excessive discipline to weed out children it does not want to teach.

The 1,250-pupil school strenuously denies the charges but the parents at the Moorends Hotel insist that the school is operating a system of covert selection to get rid of difficult to teach children. They say the problems surfaced before Christmas when their children began complaining of "Dickensian-style" discipline and parents noticed an "excessive" number of students being sent home. Pauline Wood, whose daughter was excluded after being accused of having bought her school trousers from the wrong shop, decided to call a public meeting. A few weeks, and several home-made posters later, more than 200 people turned up to air their concerns.
"We thought it was just one or two cases to start with but when we talked we realised the scale of what was happening," said Mrs Wood. "We were really surprised at the strength of feeling at that first meeting and the stories that were coming out about what was happening in the school.

"The strong feeling locally is that the school is aiming to get rid of the pupils that have problems or are considered difficult, they've already got a waiting list with kids from outside the area and they want to get them in so the exam results go up and they can say the school is a success. But what happens to our kids - the kids they don't want?

Under-achievers

"When all this started we thought they were trying to get rid of the under-achievers but now we think they are getting rid of any child, regardless of academic ability, who thinks for themselves, who challenges things ... I don't care what anyone says, it's covert selection."
Sarah French, a spokeswoman for Sir Peter's Emmanuel Schools Foundation, which runs the school, denies the allegations. "The idea that we are selecting pupils is a complete red herring and really quite offensive. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, in fact we give priority to children with special educational needs and although we have the right to select 10% of our children by aptitude as an academy we don't because we aim to help each child achieve its potential."

The school says more than 200 pupils were suspended in a similar period at the school Trinity replaced. "The vast majority of parents back what we are doing and see that the measures we have in place are helping change the ethos allowing the children to work in a stable, calm environment," said Ms French.
But parents say the figures do not reflect what they are seeing on the ground. "There was a clampdown at the old school once they knew it was going to be an academy and it has just got worse," said Mrs Wood. "I don't know how they are measuring it but we are certainly seeing more and more children being sent home or kicked out."

Although the allegations of tough discipline and covert selection are the parents' main concerns, some are also uneasy about the religious ethos behind Trinity, citing the decision to give each child a bible as proof that religion pervades every aspect of the school. "They get into trouble if they don't have it [the Bible] with them on certain days," said Ms Denise. "It's not what I want my kids to be doing in school, but I don't have a choice because this is the only school round here and they won't listen to us."

These concerns reflect allegations at another of Sir Peter's state schools - Emmanuel College in Gateshead, which has been repeatedly accused of teaching pupils creationism alongside science.

Tracey Morton, a mother who successfully campaigned against a proposed Vardy academy in nearby Conisbrough in 2004, agreed that the religious nature of Vardy's schools was a real worry for many parents. "These schools peddle a hardcore Christian message and parents don't have any choice about whether that is what they want for their children," she said.

Protest

The parents' group in Thorne say they had no idea what they were letting themselves in for before the school opened and they intend to step up their campaign with a march and a protest outside the school gates. Ms Wood said: "Of course we welcome a new school, but we need it to be run by a fair system. There was only a few weeks consultation here and we weren't told anything about what the school would really be like. We want the local education authority to get back involved because at the moment the school is not accountable to anybody. We have no one to go to when things happen - not local councillors or the MP because there is nothing they can do. The school has 100% power over us and all we can do is try and highlight what is going on."

The school denies the claim. Last night a DfES spokesman said academies were improving results. "Quite rightly academies are putting discipline first because it is vital to help children learn, and the early signs are that behaviour is improving and the number of exclusions falling," said a spokesman.

The history: Schools founded on discipline

Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation runs three schools, two in the north-east, one of which was opened by Tony Blair, and the Trinity academy in Thorne, near Doncaster. Sir Peter is a millionaire car dealer and evangelical Christian whose beliefs pervade every aspect of his schools - they all have a reputation for discipline.

Although academically successful, the schools have been dogged by controversy. Emmanuel has been repeatedly linked to the teaching of creationism - most recently in a Channel 4 documentary - and Kings was criticised for having an exclusion rate 10 times the national average.

Last year, as part of a wider investigation, the Guardian revealed that the number of children eligible for free school meals at Kings, the standard indicator of deprivation, had dropped by more than 100 compared with the school it replaced, leading to renewed claims that it was cherry-picking pupils who were easier to teach.

The foundation says that all its lessons comply with the national curriculum, and that creationism is taught in RE rather than science lessons. But according to the head of the foundation, Nigel McQuoid, "schools should teach the creation theory as literally depicted in Genesis" because creation and evolution are "faith positions".

Both Kings academy in Middlesbrough and Emmanuel college in Gateshead have improved their GCSE results. At Emmanuel 97% of students gained five or more GCSE passes at grade A*-C in 2004 (the national average is 52%). The first set of GCSE results at King's showed that it has more than doubled the performance at its predecessor schools, with 43% of pupils now getting five or more good GCSEs.

Matthew Taylor

2006-05-29T15:28:00.000+01:00

Poisoning the patients or the visitors?

Burger King in a hospital? It must be a joke? Alas this is Blair's NHS, full of that thing so beloved of the Great Leader, "entrpreneurial activity".

Amongst other things, the commercialisation of the NHS by the Blair government has stepped up pressure on NHS Trusts to maximise their rent income. According to a report in the Observer, dozens of Trusts faced with financial deficits are bringing in burger bars and cafes run by high street chains, to earn higher rents.

Burger King already has four outlets in hospitals across England, including Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, which treats thousands of heart patients each year. Research has not yet been carried out to confirm what percentage of heart patients are treated as a result of Burger King’s culinary efforts. However, its presence in hospitals undoubtedly will assist in producing more patients. This is obviously a good thing given Blair’s ‘reform’ which has meant that Trusts have to compete with each other for patients. Yes, Trusts even advertise these days for sick people.

At Bedford Hospital, the WRVS has recently been told it will lose its shop, in order to maximise its rental income. The WRVS has lost other outlets this year. Voluntary organisations don't pay enough.

Addenbrookes Hospital has in its main concourse a Burger King, a Café Ritazza and an Upper Crust, all of them run on a franchise basis by Medirest (great name), which is part of the Compass food services group. Medirest, which also runs catering, cleaning and portering services across the NHS, says it wants to bring more vending machines into hospitals; the more unhealthy the contents the greater the influx of future patients no doubt.

This is only the latest in a long line of vultures gathering to earn money out of people falling sick. In the Great Western Hospital in Swindon we already know of the charging of sick people to watch TV and the high cost of people using the phone service.

I eagerly await a letter from Peter Brown* explain the benefits of putting the likes of Burger King into hospitals.

(Pete Brown is a long time Labour activist renowned for his letters to the local paper explaining what a phenomenal job the government is doing. His letters are usually heavily laden with statistics from Labour HQ.)

2006-05-25T12:40:00.000+01:00

CWU threatens postal strike

The following is a CWU press release.

"Today CWU restored democracy back to the Post Office” was the message from Billy Hayes, General Secretary, after the announcement that over 90,000 postal workers back the union’s vision for the future of Royal Mail.

Billy Hayes, General Secretary, said: “We live in a democracy and our ballot result is a blow to Royal Mail’s style of management by diktat and imposition.

“Allan Leighton believes in one person one vote - so long as he’s the person with the vote!

