npf

National Policy Forum, Warwick University, 23/25 July 2004

Hemmed in by barricades, guarded by armed police, the Forum met to

lay the foundations of the manifesto. The programme followed the

usual pattern: Friday for detailed negotiations with ministers,

Saturday in groups discussing areas of difference, and Sunday

concluding with votes on issues not yet settled. Keynote speeches

also featured. This was the second of two three-day sessions: the

Joint Policy Committee, charged with effective management of the

Forum, assigned citizenship and foreign policy to the March meeting,

leaving July to cope with Health and Education, Sustainable

Communities (transport, local government, crime, rural affairs,

culture and sport) and Prosperity for All (energy, manufacturing,

employment rights, pensions, welfare and the economy).

Inevitably these three days were much more crowded, with 850

amendments compared to 250 in March. Negotiations stretched through

Saturday, with a final trade union session beginning at midnight and

lasting (I am told) until 4 a.m. on Sunday. Party staff then had to

pulp several more forests to produce rewritten chapters on skills,

pensions, manufacturing, employment and the Private Finance

Initiative (PFI) for unanimous approval by delegates who had not read

them. Given the diversity, what follows is a personal account and

other members will have very different stories.

To Begin at the Beginning

I submitted 29 amendments, and most were included in some form as I

judged it better to make concessions than to lose the point entirely.

They included commitments to:

* tackle the gap between rich and poor;

* support people not in work and living on a low income (though this

fell far short of my suggestion that all out-of-work benefits should

be linked to earnings, not prices);

* consider whether action is needed to promote race equality in the

private sector (extending the Race Relations (Amendment) Act was

regarded as too burdensome for business);

* make excellent healthcare and first-class education, rather than

choice, the primary focus;

* recognise that sending children to distant schools takes them out

of their community and increases traffic congestion, and encourage

rural schools in particular to include all local children;

* require sponsors of City Academies to respect the professionalism

of teachers in curriculum matters (this was aimed at the Vardy

Foundation, whose schools teach creationism, and - I found out later -

suggest that it was God who stopped Hitler at the English Channel in

1940);

* value the potential of out-of-school clubs, especially in the arts

and sport;

* extend children's centres along SureStart lines, as deprived

children also exist in affluent areas.

* acknowledge that all students, whether they graduate or drop out,

will have to repay their fees;

* raise participation in higher education, and improve funding for

all universities, including those - mainly ex-polytechnics - which

already take most students from lower socio-economic groups;

* recognise that local authorities can use land flexibly at the edges

of the green belt, as long as the overall acreage is maintained or

increased (this arose from wealthy LibDems opposing the use of some

ratty fields on the outskirts of Oxford for much-needed homes, and

provoked an interesting debate on how far the green belt should be

sacrosanct);

* try to improve connections between different train and bus

services, provide joined-up information from a single enquiry point,

and encourage train operators to carry bicycles;

* encourage fare structures which maximise choice, reduce social

exclusion and persuade people to switch from cars (though ministers

would not accept my examples of abolishing the minimum £10 charge on

weekday railcard travel, and reducing prices for for turn-up-and-go

journeys);

* address difficult choices between the immediate passenger benefits

of cheap air travel and the long-term damage of aviation fuel, within

the 60% target reduction in carbon emissions by 2050;

* use biometrics in identity cards only if they are proved to match

individuals with their own record and not with anyone else's (this

provoked impatience from the minister and sniggers from a colleague.

Two days later a Labour-dominated select committee reported that

initial tests showed as many as one in 100 matches to be incorrect).

Hundreds of other changes were introduced, including consideration of

a plastic bag tax, as in Ireland, and new laws on animal welfare to

tackle concerns about circuses, pet fayres, animal sanctuaries,

greyhound welfare, mutilation, leathering and the use of snares.

