Political Fund Review Motion 115

Time to decide and move on

With the withdrawal of 116 and 115.03, this is now a straight debate between making a decision on the review, approving the report and getting on with it - or even more and more consultation. We've had two years to make the decision and it is now time to make it and move on.

115.01 calls for a ballot but in any case members will have the opportunity to decide when we are obliged to ballot in 2005.

Conference 2001 called for a wide consultation and review of the UNISON Political Fund. The two-year extensive consultation is recorded in the report to conference 115.

The report reflects the views of branches from that consultation, that the current arrangements of choice and options for fund contributions payers (or not) should be maintained, with some organisational changes.

The report is an honest representation of the views expressed in the consultation with all parts of the union, and will not please some activists representing their own particular views, however sincerely held.

115.01

The 'third fund' option in 115.01 is not sustainable. Apart from the farce of UNISON risking ending up supporting opposing candidates, there would be major implications in Scotland. Proportional representation has brought significant influence from the SNP, SSP and the Greens. This throws up interesting issues for a 'third fund'. Could it support the first two who are committed to independence when Scottish Council has debated and rejected separation? The Greens may have similar policies but it is unclear how they stand on a range of issues including equalities.

115.02

The criticism in 115.02 about consultation doesn't fully fit the facts. Conference asked the NEC to consult the APF and GPF and Service groups and they were consulted. There were 13 regional meetings with Self Organised Groups. Regions and Branches were consulted. In fact the NEC went further by co-opting Service Group and SOG members on to the group. It seems it is not the consultation that is at issue, but the conclusions. Perhaps some want to keep consulting until they get the conclusion they want.

The changes the APF has already put in place will address constituency issues and will have a fuller impact in promoting our policies at local level.

115.04

115.04 is being supported by the NEC with qualifications. The motion's intention is to accept the review, put that behind us and take the next step forward. The APF has had a review, but Edinburgh wants the 'member-led' concept taken further. Support 115 and 115.04. Oppose 115.01 and 115.02.

Regional cost of living supplement Motion 55

Pat Rowland will be putting Scotland's case against Motion 55, highlighting the problems likely to ensue from such supplements:- Low and high cost areas are often close together, large travel to work areas blur boundaries and makes for confusion and unfairness. Equal pay problems would arise, and the whole thing could be seen as unfair by members. Short term responses to skill shortages create internal markets and just shift the problem around Abandoning national pay structures could damage the economies of deprived regions.

UNISON Organisation, The Future Motion 145 Scottish Priority 3

The importance of young members as the future of the union is addressed in motion 143 calling for greater involvement of young members in mainstream branch activity. But as UNISON celebrates its l0th anniversary, motion 145 seeks to chart a way forward. Scotland's amendment takes account of the lessons of the impact of devolution on the bargaining and organising agenda.

Our initiatives gave rise to seminars earlier this year (of Service Groups and Regions) addressing the issues of the impact of evolution on the bargaining agenda and adequate resources for the regions in supporting branch activity. The UK organisation has committed to maintaining some dynamic in these discussions but our amendment places in firmly on the agenda.

Support 145 as amended 145.2

top