“By carrying out this ballot the union has done what Royal Mail was afraid to do – give people a choice over their future.”

After the consultation result an Emergency Motion recommending a ballot on strike action was unanimously passed by the postal conference. The adopted position gives Royal Mail four weeks to reopen pay negotiations with the union and make progress in other areas including resolving monies owed through efficiency savings.

Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward told delegates: “It’s not a sign of strength to impose a pay deal on our members - it’s a sign of weakness.

“Royal Mail needs to understand how serious we are about the imposition of pay. If they don’t return to negotiations they will be faced with the prospect of a national strike ballot.”

Ballot papers were sent to all members working in Royal Mail letters – around 136,000 in total.

91,478 ballot papers were returned – 67.3% in total.

Of those, a massive 98.5% - 90,103 members – voted yes in support of the CWU vision.

Only 1,375 – 1.5% - voted against.

The Telephone Poll:
Separately, to reinforce the consultative ballot, CWU engaged an independent company, The Campaign Company, to carry out a professional telephone poll.

They contacted 1,000 CWU members working in Royal Mail Letters.
Note: the size of this sample means that the result of the poll is statistically valid.

- Of those polled, 949 supported the CWU vision. Only 51 didn’t.
- Significantly, a further 67.9% of those polled said that they were either angry or very angry over the imposition of pay.

2006-05-24T17:46:00.000+01:00

Academies fail to improve results, study says
Research from Edinburgh University on exam results from Academies.
Matthew Taylor, education correspondent
Monday May 22, 2006
From the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Schools in the government's £5bn academy programme, which aims to create 200 privately run state secondaries by 2010, have failed to improve results compared with the comprehensives they replaced, according to a report.

The study, by a senior academic at Edinburgh University, found the number of pupils getting five GCSE A*-C grades including English and maths has increased by 0.2% - equivalent to three pupils - across the first 11 academies.

Ministers have repeatedly defended the controversial programme, claiming that the schools have brought about a dramatic improvement in academic standards, particularly the number of children getting five or more good GCSEs.

But last night union leaders and opposition MPs said the government had misled the public. Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman, said: "This research pulls the rug out from under ministers who have made extravagant claims about the results academies are delivering. The truth is that their performance is much less impressive than the government has spun. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being poured into an unproven scheme."

The government said that according to its figures, the number of youngsters reaching the benchmark five good GCSEs including English and maths at the first 11 academies had increased by just over 1%.

A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills added that the academies' GCSE results were "outstripping" those of their predecessor schools, adding that if English and maths were not included there had been an 8 percentage point rise in those getting five good GCSEs. "This is the true measure of academies' success and the fact they are transforming lives for the better - that's why they're popular and oversubscribed."

But last night the report's author, Terry Wrigley, a senior lecturer at Edinburgh University and editor of the education journal Improving Schools, said that some academies were diverting children away from GCSEs to boost their standing in school league tables. The study found that many children had been switched from taking separate subjects at GCSE to the vocational GNVQ qualification, which counts as four GCSEs in government tables.

"There seems to be something important going on here," he said. "Of course we should value vocational as well as academic learning, but false equivalents simply let down the most vulnerable young people. It may be in the school's short term interests, and the government's, to improve exam statistics in this way. However, as soon as an individual applies for a job or university place, they will face problems. How many employers regard a GNVQ in computing plus a C in art as equal to five good GCSEs in different subjects, especially if you include English and maths?"

According to Mr Wrigley the proportion of children taking GNVQ qualification has risen from 13% at the predecessor schools to around 52% at the academies.

He said the findings would raise concerns about the government's plans for a new generation of trust schools - based on the academy model. "There are variations between academies; some are doing well and some have worse results than the schools they closed down," he said. "So why is so much success being attributed to business sponsorship? This is poor evidence on which to base the entire government strategy of academies and trust schools. Government thinking appears to be based more on faith in business sponsors and privatisation than any educational evidence."

But a spokesman for the education department insisted the schools were reversing decades of educational failure in some of the country's most deprived areas, adding that GNVQs allowed less academic children to leave school with a recognised qualification.

He said the schools were improving standards in English and maths for 14-year-olds, and that would feed through to GCSE scores in the future.

"A more reliable guide to their success in improving English and maths at GCSE in future is that there has been a 9.4 percentage point improvement rate for English and a 12.9 percentage point improvement rate for maths in tests for 14-year-olds. Achieving the required level at these key stage 3 tests is an important indicator of future success at GCSE."

At a glance
There are 27 academy schools open and ministers hope that will rise to 200 by 2010. The schools cannot charge fees but they stand apart from the state system. Individual sponsors have a large degree of control, appointing managers and deciding the schools' ethos and curriculum.

Sponsors were initially required to pay 20% of the school's capital costs, but that changed to £2m, or less than 5%. The remaining capital costs (around £25m a school) are met by the taxpayer, along with subsequent running costs. So far few sponsors have handed over the full amount.
The government says academic standards are rising more quickly at academies than at the schools they replaced or at other comprehensive schools. Many of the schools have had good Ofsted reports.

2006-05-24T13:06:00.000+01:00

Defend Council Housing Conference launches Open Letter to Tony Blair

A DCH conference on May 22nd has agreed to step up the pressure on the government by launching an open letter to Tony Blair demanding the right for direct investment in Council Housing.

Tenants, trade unionists and councillors from across the UK met at the TUC in London for the DCH national conference on May 22. The conference launched a new Open Letter to Tony Blair as a focus to unite all those demanding the 'Fourth Option' to provide a long term secure future for council housing. The 'Fourth Option' directly benefits areas retaining council housing, those in ALMOs opposed to two-stage privatisation and those facing transfer, PFI or ALMO in the coming year.

Jack Dromey reported to the conference that the Labour Party working group to address the 'Fourth Option' motion passed at their September conference was due to meet for the first time.

Download copies of the open letter to use in your area – get tenants, trade unionists, councillors and MPs to sign. Put motions through tenants and trade union organisations supporting the open letter, get leading tenants and union reps and councillors to write a letter to the local press and help get the open letter circulated as widely as possible.

Downlaod the Resolution passed at the Conference.

Report from the Conference

Council tenants from across the country met with councillors and trade union delegates attending the DCH national conference at TUC Congress House in London. 42 areas were represented.

The plenary session, chaired by Alan Walter heard from Michael Meacher MP, Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary T&G; Reg Edwards, Milton Keynes councillor; David Eggmore, UNISON London Local Government; Mike Tansey, Sunderland councillor and Eileen Short, from Tower Hamlets. Austin Mitchell MP on a Public Account delegation to US sent apologies along with Jenni Morrow, secretary Scottish Tenants Organisation.

Delegates split into four workshops. Janet Sillett from the Local Government Information Unit explained how the 'fourth option' can be funded and answered questions. Dexter Whitfield from the Centre for Public Services and Paul Burnham, a tenant involved in Haringey DCH, lead off a discussion on the 'Future of ALMOs'. Eileen Short introduced 'Organising Effective Local Campaigns' and Lesley Carty briefed delegates on the Case Against Transfer.

Jack Dromey, T&G deputy general secretary, informed delegates that the Labour Party NEC working group set up to address the terms of the 2005 conference decision was finally going to meet: "two years running at the Labour Party conference there were overwhelming votes in favour of the 'fourth option' and they were until January of this year simply ignored by government and that's absolutely wrong."