Regarding energy, constituencies overwhelmingly support the twin-

track approach of developing renewable sources and encouraging

conservation. The paper originally stated that an effective mix of

energy sources would be required. A single constituency amendment

added "As part of our commitment to diversity of energy supplies, we

recognise the need to keep open the options of building new nuclear

power stations in future." Illustrating the extent of compromise,

Pete Willsman's call for a 50% tax rate on earnings above £100,000,

to be spent on public services, became:

"We will continue to build on our efforts to ensure the tax and tax

credit system remains progressive and in line with our principles of

ensuring faurness, opportunity and security for all while at the same

time raising sufficient revenue to pay for investment in public

services."

a formulation which will allow Tony Blair to repeat his pledge not to

raise income tax rates for the third term.

All Together Now

On Friday evening Gordon Brown reiterated Labour's commitment to

economic stability, ending child and pensioner poverty, the

millennium development goals, and full employment. Only seven young

people in each constituency, on average, are now without work.

Responding to concerns about the continuing income gap, he said that

low-income workers had received the biggest percentage increases

thanks to tax credits, and the top 10% of earners now paid 52% of tax

plus national insurance, up from 40%. Other members asked Gordon,

Patricia Hewitt and John Prescott about the Euro-referendum, new

consumer rights, turning extra money for policing into visible cops

on the beat, meeting the costs of primary care trusts, the unfolding

tragedy in Sudan, and Turkey's application to join the European

Union, which is strongly supported by Britain. A few delegates

expressed members' resentment at the recent five-year plans,

especially in education, which seemed to cut across the Forum's work,

but Ian McCartney told us that the plans simply built on parts of the

2001 manifesto and were already policy.

Local party members and new MP Liam Byrne joined the Forum on

Saturday for speeches by John Prescott and by Tony Blair, who

announced a new commission on women and work. The prime minister was

less uncompromising than press reports had speculated, acknowledging

that people wanted good local schools and hospitals, and arguing that

choice was a means to these ends. Labour had to link principle with

practice and maintain the coalition of old and new supporters. We

had stripped away outdated dogma and recognised the aspirations of

hard-working families. He spoke of "coming through the fire" and

"testing times" as strengthening experiences, and repeated his claim

that the party is more ideologically united than ever. I am not sure

if this is true, or even if it would be a good thing, and he omitted

to mention that membership has fallen to less than half its 1997

peak.

Questioners asked about fighting the BNP, where Tony Blair felt that

their support came in waves and would recede, though we had to oppose

discrimination while sorting out the asylum system, and the LibDems,

where he argued that they provided useful back-up against a Tory

resurgence. He reassured members worried about defence cuts while

our troops were serving in Iraq, and agreed that we must improve

conditions in inner-cities and rebuild links with Muslim communities.

On selection by schools, he was not over-concerned with whether

specialist schools kept their largely unused powers, but cautioned

against a frontal assault on grammar schools for tactical reasons.

Like everyone else he paid tribute to Ian McCartney, Chair of the

Forum, and certainly members would be very cross if recent reshuffle

rumours proved true.

Intermission

Because so many negotiations were still in play, cabinet ministers

and many delegates were otherwise occupied, Saturday's workshops had

little to get their teeth into. The most enjoyable session in my

group was swapping horror stories about dentists with health minister

Rosie Winterton, and hoping that her promises of improvement come

true. We also kicked around issues to do with council housing and

selection in education, and received updates on progress with PFI and

pensions.

The Morning After

A record 152 delegates/substitutes, out of a maximum 183, were

present on Sunday morning, raising the threshold for a minority

position to go to conference to 38 votes (25% of the total). Initial

paperwork suggested that 27 amendments would go to the vote on

Prosperity for All, 19 on Sustainable Communities and 12 on Health

and Education. However the 4 a.m. concordat with the unions covered

the same issues as the first 27, and constituency representatives

withdrew all their amendments. These had included restoring the link

between the basic pension and earnings, introducing a single minimum

wage irrespective of age, requiring employers to reinstate unfairly-

dismissed staff, and guaranteeing employment rights from either Day

One or after six months. Mark Seddon proposed an amendment which

would prevent companies making windfall profits from selling on their

shares in PFI deals, but this was lost by 16 votes to 122.

