Helen Goodman MP’s speech to our joint Musicians’ Union, BECTU and Equity fringe meeting at Labour Party Conference: Britiain Entertaining the World
It’s very nice to be here and thank you for inviting me. I feel slightly terrified actually, I don’t normally feel terrified in meetings, but having heard John, Jean and Gerry and they’re all so eloquent, and all so clear, and they’ve all made such passionate cases, that I hope my response can live up to it.
As far as the National Union of Musicians is concerned, I just want to say I’m really grateful to you because you gave me the first nomination I ever had for a Parliamentary seat. Actually, I wasn’t selected but we won’t go into that…
You’re all absolutely right about the vitality of the creative sector and the economic contribution. And I want to divide what I say into two parts. I want to say something about the economic aspect and then I want to say a little bit also about the intrinsic aspect. Because I think missing the intrinsic aspect is the thing that politicians most frequently do that really winds up people in the sector. I don’t know whether you saw there was a great essay by David Edgar in the Guardian a few months ago that was about this.
It really came home to me, so we’re very good at the numbers but maybe we’re not so good at the messages.
Support and training
Now, I won’t repeat the financial contribution, but I will tell you that we’ve done quite a lot of work on having an economic strategy for the arts. It has 6 elements:
Obviously, in what all of you have described the people are essential to the success of the creative sector. This is true in your sector in a way which is quite different from, let’s say the car industry where technology’s very important, or banking, where let’s say money is very important. In this sector the individual, and what the individual brings to it, is the most important thing.
So the first thing that we need to look at it is whether we are equipping young people properly. And one of the things that we have been campaigning for is to prevent Michael Gove from narrowing the school curriculum and from only measuring Maths and English grammar and those things, and further trying to push to one side drama and painting.
We’re also, as you know, very keen to make sure that young people get the proper support which they need in further and higher education, because brilliant as I’m sure [the Musicians' Union’s] members are, they did need professional training and we do need to make sure that we’ve got a continued stream of people coming through.
The next thing that you’ve spoken about is money. Now there are issues around public money and the cuts, but there’s also the issue, and I guess this might affect the BECTU and the Musicians slightly more, but it’s the issue of access to finance for private firms and for private companies.
And it’s quite clear that we do need to get the City and the banks to concentrate on this. Because it’s a specialist field with particular kinds of risk and this needs to be understood so that people can set up successful companies which can grow and develop over time. So that’s the second part of what we want to do.
The next thing that we’re very hot on is a proper intellectual property regime, which I think you’re all concerned about and we’ve had the conversations with the Googles of this world and we are keen to look at a way to implement the Digital Economy Act, which was passed just before the last Labour government fell.
We’re keen to have am intellectual property regime which works. Now, I’m not going to stand here and say that I’m totally confident that the clauses in the Digital Economy Act as they stand would work, because they’re a bit OTT really. Cutting somebody’s broadband off because their child once illegally downloads some pop music does seem to be a bit sledgehammer and nut.
So, we’re very keen to have a workable solution, and if we look at what’s happened, we’re also keen that the industry itself looks at ways of monetising its product. I think music industry unfortunately has been less successful on this issue than the publishing industry looks as if it’s going to be, but it’s important that we learn from the bad experience that the music industry had on that.
Local authorities and the regions
Now, I’m not going to make a commitment about local authority financing today. That would be an extraordinarily foolish thing to do when I haven’t discussed it with my colleagues in my Communities and Local Government team and Treasury team, but I will take your idea away.
We could also use the Creative Councillors’ Network to take a regional approach. Because there’s another thing we’re keen on: that all culture isn’t within the M25. I mean, I represent a seat in County Durham and it’s just completely impossible.
I did a survey in the summer of my constituents and my party members to ask them what things they would like to do in this area and what things they couldn’t do and what the barriers were. And one of the things that was very interesting was that everybody, virtually everybody, who answered had bought a book. And virtually everybody who answered had been to the cinema, but people would really like to go to the theatre more but they can’t afford the tickets. It’s no good if we add on to the cost of this ticket, a train ticket half way across the country.