"I must say that as well as the campaign for the 'fourth option' that I also think that we need a second string to our bow and that's councils once again being able to engage in new build. In 1970 there were 172,000 council homes built. By 2001 councils built 487 council homes. In the same year RSLs they built only 22,000. So at a time when the trend is for more people wanting houses what we have got is a decline in social housing and at the heart of that is councils not being able to engage in new build.

But crucially at the next stages we need the twin objectives of on the one hand a free choice for tenants and that must mean a wider range of options open to councils and if tenants vote to stay with their council why should the council not have the resources to renovate council homes. And on the other hand because we need many more units of accommodation councils should be free once again be able to engage in new build with the support of government.

Now today is very well timed because it happens that we have finally have got started tomorrow, Tuesday, the debate within the party around the future options of the councils, including the fourth option and also councils once again engaging in new build. I have to say by the way that in January of this year that was agreed and here we are almost at the end of May but I raised very strongly ten days ago with the party secretary saying that look we can't have the situation where two years running we ignore decisions then at last you agree to enter into a debate and then we wait the best part of five months and bugger all happens.

I think we conditioned the thinking and that debate will commence tomorrow. I don't want to mislead. I wish that I could say today that we are going to be able to quickly make the kind of progress that we would like to see. But I tell you this. The door is open and it's in our hands at the next stages as to how this progress is made. What's been said is that there will be a process over the next eighteen months, leading up to the next comprehensive spending review, with housing a central issue within that, around those twin issues of councils being able to build and councils being able to renovate their housing stock.

I suspect that you like me will take the same view which is we are not going to wait for eighteen month for an outcome. And that then leads on to how we conduct ourselves at the next stages."

I think it is disrespectful for tenants to say to tenants that you can have any choice provide that it is not the choice you want.

You can have the best arguments in the world but to break through what you need is overwhelming community and political pressure and from within the party pressure on government for a change of policy. That means therefore that all of us here today have got a very important role to play. Tenant activists at the sharp end working together with trade unionists and others. MPs like Micheal and Austin. A lot of good councillors who have bravely spoken out on this issue. Working together with us in the trade unions at national level so that we do is win the argument but also win then that change of policy. I am confident, like Michael, that we can do it. I applaud the work that you have done thus far and at the next stages, I'll tell you what, us having forced that door, it's not just people like me - it's all of us together, all of us together - having forced that door open in government let's go through that door and win what tenants deserve and that is a genuine choice for the future and councils once again engaging in new build."

Michael Meacher MP, a member of the House of Commons Council Housing group supporting the campaign, criticised Ministers for saying:

"You can’t have money for investment in repairs and improvements unless you privatise, go to a housing association or to an ALMO. This is one of the great scandals of our time. Just look at the government’s own arguments. Well the government says they believe in real choice. ..Why can’t we choose to stay with our local authority and receive the same funding for council housing.

The government says that it believes in transparency and fairness. So do we all. How do they justify siphoning off this £2b a year in housing revenue account and right to buy receipts. How do you justify prohibiting councils from using their own rental income and the value of their own housing stock in order to support borrowing to fund housing improvements..."

Alan Walter, DCH chair, summed up where the campaign has got to:

"We’ve build an unprecedented alliance of tenants, trade unions, councillors and MPs. We’ve won the argument almost everywhere except in the Cabinet.

The government has come under sustained pressure in the last year, including: evidence from the House of Commons Council Housing group (May 2005); the Audit Commission call for a 'review of housing finance (June 2005); 98 local authorities opting for stock retention (July 2005); the almost unanimous vote at the Labour Party conference (Sept 2005); the DCH Lobby of Parliament (Feb 2006), 144 MPs signing the current Early Day Motion and a growing proportion of NO votes including Sedgefield, Tower Hamlets, West Lancs, Waverley, Edinburgh, Selby, Mid-Devon, Cannock Chase and Waveney.

Our job now is to unite all those in the 98 authorities retaining their council homes, the 50 odd councils with ALMOs who don’t want the second stage of privatisation and help those facing new privatisation proposals to see the threat off in their area.

We need to take the open letter to Blair onto every council estate, get trade unionists signing up at work and ask every elected councillor to sign too. Ministers need to realise that come September, when the Labour Party conference meets again, the spotlight will be on whether they are capable of listening and respond to the overwhelming demand that they deliver on improving all our council homes and estates."

1. Help get the open letter circulated as widely as possible
2. Download copies of the campaign open letter to use in your area
3. Get tenants, trade unionists, councillors and MPs to sign
4. Put motions through tenants and trade union organisations supporting the open letter
5. Ask leading tenants and union reps and councillors to write a letter to the local press urging others to sign too

2006-05-12T13:06:00.000+01:00

Wiltshire NHS - The worst Year ever?

Here are three news items relating to the proposed decimation of the health service in Wiltshire. Compare this reality with the comment of Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt that this is "the best year ever" for the NHS.

Heated row over hospital closure
By Charley Morgan (Wiltshire Times)

THERE were heated confrontations in Warminster on Tuesday as more than 400 people turned up for a public meeting on the closure of the town's hospital.

The meeting at the Assembly Rooms began with 200 people shut out because not enough seats had been provided. But when the crowd started chanting Let them in' they were allowed to stand at the back of the hall to hear what Kennet and North Wilts and West Wilts primary care trusts had to say.

Protesters gathered outside the hall before the meeting, with placards and banners chanting Save Warminster Hospital' as health chiefs arrived. Roger Davey, of Unison, told the crowd on a loudspeaker: "This is the start of a long campaign.

"We are fighting for a hospital service, the NHS and for the elderly. We need the hospital service to keep people alive." Tessa Atwater, of Friends of Warminster Hospital, said: "There are 16 primary schools that are served by this hospital, who is going to take them to the hospital if they are having an asthma attack and need to be put on a nebuliser?"

Inside, Carol Clarke, chief executive of both PCTs, faced a barrage of questions on the Pathways for Change document, which lists three options, all outlining the closure of Warminster Hospital. Cllr Chris March said: "The hospital belongs to the people. There are no alternatives in place and we will be left with nothing if we are not careful."

Dr Vivian Stevens, a GP at The Avenue Surgery, Station Road, told the PCT board: "This document reminds me of an Easter egg lots of packaging but very little inside. There are no provisions for palliative and terminal care."

Protester Michelle Meadows asked the PCT if it were true women from west Wiltshire will not be able to give birth in the district in future, with the maternity unit at Trowbridge Hospital facing the axe. Mrs Clarke simply replied: Yes unless they give birth at home."

A nurse from Warminster Hospital asked what kind of care could be provided for the elderly at home if they did not have air mattresses to prevent bedsores and hoists to lift them.

Julie Clatworthy, director of clinical governance and chief nurse, said: "People are much more likely to get infections such as MRSA in hospital than they are at home so it's going to be much better for them."

Michael Turner, from Warminster Independent Trade Association, said: "This is not a consultation it's a creditors meeting. If you were a private company you would be bankrupt as it is you are just morally bankrupt."

Show of strength in hospital battle
By Nigel Kerton (Gazette & Herald)

THE people of Marlborough and the surrounding area put on an amazing show of force on Monday to demonstrate to health chiefs their anger at proposed cuts in Savernake Hospital services.

At least 700 people turned out to let the Kennet and North and West Wiltshire Primary Care Trusts see they will not let the hospital close or accept any reduction in services without a fight.