The unions have certainly achieved substantial gains. Employees will

now be guaranteed 20 days' paid holiday in addition to bank holidays,

as in the rest of Europe. Striking workers will be protected from

dismissal for 12 weeks instead of the current eight weeks. The two-

tier workforce may at long last be on its way out across all public

services. New measures against violence at work are promised. The

particular disadvantages that affect women in retirement will be

addressed in a report on women and pensions in 2005. But many issues

are subject to further review, or local negotiation, and I am worried

that anything which does not trouble the director of the CBI cannot

entirely meet the expectations of working people. I hope that I am

wrong.

Local government also operated effectively during the weekend, and

settled most issues except for the vexed question of why competent

councils were not allowed the same resources as external

organisations if tenants chose to remain under their control, the so-

called "fourth option" after PFI, stock transfer to a housing

association, or an arm's-length management organisation. The Forum

voted 131 in favour, none against, for a composite wording which

includes the clause:

"However, Labour also recognises the need for new housing could be

assisted by allowing local authorities to once again build new homes

for rent. In areas where rental properties are inadequate in number,

approval could be given for limited local authority funded

developments to ensure that our communities are not weakened by the

shortage of affordable rented properties."

A second amendment was moved by Daniel Zeichner, stating that

"Labour will also ensure that where tenants choose to remain under

the management of their local authority, they will not be financially

disadvantaged - funds available for stock transfer will be equally

available to councils, ensuring a level playing-field."

This gained 64 votes with 73 against, meaning that conference will

decide, unless further negotiations over the summer make this

unnecessary.

Eight similar amendments were then withdrawn. Most of the rest were

compromises reached after the printing deadline and were carried

without dissent, though a lone youth registered a vote against

ignoring young people when considering concessionary bus fares. The

only remaining contentious amendment called for the railways to be

taken back into public ownership. Moved by Harriet Yeo, this

attracted 40 votes in favour with 90 against, leaving the final

decision to conference.

Words Mean what I Choose them to Mean

I kept two amendments in to the final stages, on ending the right of

specialist schools to select up to 10% of their intake by aptitude,

and on ending the 11-plus, both reinforced by many similar amendments

from other delegates. In discussion, ministers were fairly relaxed

about specialist schools, partly because only 6% use their powers

now. They offered to look at removing technology from the list of

aptitudes, as this might be confused with selection by ability,

unlike talent in music or sport, and to study the findings of the

education and skills select committee. This argues that aptitude

tests are an unnecessary and expensive complication, and should be

withdrawn.

On the 11-plus the main worry was the electoral backlash, with any

move to close grammar schools flooding MPs' postbags with protest.

Tony Blair, Charles Clarke and others said that because only 4.6% of

children attend grammars this is a side-issue, but did not

acknowledge that another 15% of children are consigned as failures to

secondary moderns, without choice, at the age of ten, because grammar

schools exist. The claim that grammar schools can be ended by

balloting local parents is a sham, and the select committee

recommends that "no further resources are wasted in this exercise".

Lengthy negotiations produced a composite text which proponents

claimed would lead to the end of all selection including the

grammar/secondary modern divide. This was carried by 144 votes to 7.

But can we really spin the same statement to members as "we will end

the 11-plus" and to voters as "your grammar school is safe"? I had

compromised on every other issue, but felt that on this my mandate

from constituencies, forums and individual members was too clear to

break. I moved the first amendment, which was lost by 15 votes to

118, and supported Carol Hayton who moved the second, which was lost

by 18 votes to 119. All three are reproduced in full at the end.

Further votes were held on ending charitable status for prestigious

private schools, lost by 15 votes to 115, though a composite

amendment requiring them to demonstrate their public benefit to the

Charity Commission was carried. Pete Willsman also proposed a grant

for living costs for the least well-off students, lost by 14 votes to

114, and taking disadvantaged students' backgrounds into account when

considering admission to higher education, lost by 17 votes to 118.

After another buffet lunch we reeled out into the daylight, threw off

our badges and chains, and headed home.