Plainly, we have to be doing things in peoples’ communities. And we have to be doing things which, as you were saying, relate to their life experience and their social issues and their particular heritage. I’m a 1000% opposed to the commercialisation and constant Americanisation of our culture.
And we went to see the French Ambassador because the French are actually much more energetic in protecting the French film industry, than we have been traditionally. I went to talk to him to see if we could actually say to them ‘well if we win we’ll buddy up with you’ [to exclude cultural products from the proposed US-EU trade deal]. I think they make a good point because plainly Shakespeare is not like hamburgers and we all know it.
Exporting the arts
Then, there’s the whole issue of pursuing an international strategy to promote Britain overseas but also to get inward investment. The man who invented Downton Abbey who Tories have put into the House of Lords [‘Julian Fellowes!’, yelled the audience], he did actually go on a trade mission but this is a new thing and I think we really want to see the arts and culture taking their place alongside the other industries when we do have overseas trade missions because, it is a very successful industry. One of our big, big, big international strategic competitive advantages is the English language. We are incredibly lucky.
We want to have that as a special strand, the international mileage. We’re absolutely clear that we want to do something about that.
Equality and representation
Also, we’re very concerned about equality of access and opportunity. Harriet [Harman]’s been saying a lot about having middle aged women on telly. As a middle aged women, you know, I think she’s absolutely right.
But there is also a party issue about who is getting access, who is it who can afford for their children to do a three month internship and find somewhere for them to live and all of that? We all know that this is not the way to open up the arts.
And that moves me into the second issue, which is about the intrinsic nature and what we want, because we must have a vibrant sector that is saying something to people about the world in which they live and which is challenging them and which is experimenting and which is doing these things. And the fact of the matter is that if everybody comes from a very comfortable life experience, they are much less likely to be challenging and to be critical, and that we will be a great loss to our national culture, and that’s true in the performing arts, but it’s actually also true in literature, it’s also true in novels. If all that’s ever happened to you is that you’ve been to a very good school, you’ve been very successful and then you’ve been to a university and got a top degree, you haven’t got the same material, have you, for doing things?
The future of change
So, I think this issue about equality of access and opportunity is important… What [New Labour Culture Secretary] Chris Smith managed to do was make free museums such a central part of British cultural life that the Tories have not been able to attack it, and that was a great achievement. That is really significant. So sometimes we really can make progress and root things down, bolt them down so hard, that it is much more difficult for anyone to try and uproot them.
Now it seems to me, that access is good, open access is good, but I think maybe we should be moving. The next thing we should be thinking about is participation because I imagine that the participation bit will be a stronger experience and will be a more transforming experience for people and that the more people and the more possibilities we have to enable people to participate in lots of different ways – the better it will be and the more satisfying their lives will be.
So, that’s really like us to do. Now, I don’t think that’s a very easy thing to do, but that is where I would like us to go after the 2015 election.
An early fringe meeting at this year’s Labour Party conference will provide opportunity to debate the justice issues we are facing post Jackson and discuss the Trade Unions role as a gateway for preserving our legal rights in the future. Two prominent General Secretaries – Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB and Dr. Mary Bousted, General Secretary, ATL will lead the debate.
The event will be chaired by Frances McCarthy, Managing Partner at Pattinson & Brewer in the Castor & Pollux Beach Front Gallery (Unions 21 events space). Frances said:
“ The Con Dem Government is crippling our justice system and, without access to advice and representation more of the vulnerable in our society will be left to suffer, open to abuse and neglect and unable to gain the justice they deserve. We believe that it is the Trade Union Movement who will play an even greater part in helping working people and their families to regain and maintain their legal rights”.
Andrew Dismore, Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden also joins the panel. Andrew is co-ordinator of Access to Justice Action Group, who are active campaigners.
Comment will also be sought from the panel and those attending the fringe on how Labour can embrace the role of Trade Unions and lead with the critical reforms needed when they return to power. Are the Trade Unions the key to preserving peoples’ legal rights and how best can they lead the way in reforming Jackson?