Fewer than 200 people were admitted to the meeting in the Assembly Room, the biggest room in the town hall, because of health and safety limitations on numbers.
More than 500 were turned away including the leader of Kennet District Council Chris Humphries.

He and John Macdonald, who is a member of the Marlborough Area Community Strategic Partnership, counted more than 500 disappointed people who were turned away.
Those in the queue were placated with the promise of another meeting and yesterday the PCT confirmed it would take place on June 26, at 6.30pm in the Memorial Hall at Marlborough College, which seats 450.

There were calls for the PCT chief executive Carol Clark and other trust members to resign.

Anger was also expressed that Mrs Clark gave a presentation lasting 30 minutes when chairman Professor Alastair Bellingham had limited the meeting to just 75 minutes.
Under discussion were three options for the future of healthcare in the district, none of them keeping the minor injuries unit open at Savernake and one of them proposing the hospital should close.

MP Michael Ancram pointed out that option one would leave the whole of Kennet with no hospital, no minor injuries unit and no maternity unit. He said the area had a population of 100,000 and added: "What is proposed is simply not good enough."
Without blaming the PCT Mr Ancram said: "We are paying the penalty for being underfunded and what we have been asked to accept is unacceptable."

Dr Jonathon Glover, a Marlborough GP, said the interest in the town was on retaining Savernake Hospital and building on its services.

Dr Glover said the new hospital, which opened in September after a £10million rebuild, had not been given a chance to prove itself and said: "We need the trust of the PCT to help us through the first 18 months and get it running."

There was applause when Nigel Triptree, a local resident, said the present dire straits the PCT was in was "due to bad management".

Ray White, president of the Friends of Savernake, revealed they had given more than £500,000 to the hospital over the last 50 years but said its last gift of £60,000 had not even brought a letter of thanks from the PCT.

Make your protest heard now
(Gazette & Herald)

SAVE OUR HEALTH SERVICES: THOUSANDS of fliers and posters are being printed this week urging people to turn out in their hundreds to protest against the threats to Chippenham Hospital at a public meeting next week.

Campaigners want to see maximum turnout at the Neeld Hall meeting on Tuesday evening to prove to the Kennet and North and West Wiltshire Primary Care Trusts just how strong feeling is.

Retired GP Nick Whyatt said a band of protesters would be handing out fliers at supermarkets and sticking posters up around the town.

He urged concerned residents to write to the health trusts now with their fears.

"We can't accept any type of closure or loss to hospital beds in Chippenham," said Dr Whyatt. "In fact we must have another meeting to discuss enlargement of the hospital.

"There must be no reduction in beds.

"Chippenham Hospital is a hub of services for the elderly and new plans should be drawn up."

Dr Whyatt said he couldn't stress enough the importance of people letting the trusts know how concerned they are.

He said: "The PCT thinks it is not getting any letters, and what we want is an overwhelming number so they can't ignore them."

MP James Gray met with protesters and a group of doctors last week to discuss the way forward at next week's meeting.

He said: "I am by no means convinced that the threat to Chippenham Hospital has receded. It appears that the PCT very much prefers option one, but all three options in the consultation paper would mean the effective destruction of community hospitals across Wiltshire, with only the slenderest resemblance of a hospital left in Chippenham.

"My strong view is that all three options are unacceptable and that everyone must write and campaign to reject all three and call for the preservation of community hospitals in the area.

"I urge all those concerned to come to the Neeld Hall on May 16 at 6.30pm to let their views be known to the PCT.

"I hope to be joined there by doctors Nick Brown and John Barter of the Rowden Partnership, Jamie Brosch of the Hathaway Surgery, Chris Dyer, the geriatric care consultant at Chippenham Hospital and Robert Muir from the Lodge Surgery."

2006-05-12T09:56:00.000+01:00

CAC instructs Homebase at Swindon to recognise TGWU

Despite being instructed to recognise the TGWU Homebase is resisting implementing the instruction which is legally binding.

Homebase has been told by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), the legal body that rules on trade union recognition disputes, that it must recognise the T&G after the majority of its Swindon staff joined the Union, and 80 per cent of the workforce signed a petition in favour of union recognition.

The TGWU says that management has been using illegal tactics in Swindon to prevent its employees being represented by the TGWU after the company lost a legal bid to block recognition

“Homebase, a wholly owned subsidiary of Argos, has now broken the law by intimidating workers,” said T&G officer Hugh Kirkbride. “The company has now employed three union-busting consultants, who will not identify their organisation, to misinform fewer than 180 workers about their rights and their union.

“Assisted by local management, they are attempting to bully workers into signing letters prepared for them, opposing the legal decision of the CAC. Polish workers have been singled out for particular attention: this is shameful behaviour towards employees not always familiar with their rights in the UK, and we believe represents an attempt to create ethnic division among the workers.

“Workers are also being told by management that if the union succeeds in winning recognition, the company will close the Swindon depot with the loss of all 179 jobs. This threat is also a breach of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.

“We have filed a formal complaint with the CAC, and we are demanding direct negotiations with Argos at group level to remove the illegal obstacles to recognition at the Swindon depot.”

2006-05-11T14:18:00.000+01:00

Health Crisis, what crisis?

STUC Secretary Martin Wicks writes on the news of redundancies at Swindon's Great Western Hospital and the national health crisis.

No wonder Patricia Hewitt was booed by nurses at the RCN conference. To assert that this has been “the best year ever” for the NHS contradicts the reality experienced by staff and patients, as the redundancies mount up around the country. What appears incomprehensible to many is why this crisis is taking place when the government is spending more money than ever before on the NHS. Where is the money going? Some of it has gone to increased wages for NHS staff (historically many of them lowly paid), but most of that has gone to the new consultants’ contract, and to GPs. Still more is being handed over to private companies as a result of the introduction by this government of a ‘competitive market’. In fact they are throwing money at the private sector. Far from open competition, PCTs have been instructed to hand over work to the private sector. The government has introduced a ‘payments by results’ system for the NHS, but the private companies have been guaranteed payment whether or not they do the amount of work they are contracted to do.

So whilst hospitals around the country are making cuts in service because they do not have sufficient funds to carry out all the work that they could, private companies are being paid for work which they have not done. In furtherance of their free market ideology the government is giving privileges to big business. This is a system which will necessarily eat away at the very foundations of the NHS because, under ‘payment b y results’, the less work the NHS does then the less money it receives. This is not a ‘free market’ but a system which the government has rigged in favour of private business. In fact in order to encourage the private sector to enter into the ‘health market’ the government is actually paying an average of 11% more per operation to private companies than it pays the NHS!

What has precipitated the rush of thousands of redundancies around the country is the instruction from the government that all Trusts have to balance their books. The NHS is to operate like a profit-making business. But, of course, it is not making things, but treating people who do not fall sick by order. As one health worker said to me, what happens if the budget has run out and there is a smash on the motorway? Do they turn the patients away? Send them to another hospital? The answer, of course, is that they would make cuts elsewhere.

These reforms supposedly to improve ‘efficiency’. But since the government has decided that the NHS must operate like a business, the measure of efficiency comes down to the ‘bottom line’. It is budget driven. Under the old system if a hospital over-spent as a result of an increase in numbers of people they treated, a situation beyond its control, the additional money necessary was provided.

In Wiltshire the crisis is unprecedented.

