National Delegate Conference 21-24 June 2011

Thursday Briefing: Our NHS Our Future

Comp D lays bare the savaging of the NHS by the Government’s White paper in England. While we hear much news about U-turns and reviews, the fact remains that this is purely and simply an attack on the founding basis of the NHS.

Privatisation cuts the heart out of a system based on co-operation, turning it to a system based on competition. But even that is a con because competition is far from the minds of the private conglomerates. What they want is a monopoly.

And what better monopoly that one that everyone needs at some point in their lives.

The motion lays out a 12 point plan to continue UNISON’s “Our NHS Our Future” campaign. Amendment D.1, one has to assume, was not supported by the Branch, Region, NEC and Retired Members who form the composite otherwise it would have been in the composite.

We understand that the problem lies with the fact that there is a very broad coalition campaigning against the government plans. UNISON as part of that would not want to be unilaterally bouncing one tactic on them. However, the amendment does seem flexible enough and the NEC will support with qualifications.

Organising:

Motion 2 If anyone knows how to organise, it’s Northern Region with arch-recruiter Kenny Bell, a thriving anti-cuts coalition and more and more activists becoming involved. This motion gives the policy base for what is often talked about but not implemented - a real organising union.

Organising: Motion 1 This focuses on building coalitions against the cuts. Organising the Union:

Motion 3 Sefton’s motion takes a further step in the practicalities needed for an organising union. It includes prioritising spending, training staff and activists and a long term strategy to reduce casework and increase organisation.

Rules

Normally we run a whole series of graphics of people yawning for the rules debates. But this year it looks like the rules could bring some of the most intense debates, especially on finances and disciplinary action.

Uncharacteristically for a nation that has a view on just about everything, Scotland has no clear policy on the most contentious rule changes. So the best we can do to assist branches is run through some of the likely arguments.

1 Regional Representatives and 2 Service Group Representatives Would require a member to be nominated by own branch before standing for NEC or SGE. Clearly branches might see this as attractive but it ignores that fact that NEC and SGE members represent the whole union, not their branch, and as such the whole union should be able to nominate them.

3 Sector elections Would mean that committees can be appointed by direct or indirect election.

5 Branch email and postal address Requires every branch to have a valid email and postal address. Seems sensible in this day and age.

6 Branch Officers Restricts anyone from being both branch secretary and treasurer, while giving NEC power to agree exceptions. This failed before because small branches pointed out that the lack of activists would mean this would be impossible to keep to. However, it does seem sensible that these roles are separated for probity and so the NEC is responding to last year’s concerns by putting in a clause to allow for exceptions if needed

7 Steward elections Allows branches to elect stewards for 2 year cycles in branch rules.

9 Rule I Disciplinary action Rewording aimed at making it easier to exclude BNP (etc) members. NEC says current wording too restrictive, not in keeping with changes in the law and revised wording the result of legal advice.

10 and 11 Disciplinary suspension from holding office Conflicting amendments to limit periods of suspension under Rule I. Basically the argument is between 2 years maximum suspension or 5 years. The rules also allow a member to be barred for life if the conduct merits it. The argument for a maximum 5 years is that it gives the lay disciplinary panel discretion to make the sentence fit the crime. The argument for the 2 years is that 5 years is too long and if it was that bad, why not expel them anyway? However, some would argue that, with only a maximum of two years as an option, we could end up with more expulsions where panels felt the 2 years could not reflect the seriousness of the offence. In this debate, comparisons are often made with employers’ disciplinary actions.

It is important to remember the difference between an employer’s function and that of a union. Employers use suspension pending an investigation, and that shouldn't take longer than a year. UNISON uses suspension from office as a punishment and to protect branch members

12 Censure This change would allow disciplinary panels to censure a member rather than taking punitive action. Seems sensible. 15-17 Rule book benefits Straight index-linked uprating. Amendments mean the uprating would be at the better RPI rate rather than CPI (remember the pensions debates?)

20 Schedule F Branch Finance: The best we can do with this is explain where Edinburgh’s amendments are coming from. The parts of the schedule which provoked most comment in the consultation were on introducing a new investment scheme and on centralised banking.

Because of that, the NEC has agreed to undertake further consultation on the proposed investment scheme and they say no scheme will be implemented until a future conference has agreed it. In addition, any investment scheme will be voluntary and no branch forced to use it.

Edinburgh welcomes some aspects like

• A consistent branch finances handbook
• Better and clearer financial controls so we all know where we stand
• A consistent approach to expenses.
• A strategy for making the £47 million lying in branches actually work for us rather than the banks.

But the branch was worried that some of the provisions might penalise branches that take a prudent approach and seek to plan for contingencies.

Its amendments, now accepted by the NEC cover two main issues:-

1. Branch operating funds: This amendment clarifies what is meant by that and includes building a ‘prudent’ surplus to ensure the branch can react to contingencies.

2. Industrial action fund Schedule F doesn’t take any money out of industrial action funds but it does put a limit on what is not counted as income - if the money has come from transfers from the general fund (money raised by levies is excluded). That limit was set at £3 per member. the amendment lifts that to a more realistic £10 per member.

Edinburgh has built up a pot in excess of this to meet specific challenges, not least the threat of privatising 4,000 jobs. The other amendments allow Regions and the NEC to make an exception as to how much branches can put into their industrial action funds and how much they can retain in them for one-off exceptional circumstances.

Edinburgh is clear that it does not support branches hoarding huge surpluses doing nothing for the union or siphoning off money into industrial action funds that there is no intention of using. What it is arguing for is flexibility when branches have to respond to exceptional circumstances.

top