Click here for more info
Hugh Lanning was deputy general secretary of PCS until June 2013, below is his article from the most recent edition of the Unions21 journal Forefront, which can be downloaded here.
ALL THE publicity in the wake of the selection row in Falkirk has focused on Unite, trade unions and money. Although an important debate, it ignores the reality that most of the trade union movement is not affiliated to the Labour Party.
As, until recently, a senior official in PCS — a major non-affiliated union — and an ‘out’ Labour Party member, I had occasion to raise with the party its relations with non-affiliated unions — or rather the lack of them.
Of the 58 unions in the TUC, 28 have political funds and just 14 are party affiliated. Most of these decisions are historical rather than political. The affiliated unions are primarily those with traditional blue-collar origins, which established the party or affiliated before World War II. The non-affiliated unions, in the main, are the professional and public sector unions that emerged after the war. Many have created political funds in response to legislative pressure, but use this resource to carry out campaigning rather than to affiliate.
Other political organisations target and focus resources on organising within these unions, but the Labour Party does not. In fact, the party has never had a strategy about its relations with what is now the largest part of the trade union movement. Yet these non-affiliates number among their membership many Labour Party members, activists and supporters.
People in unions such as NUT, UCU, PCS and Prospect represent upwards of 25% of the identifiable individual union members within the Labour Party and, in reality, probably more. Non-affiliates also represent millions of voters who work and believe in public services. Many are low paid, women and a significant proportion are black. Others are professional public servants. Given the nature of the work they do, many are also active in civil society organisations. Put this way, it is strange that they have not become a target group for Labour.
Why not? Obviously the Labour Party is mindful of the relationship with Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation (TULO) unions. What is the point of affiliating if you can get the service and access for free? Further, there are no organised structures for developing a relationship with non-affiliated unions, except through the TUC.
Non-affiliated unions will, of necessity, have a more distant relationship with the party. But they have much to contribute and are keen to influence. This is a well organised constituency that any potential Labour government can ill-afford to ignore.
Given the changes in the trade union movement and the growth of broader social movements, the Labour Party will have to learn to work with organisations not tied by loyalty or affiliation. Whatever happens in the future about the funding of political parties, the number of identifiable affiliated members within unions is likely to continue to decline.
The challenge for the Labour Party is to develop new ways of communicating and organising within this climate.
It will be critical to identify issues on which it can campaign together with, or at least in parallel to, trade unionists. This can best be done by trying to identify common areas of concern — growth, jobs and tax justice are obvious examples of areas of overlap, if not total agreement.
In both private and public sector workplaces there is a climate of fear and insecurity.
The pressure during the political conference season will be the demand to repeal all antitrade union laws. A better framework would be to focus on the workplace and identify how the rights and lives of all workers can be improved.
Ironically, identifying solutions that will work for all unions, not just a ‘Warwick 3’ deal with those that are affiliated, could produce better results for everybody.
According to new CIPD research one million working people could be on zero hours contracts, meaning the controversial employment terms are being use more widely than feared.
Writing for the Guardian last week, Ian Murray MP, the shadow Employment Relations Minister said: “How can people be expected to live their lives in such a way? It is a life on edge. You don’t know what your working day will be, and you have no sick pay or holiday pay.”
The Secretary of State for Business Vince Cable is conducting a review of zero-hours, although Labour has criticised it as being “totally inadequate” and not comparable to a formal inquiry. Labour’s Chuka Umunna MP said the contracts should be the exception to the rule. Talking to the BBC, Chuka said: “While some employees welcome the flexibility of such contracts, for many zero-hours contracts leave them insecure, unsure of when work will come, and undermining family life. The ‘review’ the business secretary has established is clearly inadequate given the seriousness of this issue & the mounting evidence of abuse. Nothing less than a proper consultation with a formal call for evidence will do.”
Labour Shadow Minister Chuka Umunna’s twitter feed today
TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady speaking recently on the issue said:
’300,000 workers in the care sector alone are employed on these insecure terms and conditions and that is before you factor in sectors like higher education, retail, legal services and journalism.
Employers cannot be allowed to take advantage of the current economic climate to employ people on the cheap.’