• The Great Western Hospital in Swindon is proposing 99 redundancies and a further 99 posts to be frozen.
• In the area of the Kennett and North Wilts PCT, it is proposed to close 5 community hospitals. Depending on which option is chosen, Melksham and Savernake hospitals could be closed, leaving just Chippenham hospital open.
• Malmesbury Community hospital’s maternity and minor injuries unit has already been closed by Kennet & North Wilts PCT.
• In January debts were announced of £8.2 million for Kennet & North Wilts, £3.7 million for South Wiltshire PCT, £1.7 million for Swindon & Marlborough Trust, and £7.5 million for West Wiltshire PCT.

As a result of the financial crisis of the PCT’s, the Intermediate Treatment Centre at the Great Western Hospital has 36 out of 108 beds unused (20 of these beds are in any case already already for private work) because of drops in ‘demand’ from surrounding PCTs. The purpose of building the ICT was to take pressure off of the beds in the GWH. Chief Executive Lyn Hill-Tout has now come up with the brilliant idea of leasing more space to the private sector!

The redundancies proposed for the Great Western are designed to save £2.2 million a year. But they are not “efficiency savings”. In a paper presented to the Trust Board on April 28th the management admit the cuts “will lead to reduced staff for patient care”. Moreover, although they are asking for volunteers for redundancy they will have discretion over who is given redundancy, depending on how much each individual would receive (length of service etc). So whether there are sufficient volunteers remains to be seen. Either way the loss of jobs will impact on the service provided. The Trust has merely said it will try to ‘mitigate’ the impact.

The Swindon Advertiser editorial described this situation as “yet more evidence of the shameful and chronic shortfall in funding it must perennially suffer.” From this it draws the conclusion that:

“The fact that the money should come from Whitehall is something that the hospital, like the rest of Swindon will just have to live with.”

On the contrary, given that this is just the beginning of the crisis, instead of such a ‘nothing can be done’ attitude, it is necessary to campaign for a fundamental change of direction from the ‘health market’ that the government is introducing.

When the NHS was founded in 1948 it was a decision to take health care out of the market; to turn it into a social service rather than a commodity which people had to buy or go without if they could not afford to pay. Health care was considered as something which was a social right irrespective of the economic circumstances of each individual.

Whilst the current government says that it will continue with health care free at the point of delivery, they have undermined the rationale for a free service (actually based on general taxation). It has introduced a system in which Trusts compete with each other for patients. ‘Patient choice’ treats patients as if they were ‘consumers’ paying for a commodity. In reality patients do not want a choice when they are sick. They would like to be treated at the local hospital, or the nearest one which dealt with their particular illness if it was a specialised discipline. They do not want to have to drive a long way because their local hospital has been closed.

To preserve what is best about the NHS there is an urgent need for a campaign to reverse the ‘reforms’ which the government has introduced; end the ‘health market’ and competition for patients.

Nationally the Keep Our NHS Public (http://www.keepournhspublic.com) campaign has been launched to oppose the government’s reforms. It brings together NHS staff and their trades unions, patients and supporters of the NHS. The latest support came recently when the Junior Doctors’ conference within the BMA voted to support the campaign.

There is some interest expressed amongst NHS staff for setting up a local group of KONP. If anybody is interested in helping out please contact us by email ( swindontuc@btinternet.com ) or ring 07786394593.

2006-05-08T21:33:00.000+01:00

"People will die as a result of your action"

The report below is from the Wiltshire Times on the crisis of health care in Wiltshire.

HEALTH chiefs came face-to-face with a packed hall of more than 200 angry hospital supporters at the first meeting of the Pathways for Change consultation.

Fears over problems with public transport to distant hospitals and the loss of the maternity unit at Trowbridge were two of the major issues sparking emotional reactions at the meeting held in Matravers School, Westbury, on Tuesday.

The purpose of the meeting, the first of a series across towns in the area, was to discuss the three options put forward for the future of health care by West Wiltshire and Kennet and North Wiltshire PCTs.

Under all three proposals Westbury and Bradford on Avon hospitals will remain shut and those in Trowbridge and Warminster will definitely close.

Under one of the options Melksham Hospital would also close leaving no community hospitals in west Wiltshire.

Before the meeting Westbury mayor Mike Hawkins gave an impassioned speech about the anger felt by many in the town.

"We are angry for what was done and the way it was done. We are angry about the way dedicated staff have been treated," he said.

"We are angry that having lost certain elements, and having been told these would be provided at neighbouring hospitals, we learn these other hospitals are also threatened."

Shiena Bowen, chairman of West Wiltshire PCT, told the audience the purpose of the consultation was not to discuss decisions already made but to move forward and look at the options available.

Carol Clarke's announcement that under one of the options Chippenham Hospital would be the nearest community hospital was met by sarcastic laughter by residents worried about the distance between the two towns.

Cllr John Clegg said: "As far as I can see the access is only available for somebody who has a car. A very large percentage of people don't have that facility.

"I question whether you have sat down and worked out how long it takes a relative to visit the stroke centre in Chippenham from Westbury."

Mrs Bowen said they were aware there were transport problems but these could not dictate how changes to health care were made.

"Once we've reached conclusions we'll have to influence the travel in place. We already have a transport group set up investigating patterns," she said.

"We know it is an issue everyone is concerned with and we will tackle it and make sure people can get from A to B."

Midwives from the maternity unit at Trowbridge Hospital spoke up and said the proposal to only have one unit in Chippenham would put mothers' and babies' lives at risk.

Mrs Clarke refused to answer directly yes or no whether the decision to close community hospitals was based on the financial crisis facing the west Wiltshire and Kennet and north Wiltshire PCTs, which are more than £20m in the red.

She said: "The PCT does have a financial problem which hasn't been addressed for a number of years but even if this PCT was balanced we'd still be putting the proposals forward because we believe it is the right thing to do for health care."

Dorian Jones, a member of the Westbury Hospital League of Friends, left the board with a stark message.

"People are going to die as a result of your actions," he warned.

The second meeting was due to be held in Devizes on Wednesday while a third meeting was held in Bradford on Avon last night.

Future meetings

• May 11: Melksham Assembly Hall
• May 15: Clarendon College, Trowbridge
• May 16: Chippenham Neeld Hall
• May 24: Corsham Town Hall
• June 6: Box Selwyn Hall
• June 7: Calne Town Hall

2006-05-07T16:05:00.000+01:00

GMB slates job losses at Great Western Hospital

GMB, Britain’s General Union, attacked plans by the management of the Great Western Hospital in Swindon to axe up to 200 jobs, 99 of which were likely to involve redundancy.

4 May 2006
Trade unions at the Great Western Hospital were told today (4 May) that the Trust needed to make £2.2m in savings per annum as a result of a financial deficit. The Trust is required to achieve a balanced budget this year and faces a potential deficit of £5m.

Kevin Brandstatter, GMB Organiser for Swindon said: “The Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust are the latest Trust to suffer financial problems as a result of Government policy. Patricia Hewitt was quite rightly booed off the stage at the union conferences last week. The continued bungling ineptitude of the Government is now putting the health and wellbeing of people from Swindon and North Wiltshire at risk. The decision to replace the Princess Margaret Hospital with a new hospital based on the much criticised PFI process is also partly responsible for the financial mess surrounding the Great Western Hospital. The Trust has contractual obligation to Carillion, the owners and builders of the Hospital to pay them irrespective of the financial state of the Trust or the need to provide services to patients.