Afterthoughts

First, the National Policy Forum has indisputably taken over from

annual conference as the final place where policy is decided. Five

years ago in Durham dissidents were stamped on just as firmly, but

delegates did at least then agonise over how we would explain the

lack of choice to conference. This cycle has produced a total of

five options, compared with seven in the last cycle, and two - votes

at 16, and a more democratic House of Lords - are actually the same

as last time. It's worth recalling what conference signed up to in

1997 when agreeing Partnership in Power:

"… conference would for the first time have the opportunity to debate

and vote on alternative positions within policy statements reflecting

different constituencies of opinion in the party. In presenting

statements to conference, the NPF would be charged with producing

documents which facilitated debate around core issues and areas of

contention."

The Forum has abandoned this obligation. But as someone working for

a third term, I understand the real concerns about allowing the 11-

plus, exactly this kind of contentious issue, to dominate the

headlines through to conference and beyond. The year before a

general election requires maximum unity, and the Forum will always be

under these pressures. So should we somehow reverse the process, and

have the real arguments in the first year after an election?

Also unresolved is the role of constituency representatives. The

unions in particular, but also other sections of the Forum, can

operate as blocks within their own clear collective policies. They

occasionally express sympathy for constituency colleagues who have no

resources and no easy way of consulting their members, and cannot

organise in the same way. But if we are reflecting the full range of

party opinion, surely we should not operate as a monolith? None of

us has the only truth. And in that case, should we act together in

taking key decisions on to conference, to the people who elected us,

and ensure that genuine differences are debated there, rather than

papered over in backroom manoeuvring? Or is choice to be promoted

everywhere except within the Labour party?

Questions and comments are welcome, and I am happy for this to be

circulated to members as a personal account, not an official record.

Past reports are available at http://www.annblack.com

Full reports from the National Policy Forum and the NEC are available

at http://www.annblack.com or from Ann Black,

ann.black@unisonfree.net

Selection and Education

"Consensus wording" - carried 144 for, 7 against - proposed by

Charles Clarke and Duncan Enright

"Our vision for education promotes quality choice for parents and

pupils. We reject the damaging Tory assumption that general ability

is fixed or predetermined and their damaging proposals for every

primary and secondary school to select and choose their pupils, and

to do so on their own criteria.

We will avoid the dangers of social exclusion, continue to tackle

inequalities between schools and to end the growth of selection. We

have also removed the ability of schools to use interviews as a

covert form of selection.

We are pursuing a non-selective system in secondary education. So we

will continue to ensure that all schools abide by the strict

requirements of the admissions code of practice which does not allow

any extension by ability.

The government will study carefully the report on secondary schools

admissions by the Select Committee on education and skills. We

recognise that as we move to a system of all schools becoming

specialist there is a case for examining carefully the role of

selection by aptitude. Few specialist schools exercise their power

to select by aptitude but it can provide opportunities for children

talented in areas such as sport and music to develop their natural

skill. Given the new circumstances the government will review the

current list of prescribed aptitudes to see if they all continue to

be appropriate.

As schools become specialist so collaboration, federations and

partnerships between them is growing. This development is to be

welcomed, particularly in the context of the emerging 14-19

curriculum reforms, which will break down the academic vocational

divide particularly in selective areas, and should therefore be

accelerated to drive up opportunities and standards for every pupil

in every school.

In addition we will, as set out in the child poverty review recently

announced by the chancellor, review in partnership with local

authorities and headteachers the way that funding is distributed

within LEAs to schools. As part of that review we will consider

whether all authorities should follow the example of those LEAs that

use their local funding formulae to provide extra support to those

schools that admit disproportionately high numbers of underperforming

pupils."

Selection in Specialist Schools - lost 15 for, 118 against -

proposed by Ann Black

"This sharing of facilities with all local children makes it

unnecessary for [specialist] schools to select part of their intake

on aptitude. Indeed few schools take up this provision. Therefore

to help simplify school admission procedures and increase parental

choice this provision will be ended."

Ending the 11-Plus - lost 18 for, 109 against - proposed by Carol

Hayton

"Selection at 11 labels many children as failures, so in line with

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, selection on ability will be

ended in England. This would reduce social divisions, raise

standards and promote inclusion, extend school choice to more parents

and encourage more young people to stay on in education post-16 and

equip them with the skills for life."