Today, Unions21 has announced news of a fringe event at Labour Party Conference entitled ‘Zero Tolerance for Zero Hours’ which will be held in partnership with the union BALPA. Read More…
Cabinet papers published under the 30-year rule show the depth of Thatcher’s ambition to crush the trade unions. The papers reveal that she told the head of her policy unit to “neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership”.
“We must see to it our new legal structure discourages trade union membership of the new industries,” wrote Ferdinand Mount, then head of her policy unit.
The Guardian reports that the papers show Mount’s demand to ensure that trade union members had to opt in, rather than opt out of the political levy – was regarded as a step too far by Thatcher, who worried it would open up the discussion on companies funding the Conservative Party.
The papers also show the appetite within Thatcher’s Cabinet for a coal strike that would lead to a defeat of the unions. Discussions on withstanding a coal strike went on throughout 1983, a year before pit closures sparked the strike in March 1984.
To coincide, Unions21 announces it’s first Labour Party Conference event: Read More…
In October 2010 David Cameron said: “A damaging compensation culture has arisen, as if people can absolve themselves from any personal responsibility for their own actions”. But the “spiralling” compensation culture has been uncovered as a myth, as reported by the Independent, today.
The health and safety publication Hazards magazine has published a list of myth-busting facts under the title: Compensation Culture: Really?
The Financial Times reports an arms race between private companies competing for over £5Bn of health contracts. Christian Mazzi, head of health at the consultancy Bain: ‘Now the rules of the game are changing. We can compete for all of the NHS budget on equal terms. What was traditionally locked up in the NHS is going to become available to the private sector…’
Despite which, the Department of Health repeats: ‘There is absolutely no government policy to privatise NHS services’
Meanwhile the Royal College of Nursing website reports that despite the best efforts of staff, some parts of the NHS 111 service are now in chaos, and urgent action is needed to prevent this from having tragic consequences for patients. Read More…
The TUC has today slammed new laws that will force employees to pay upfront fees if they want to pursue a sexual harassment or race discrimination complaint against their employer.
From today it will cost someone £1,200 if they want to take their boss to an employment tribunal hearing for sexually harassing them. Worker’s facing racist abuse will also face the same barriers to justice, says the TUC.
The Evening Standard reports that protests will be held today and that employment lawyers predict “chaos”. Andy Prendergast, of the GMB says in the Independent: ‘The imposition of such fees represents the latest in a number of attacks on employment rights by the Govt. The charging of £1,200 effectively means many workers will lose any chance they had to seek redress if they are poorly treated.’
Meanwhile, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business Chuka Umunna has said on Twitter that the attack on employee rights shows the Government “want to win a global race to the bottom, not the global race to the top which we strive for.”
Speaking on Labour Party reform this morning, Leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband said:
“I do not want any individual to be paying money to the Labour Party in affiliation fees unless they have deliberately chosen to do so. Individual Trade Union members should choose to join Labour through the affiliation fee, not be automatically affiliated.”
“I have asked Ray Collins, former General Secretary of the Labour Party, to lead work on how to make this a reality.”
“We will have a new code of conduct for those seeking parliamentary selection.”
“We will also urgently agree new spending limits for Parliamentary selections to include for the first time all spending by outside organisations. And the same goes for future selections to the European Parliament and future leadership contests.”
“The Labour Party will establish standard constituency agreements with each trade union so that nobody can allege that individuals are being put under pressure at local level.”
“I repeat my offer that as part of a comprehensive set of changes we should set a cap on donations from individuals, businesses and Trade Unions.”
“I propose for the next London Mayoral election Labour will have a primary for our candidate selection.”
Unions21 supporter union Usdaw has welcomed Ed Miliband’s speech which they have said is a decisive move to clarify the trade union link with the Labour Party and ensure that the relationship is clear to their members and the wider general public. In a statement, the union said “Ed Miliband proposes fundamental changes and we look forward to the extensive discussions that will now take place to work out the detail of the proposals.” Read More…
Ed Balls MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, responding in the House of Commons to the Spending Review statement, said:
The Chancellor spoke for over 50 minutes – but not once did he mention the real reason for this Spending Review today: his comprehensive failure on living standards, growth and on the deficit too.