The essence of the PFI project is now abundantly clear - private profit first, patient care second. If the Trust did not have to pay such massive sums to a private company it would not have to make so many job cuts.

It is clear that patient care will be compromised by the cuts in staff at the hospital – there is no way that a hospital can lose so many jobs without disruption to patient care. The Trust will try obviously try to avoid compulsory redundancies by not filling these posts and by natural wastage, but when a nurse or health care assistant leaves and is not replaced there is one less person to look after patients.

GMB will defend members’ interests vigorously and intends to campaign against these unnecessary job losses”.

2006-05-07T13:26:00.000+01:00

Campaign against proposed Academy

More than 30 people attended an open meeting called by Swindon Trades Union Council to discuss the proposed Academy to replace Headlands school.

More than 30 people attended an open meeting organised by Swindon TUC on the issue of the Academy proposed to replace Headlands school. Phil Baker of the teaching union ATL, who spent many years teaching at Headlands spoke against the Academy. He pointed out that when the issue was discussed at the town’s Educational Partnership Board and everybody apart from Tory Councillor Gary Perkins voted against the idea. According to his information the United Learning Trust would be handed over the school for 125 years!

Penhill Councillor Andy Harrison called for public investment rather than giving away public assets to an anti-union car company and a religious trust. The only people to profit from our schools should be our children.

NUT Assistant General Secretary Christine Blower talked about the national experience of Academies.

UNISON Secretary Bob Cretchley said:

“There is clearly a good cross section of people opposed to the Academy and it is all about ensuring that there is a big campaign to stop this from happening. We need to be working together because there is a good chance we can scupper this.”

The meeting agreed to set up a campaign to oppose the Academy which would involve education unions, school governors, parents and residents from the local area. Details of a meeting to organise a campaign will be circulated shortly.

2006-03-28T16:07:00.000+01:00

Local government workers strike

Local government workers in Swindon were on strike today as part of the national action organised by 9 trades unions. The strike included council workers at the civic offices, those at Swindon Commercial Services, Teaching Assistants and clerical staff in schools, Libraries and Leasure Centres. They were taking action in defence of the right to retire at 60, without losing any of their pension.

Earlier in the year the government conceded the right of current staff (e.g.teachers, civil servants) to maintain their existing pensions. Hence in a school you have the anomaly that teachers can retire at 60 on a full pension whereas teaching assitants working with them would have to work to 65 to gain their full pension.

The majority of these staff are women who usually lose out on their pension because of the time they take off for child care. The picture painted in parts of the media of privileged public servants is nonsense. The average local government pension is £3,800 a year, with many women taking home less.

Further negotiations are to take place, with the unions committed to further action in the government and the employers refuse to move.

(The photo shows UNISON members picketting the central library.)

2006-03-18T17:21:00.000Z

Rail Cuts – so what about the environmental crisis?

The Evening Advertiser recently carried a story (March 13th) about cuts in train service proposed for the new timetable. Whatever happened to all that talk about tackling the environmental crisis?
The Times described the proposed cuts in rural areas as the biggest since the Beeching era. In Wiltshire we have seen proposed cuts on the Melksham line, Great Bedwyn to London, and local services feeding into major stations. In Cornwall and Devon cuts in services are being made on lines where passenger numbers have increased by up to 40% over the last five years. A train from Truro to Penzance which currently carries 200 people is being cut, producing a 100 minute gap in the service.

When First Great Western took over the franchise in 1996 there were 14.5 million train journeys. This increased to 22 million by the end of 2005, reflecting the national upward trend with the 1 billion journey mark broken; the highest level since 1950.

The government and the train companies have blamed each other for the cuts. In fact they are the result of the attempt of the Department for Transport, no doubt under pressure from the Treasury, to cut £1 billion a year from rail expenditure. The DfT has set a timetable specification for the new service which provides fewer trains than the current one. Hence Alison Forster the Director of First Great Western, responding to complaints against proposed cuts, said:

"We can only operate additional services over and above those in the Department of Transport's specification if services are commercially viable and there is capacity on the rail network."

This is the context in which we should view the government’s ‘Closures and minor modifications consultation’, much of which deals with the process to push through rail line closures. Overleaf we reproduce a statement by the RMT explaining the government’s consultation.

The decision in relation to closure currently rests with the Secretary of State for Transport. However, it is being handed over to the unelected Office of the Rail Regulator.

The consultation paper says that “as in any industry, changes to service provision will be necessary to reflect passenger and freight demand”. So why cut trains which are full? But the railway, of course, is not just a business like any other. It provides a public service. When New Labour was elected in 1997, John Prescott said that if the government had not succeeded within five years to begin to see a significant shift from road to rail, they would have failed. They have failed, miserably. Moreover, the cuts that are being proposed now are in areas where increasing numbers of people travel by train. Cuts in service, not to mention line closures, can only lead to increased traffic on the roads. What sense does this make given the environmental crisis?

The collapse of Network Rail as a private company quoted on the stock exchange marked the failure of the Tory government’s privatisation. However, because of its free market fundamentalism, the Blair government refused to renationalise Network Rail and the railways, even though they could have simply taken much of it back for nothing as the Rail Companies’ franchises ran out. Gordon Brown insists Network Rail remain a private sector company so that its debt is not counted on the government’s balance sheet. Yet the company depends on government money, and should it collapse then the public purse will take the hit anyway; unless, of course, the government goes down the road of Beeching Mark 2.

Already they have abandoned any attempt to cut road transport. To introduce a new round of cuts on the railways would be a lunacy which would increase cars and emissions, literally fuelling global warming, rather than tackling it.

Swindon TUC is calling on local trade unionists, transport users and anybody concerned with the environmental crisis to do the following:

• Send in a response to the Department for Transport consultation opposing closures and demanding that trades unions and rail users groups have by law to be consulted; opposing the unaccountable ORR determining closures.
Email: ccmconsult@dft.gov.uk

Or write to:
Closures and minor modifications consultation manager
Zone 5/27 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

• Contact your MP calling for a halt to any cuts and opposing the new closure process.
Email: annesnelgrovemp@parliament.uk
Email: michaelwillsmp@parliament.uk

Or write to them at:
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Department for Transport rail consultation

RMT is working with sister rail unions and other rail campaigners for the protection and expansion of rail services to be at the heart of new procedures. The deadline for responses to a Department for Transport consultation is April 21st April and any organisation or individual can respond, including local campaigners and rail users groups.

The DfT consultation document deals with closure procedures and minor modifications guidance. The document is a direct result of the Railways Act 2005 which promised that the government would consult on new closures guidance before they were introduced into law. RMT members will remember that when the 2005 Act was going through Parliament we raised the criticism that at a time when rail was carrying more passengers than at any time since the 1950s it was bizarre that so much of the Act addressed the closure of lines, services and stations.

Since the Act was passed there have been disturbing press reports that branch lines should be concreted over and that many lightly used stations could be closed.

In 2007 the DfT will produce their High Level Output Specification and also announce how much money they have available in the railway pot. There are indications that the Treasury is seeking to cut £1 billion a year from the railway budget. It is in this context that the closures guidance should be seen.

On the face of it the guidance looks acceptable. Once a closure is proposed, a cost-benefit analysis with monetary values placed on a series of factors including the impact that closure will have on the environment, accessibility, safety and the economy. However, two things are important to bear in mind. Firstly the cost-benefit analysis is already used and all too often is utilised as a barrier to investment on the rail network. Secondly, and probably more importantly, consultants employed to conduct the analysis are likely to come up with the results required by the DfT. Put simply, if the DfT wants figures that support a closure then the consultant will provide them.

Regrettably the guidance once again raises the spectre of bustitution and makes clear that in addition to the money which could be saved by closure the potential value of the land which could be sold as a result of closure should be taken into account by the cost-benefit analysis. Commenting on the procedures, with specific regard to bustitution, the highly respected Rail Business Intelligence journal recently said: “the fundamental problem is the underlying assumption that buses, which obviously incur negligible infrastructure costs, are in principle as good as the rail services they replace. The danger is that bustitution will inevitably emerge as the cheapest option for a substantial proportion of the network as the noose tightens.”

The new guidance scraps the current system where the regional Rail Passengers Committee produces a report on the hardship likely to be caused by the proposed cut. Under the rules to be scrapped the final decision over closure rested with the democratically elected Secretary of State for Transport.

For the future the new procedure will allow Network Rail, Train Operating Companies, or a rail funding authority (DfT, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, PTAs or the Mayor of London) to propose a closure. The decision to go ahead will be made by the unelected Office of the Rail Regulator.

The consultation itself requires that notices are placed in both local and national newspapers and in the stations affected by the proposed closures. Organisations have 12 weeks after the second newspaper notice appears to respond.

Trades Unions and local rail users groups are not in the list of bodies and organisations that have, by law, to be consulted. Significantly there is no obligation that the consultation holds public meetings or hearings to discuss the closure proposals. This is a serious omission. It is vital that local communities and trades unions are able to meet publicly and collectively in order to hold to account those who are proposing the removal of local rail services.

The full closure procedure can be found at the Department for Transport website:

Download a rich text file version of this Bulletin for distribution at: http://uk.geocities.com/swindontuc/railcuts.rtf

2006-03-17T17:43:00.000Z

Local government pensions strike action

Local government union members have votes overwhelmingly for strike action in defence of their pensions. The first strike is due to take place on March 28th.

Votes in favour varied from 74% to 94%. The action is in the first instance in defence of the right of staff to retire at 60. The government is also looking to introduce a 'career average' pension rather than a fina; sa;ary one..

The unions involved are: Amicus, GMB, TGWU, UNISON. Picket lines are expected to be inplace at the civic offices and the Swindon Services depots.

2006-03-17T17:00:00.000Z

Compulsory redundancies signal NHS crisis

According to the BBC the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent has announced that up to 1,000 jobs (from a staff of 7,000) could be cut to address their financial crisis; a £17 million defecit. An estimated 370 of the posts will be nurses and midwives. Vacant posts may not be filled to help reduce staffing and 15 consultant posts could be cut. In a staggering statement of complacency the Department of Health said it was 'reassured services would not be cut.' Staff have been told about 750 compulsory redundancies may be needed.

This is the direct result of the government's determination that Trusts must 'live within their budgets whilst providing patients with better services'! This is nonsense. Under the new system of 'payment by results' Trusts which treat 'too many' people get financially penalised. As a result of the commercialisation of the NHS and the new 'market in health care' efficiency is measured not in terms of the quality of care given to patients but by the balance sheet.

The emergence of compulsory redundancies is a salutory reminder that the government is destroying the foundations of the NHS, and the responsibility of those who support social health care to organise a national campaign against the government's disastrous privatisation agenda.

Visit: http://www.keepournhspublic.com/

2006-03-16T18:30:00.000Z

"Home owning democracy": What's in a phrase?

A delegation from Swindon trades unions participated in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, in support of direct investment in Council Housing. One of the MP's, Anne Snelgrove told us we live in a "home owning democracy". What's in a phrase?

South Swindon’s new Blairite MP Anne Snelgrove told a trade union delegation, participating in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, that we live in a “home owning democracy”. She was explaining why she was opposed to Councils building new Council housing. “Home owning democracy”; the phrase rang a bell. Didn’t Thatcher use it? Yes, in her assault on Council Housing she boasted of building a ‘home owning democracy’. This was why she introduced the ‘right to buy’ through which Council housing was given away to tenants with a massive discount. It was a conscious policy designed to destroy Council housing estates as bastions of electoral support for Labour. How could people with ‘capital’ vote Labour?

That a Blairite MP like Snelgrove can utter the phrase without the least embarrassment reflects the degree to which New Labour is rooted in the Thatcher legacy. Historically, democracy was something which working people had to fight for in the teeth of resistance from the British rulers. Even with the passing of the ‘Great Reform’ Act of 1832 (1) only around one in five males had the vote, women none at all. The franchise conceded was based on the value of the property you owned or lived in. Universal suffrage strictly speaking was not conceded until 1928, and even then, the phenomenon of double voting was not done away with until after the Second World War. So home ownership was an important part of the pseudo-democracy which Britain’s rulers conceded piecemeal in order to hang onto their wealth and power.No doubt Snelgrove does not mean by “home owning democracy” that those who do not own a home should not have the vote. Rather, it reflects the Thatcherite prejudices about ‘standing on your own two feet’, ‘welfare dependency’ etc, which Blair and his clones swallowed whole. We are all ‘Thatcherites’ now declared Peter Mandelson.New Labour is the “Party of aspiration” we are told. One New Labour councillor in Swindon some years back spoke with disdain about the fact that there were some families who lived on the Parks council estate for three generations! Can you imagine somebody preferring to live in a Council house rather than owning their own home? Obviously they lacked ambition and ‘aspiration’.

But the labour movement historically had collective aspirations. It wanted to improve the lot of the working class as a whole. New Labour has been created by people for whom personal advancement is their driving aspiration. Obviously anybody who lives in council accommodation cannot possibly be a “success” or they would be able to afford to buy their own home.One of the tenets of New Labour under Blair was that opposing the right to buy had been a big political mistake, from an electoral point of view. But the results of ‘right to buy’ were disastrous. In conjunction with what was effectively a ban on new Council House building (financially penalising Councils for building new stock), it created a massive shortage of Council Housing (2) and helped to drive up prices in the private housing market. The shortage forced people who might have been on a Council House waiting list, to buy their own house (often beyond their means).Many people bought their home because it was an offer which was too good to be true. The mortgage was often lower than the rent. However, what some did not think about was the cost of maintenance. On the estate which I live on you can see decaying housing which people snapped up but which they did not have the means to modernise, next to Council Housing which has had double glazing and central heating fitted. After the initial enthusiasm of purchase there was a high occurrence of repossession as new owners found themselves in financial difficulties, especially in the period of high unemployment.

Anne Snelgrove might have no problem uttering the mantra of Thatcher. However, it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of her policy (for the younger generations she is only a figure out of the history books), many elements of which have been left intact by New Labour. The commentary of Ian Gilmour, an opponent of hers within the Tory Party, throws an interesting light on her policy.The ‘right to buy’ was taken up, during Thatcher’s reign by 1.5 million families. Although in favour of selling Council homes to tenants, Gilmour complained that the government was “more concerned with diminishing the role of local authorities than with the provision of affordable homes”.“In consequence, so far from doing much to relieve the housing shortage, which it had inherited, the government by its policies, in some places drastically exacerbated it.”Nicholas Ridley, the Environment Secretary from 1986-9 was “determined to weaken the almost incestuous relationship between some Councils and their tenants”. A 1988 Housing Act encouraged the transfer of tenanted council estates to other landlords through ‘Housing Action Trusts’. The government rigged the voting system by counting those who did not vote as voting in favour of transfer! As Gilmour comments, despite the rigged system, the great majority of tenants decided to ‘continue to live in incest’.