Prices rising faster than wages. Families worse off. Long-term unemployment up.
Welfare spending soaring. The economy flatlining. The slowest recovery for over 100 years. And the result of this failure? For all the Budget boasts, borrowing last year not down but up. Not balancing the books as he promised, but in 2015 a deficit of £96 billion. More borrowing to pay for his economic failure.
That is why this Chancellor has been forced to come to the House today and to make more cuts to our public services.
Commenting on the spending review, Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, said:
“Today’s spending review reveals the true extent of the Government’s failure. The Chancellor has got it horribly wrong – despite all the promises, the austerity measures and cuts, he still hasn’t got the country out of recession. We are still in the slowest economic recovery in 100 years and yet all we get from this Chancellor is more of the same.
“The Government is losing grip on economic reality if they continue travelling down the same path, expecting to arrive at a different destination. They need a plan B and they need it now.
“The idea that the NHS is being ring-fenced would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. We’ve all paid into the NHS and we expect it to be there to deliver when we need it.
“How can anyone believe the Chancellor on unemployment because the figures do not add up. Despite the best efforts of the private sector any jobs being created are part-time, low wage and do not replace the hundreds and thousands of public sector jobs that have been lost. There are 2.5m people out of work, 1m are young and that is a shocking statistic.
“Instead of more cuts and austerity what the country desperately needs is an economic boost to stimulate jobs, growth and spending.“
Dave Penman, FDA General Secretary, said: “The scale of cuts announced today for 2015/16, on top of those already being delivered in this Parliament, will result in many departmental budgets having been cut by a third.
“Additionally, removing pay progression without ensuring civil servants get the real rate for the job will end up causing lower morale and a faster exodus of talent. This cannot be a viable approach for a Government focusing on reform, fairness and growth.
“Many public servants have seen their incomes fall by around 20% under this Government and the widening pay gap between the civil service and private sector is already making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the best people, as was recognised by last week’s National Audit Office report.
“For the Government to have reform, growth and fairness in its policy delivery, civil servants need reform, growth and fairness in their employment. This means a new approach to reward instead of arbitrary caps and cuts; resourcing that matches civil service jobs and training to the priorities the Government wants to deliver; and recognition of the role the civil service plays at the heart of society, rather than simply as a means to reduce the deficit.
“The Chancellor’s announcement today does nothing to address these long-standing problems and simplistically tries to portray public sector pay as a burden to be cut, rather than a means to motivate and recruit those that are tasked with delivering ever greater reform with ever reducing resources.”
Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary for Public Services, said “I predict another 70,000 local council jobs will go in these cuts on top of the 420,000 that have already gone. This will take total number of jobs lost in local government to nearly half a million since the election in 2010.
This is more than half of the entire public sector job losses. This has coincided with a three year pay freeze. It really has been a dire time for local government under the coalition.
Council services have already been decimated as a result 26% cuts to local authority budgets and the freeze on council tax.
This further reduction will mean the average council having to find another £30m in savings at a time when local communities need more support than ever. Councils are coping by cutting services but they should really be saying ‘enough is enough’. Transferring money from other budgets to local councils is a “smoke and mirrors” exercised and does no change these cuts which are down 10% on a like for like basis.
Things like the £10bn backlog of pothole repairs blighting our roads and the £20bn funding gap for care for the elderly. This means the elderly are left to struggle isolated at home with fewer services or put in chronically underfunded care homes. These are the legacy of council cuts and there are many more examples.
The Chancellors sideswipe at public sector workers by questioning their pay progression also reveals a lack of understanding about pay systems.
People begin at a starter rate of pay and through experience progress to the rate for the job, typically after five years. If anything, public sector workers are actually underpaid for too long and should accelerate much more quickly to the rate for the job. Furthermore, performance related pay systems have been widely shown not to work.
This is just another unpleasant dig at public sector workers who have already been made scapegoats for problems they had nothing to do with.”