At the time many Labour Councils and Councillors helped to lead the campaign against what was known as “pick a landlord”.When Anne Snelgrove says that Housing Action Trusts would be better building housing she forgets this Thatcherite attempt to destroy Council Housing.Gilmour continues: “Homelessness is far from new, but the sale of Council houses, backed by financial incentives (Thatcher’s favourite Council, Wandsworth, offered free holidays to tenants who bought their homes), required a high rate of council house building…or some alternative provision if it was not to lead to increased homelessness. Instead, local authorities were forbidden to spend more than a quarter of the revenue generated from council house sales on new homes and renovations. In so far as the government recognised the resulting problem of homelessness, it left it to be solved by the market. Thus the placing of homeless families in temporary accommodation by local authorities owed less to bad housing management, as the Thatcherites claimed, than to the financial restrictions that they themselves imposed onto the amount of money that could be spent on repairs to make empty properties inhabitable.

”Because local authorities were prevented by the government from providing new homes, they had (in the words of the chair of the then Conservative controlled London Borough Association) to “spend a fortune” on temporary accommodation for the homeless. “This waste of resources”, he said “completely frustrates our objective of achieving value for money and only adds to the appalling amount of human misery involved.”Ironically, for all the talk of “welfare dependency” what the Thatcher government did was to cut welfare to the poor and increase it to the rich. In 1979 subsidies to owner occupiers and council tenants were roughly equal. By the end of the 1980s the subsidy to council tenants had fallen to around £500 million, while the public handout to owner occupiers in the form of mortgage tax relief had climbed to £5.5 billion.As a result of the policies of the Thatcher government, in the words of Gilmour, the council house became “more and more the preserve of the very poor”.

Before the ‘right to buy’ Council estates comprised a wide cross section of working class people. One of the consequences of the social catastrophe for which the Thatcher government was responsible, was the growth of mass unemployment. Thatcher’s housing policy created conditions where the best stock was bought by those who could afford it. Whilst some people refused to buy out of principled opposition to the policy, probably the majority of those who could afford to buy, did so, thinking as individuals and ignoring the social consequences of their self-interest.

Progressively, Council housing comprised the poorest sections of the community. The absence of new building meant that very few people had a chance of getting accommodation under the points system by which priority was decided. Single parents became a large proportion of those in Council accommodation. The fact that only the most impoverished sections of the community tend to live in Council accommodation is reflected in the statistics. Up to two thirds of tenants receive benefit of one sort or another. Today many people who might have put their names on the list do not bother because the wait is so long.It is ironic that a ‘one nation’ Tory like Gilmour could see the consequences of Thatcher’s policy, but in contrast the ideological creators of New Labour, in the words of Mandelson wanted to “move forward from where Margaret Thatcher left off”, leaving in place much of her policy.

Like all Blairites, Anne Snelgrove appears to be prejudiced against social provision which was part and parcel of post-Second World War social democracy. She is opposed to Councils being given the right to build new stock. She believes in the 'purchaser/provider' split. She is convinced that private business is ‘more efficient’. Much better that the private sector provide housing, in her view.

Of course, Councils don’t have the resources to build Council Housing themselves. The one I live on was built by John Laing. But Council housing was considered necessary in order to tackle the problem of much of the population living in overcrowded and poor conditions. The history of private landlords in Britain is well known. “Take the money and do as little as possible to maintain the state of accommodation,” was the principle on which many of them operated. Council accommodation greatly improved the quality of life for millions of working class people.The Blair government’s policy on housing was rooted in Thatcher’s programme. They set out to remove Council Housing from the scene. They set themselves the target of transferring 200,000 houses a year. For Gordon Brown, getting rid of Council housing was a function of managing ‘his’ national balance sheet. It would make the book look better, removing historical housing debt from public accounts.

However, council tenants have a different point of view. Despite all the blackmail and all the tricks, many of them have resisted the transfer of their housing. It is not because they are in love with their councils. Indeed dealing with bureaucracy is one of the downsides of being a tenant. They have opposed privatisation because being a council tenant gives them an affordable home and security of tenure. And stories of life before the big building programmes are passed down from generation to generation. The Racnmanite landlord was a common figure only 40 years ago (3) .

After the delegation from Swindon had met our two MPs, we walked over to the Defend Council Housing rally in Westminster Hall. Gerald Kaufmann, the former Labour Minister, was speaking on the platform. The contrast with New Labour MPs could not have been more graphic. Kaufmann was on the right of the old Labour Party, a member of the last pre-Blair Labour government. Yet here he was not only demanding that Councils have the right to direct investment in their existing stock, but spoke of the need to build new council housing. He reminded us that Tory and Labour governments used to compete about how many Council Houses they had built.He confessed that when last in the government he had introduced legislation that had given Housing Associations the right to build public housing in conjunction with councils. But it was only conceived as a small niche. Never, he said, did he imagine that Housing Associations would end up as the sole provider of public housing. Housing Associations are considered providers of ‘social housing’. But, said Kauffman, a lot of his constituency work involved dealing with problems which tenants had with Housing Associations, which are unaccountable organisations. The only ‘public housing’ now built is the result of collaboration between Housing Associations and Local authorities, often accommodation for elderly people. But the amount being built is miniscule.

Anne Snelgrove did express the view that there is a need for more ‘affordable housing’. But the reality is that the housing market will not deliver it. The government is prepared to offer mortgage relief to private owners. It has been prepared to write off historical housing debt for councils whose tenants vote to transfer to another owner. It offers funds for the lunacy of people buying half a mortgage, giving them the privilege of paying mortgage and rent at the same time! Yet it still refuses to give Councils the right to build new Council Housing. It appears to be politically and ideologically opposed to such a thing. When Gordon Brown recently spoke about his belief in “21st century individualism” he more or less said that people will have to buy their own homes. Clearly he does not believe Councils should build any.However, the housing crisis will not be addressed by the market or by government help for people to buy. Personal debt is at historically unprecedented levels. The crisis can only realistically be addressed by a new programme of Council House building.

The government’s housing policy is in a state of disarray. Their attempt to eradicate Council Housing has been defeated by the resistance of tenants and trades unions. The campaign for the right of Councils to start building Council housing needs to be stepped up.

Notes
(1) The Prime Minister Grey explained: “The principle of my reform is to prevent the necessity of revolution…there is no one more dedicated against annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and the (secret) ballot than I am.”
(2) Ironically by relying on ‘market forces’ the concentration of wealth and economic activity has created a situation where in areas like Swindon there has been a massive increase in the Council House waiting list, whilst in other parts of the country, which have suffered an exodus of jobs and population, Council accommodation lies empty, with insufficient ‘demand’ for it.
(3) Rachman was a notorious slum landlord in London.

2006-03-16T18:26:00.000Z

Swindon TUC new News site

This is a new News site of Swindon TUC. We will maintain our main website. However, this one will provide more up to the minute news. In addition, it will enable local trades unionists to comment on posts. If your union or shop stewards committe wants to participate, you can register with the site and post your own news. If you want to know how, contact us. Alternatively to can send it to us to post by emailing us.

Martin Wicks
Secretary, Swindon TUC