Although the dominant issue at Labour Party conference will be "Partnership in Power' and the accompanying rule changes, there are also important issues of Party policy being raised.
Resolutions in support of the Liverpool dockers and opposing arms sales to Indonesia are referred to elsewhere in Socialist Outlook. Other resolutions raise important matters in relation to trade union rights, the economy, the welfare state and Party democracy.
The composite resolutions - the ones actually discussed - are only drawn un on the eve of conference. and every attempt is made by the bureaucracy to 'persuade' organisations to drop contentious wording. Even so, the resolutions and amendments give an indication of the concerns of the movement.
On every issue there are those who simply congratulating the Labour government on whatever it has done so far, but there are also those who want more. While there are few resolutions which are outrightly critical, many go beyond what Blair has any intention of doing.
Thus resolutions on the NHS call on the government to discard the private finance initiative, not to introduce new charges, such as for GP home visits, to stop all further hospital closures, to return to free eye and dental check-ups, and to abolish the internal market. One resolution calls on the government to incorporate the NHS within the prison service"! They probably mean extend the NHS into the prison service, but maybe they think it is the only way the NHS will get more money since the prisons budget is without limit.
Given the government's stress on education, this issue does not attract as many sycophantic resolutions as might be expected. Most are critical (on tuition fees, on the public naming of "failing' schools) or demand a lot more, such as a maximum class size of 30 in all schools, ending selection procedures, grantmaintained status and city technology colleges, and a real increase in public funding.
Housing is an area the government has not yet addressed, so maybe organisations feel freer to express their concerns.
There are several calls for the full release of receipts from council house sales, for a programme of building affordable decent housing, for the retention of Direct Labour Organisations and for Housing Associations to be brought under local authority control.
11! No resolution opposes the JSA Many resolutions on transport call for unified transport planning, which the front bench will probably support with warm words but little real intention, but those which are more specific will meet opposition, such as calls for the amalgamation of rail franchises into a single rail operator, the renationalisation of Railtrack or even the whole system, and the re regulation of buses.
Praise for 'stakeholding' is prominent among resolutions on the economy, with very few remotely challenging this concept or going beyond vague good intentions. The National Union of Mineworkers does however demand that all industries and services privatised by the Tories are taken back into public ownership.
There are several calls for the restoration of the link between state pension and earnings and an increase in pensions, for the reinstatement of Housing Benefit to 16-18 year-olds and full benefits for all under-25-year-olds, for scrapping the planned cuts in lone parent benefit and for a more progressive system of taxation.
There is, however, no challenge to 'Welfare to work', 'Project work' or the jobseekers Allowance. One resolution calls for the restoration of the right to claim social security benefits to asylum seekers.
Many resolutions address the issue of rights at work, welcoming the lifting of the ban on unions at GCHQ and calling for a uniform. national minimum wage (although a marked reluctance to put forward either a formula or a figure), with calls for the right of unions to recruit and organise, the protection against discrimination for union activity and equal rights from day one of employment.
He vever, only one really gets to the heart of the matter in challenging support for the Tory anti-union laws.
An end to the detention of several resolutions on antiracism, although they call for a review of the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act rather than its repeal. There are calls for the Party to affiliate to the National Assembly Against Racism.
Calls for an extension of local democracy include the abolition of Compulsory Competitive Tendering, support for a Londonwide authority (but also a directly elected mayor) and regional devolution. Many urge the extension of the commitment to proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament to be extended quickly to elections to the House of Commons, although some welcome the joint commission with the Liberals.
Apart from one which calls for an independent enquiry into 'Bloody Sunday', all of the resolutions on Northern Ireland simply welcome the progress in the "peace process", heaping praise on Mo Mowlem and George Mitchell.
On Europe, none of the resolutions advocates outright opposition to the single currency on the basis of the Maastricht convergence criteria, although there are calls for delay and for the inclusion of high levels of emI cA ROBIN COOK'S supposed commitment to an "ethical foreign policy" has not jumped the first hurdle as the government has refused to cancel arms sales agreed by the Tories even to the barbaric Indonesian regime -despite its involvement in a genocidal occupation of East Timor. There is clear evidence that this war is carried out with the use of British weaponry. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT)is certainly not taking this decision lying down. Support has already been gained from a wider layer of MPs than those traditionally thought to be on the left -and the protest at the Farnborough arms fair was the biggest yet. Pete Firmin for Socialist Outlook interviewed Will McMahon, joint coordinator of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT). SO: What has happened on the sale of Hawk aircraft since Labour came to Power? CAAT: The government said it was committed to an 'ethical foreign policy' - it would not supply weaponry for internal repression or external aggression.
This was taken by many to mean that regimes doing these things would not be sold arms. This belief was further heightened when Labour called a meeting with Non-Governmental Organisations to elaborate on their stance in the summer.
However, CAAT, the lead organisation on the arms trade was not invited. It was the only organisation with a significant base not invited. Cook asked the NGO forum for critical support in implementing government policy.
He didn't say what the policy would be on the sale of Hawks. The next morning the front page of the Financial Times announced that the CAAT: Our view is that if vou can't stop arming Indonesia, who will you stop arming? Two other countries with repressive regimes are of immediate concern.
Britain appears to be pursuing arms sales to Turkey, a market previously dominated by the U.S. and Germany. Additionally contacts with China are increasing at a time when the European Union may lift its political arms embargo. CAAT is looking at these closely.
CAAT's view on Britain offering Human Rights training to the Indonesian government is that it is both patronising and intentionally naïve. The idea that Indonesia does not understand International Human Rights law or its practice is wrong. They understand but are not interested. It is a fig leaf. SO: Cook met with CAAT after the NGO forum. What did he have to say? CAAT: He gave us the impresfirstly that there were some 20,000 extant arms licences when it took office, and secondly that it would have to pay compensation to the arms companies if it revoked licences. However, only a handful of the licences are controversial.
The decision of the Conservatives to issue licences for sales to Indonesia conveyed a message of Britain's support for the Suharto regime. The Labour government's decision not to revoke the licences has sent a similar message, notwithstanding Cook's discussions on human rights.
CAAT's legal advice is that the government would not be liable to pay compensation. We understand the government's own advice was less conclusive, but if it really wanted to put human rights at the centre of its foreign policy it should have been prepared to fight any compensation claim through the courts. SO: What has happened since? CAAT: Since then it has been revocation of the licences and an embargo on military training and arms sales to Indonesia. The bulk of the resolutions on the issue follow CAAT's line. An Early Day Motion in parliament calling for revocation of the licence got the support of about 130 Labour MPs. The issue has never come to the floor of the House of Commons and there has been no discussion in the Parliamentary Labour Party. SO: Tell us about the protest at the Farnborough Royal Navy and British Army Exhibition? CATT: This was the largest ever anti-arms fair protest in Britain. Over 1,000 blockaded the 3 gates. Hundreds turned out from the Kurdish community who are particularly concerned about Britain selling significant quantities of arms to Turkey.
In particular, Vickers is currently negotiating for a £3 billion Main Battle Tank deal. There were over 80 arrests and many have been charged, mainly with obstruction. The local Tory MP made outrageous comments in the press about the presence of Kurds on the protest.
Despite the fact that there was essentially a news blackout due to the death of Diana, CAAT won the media battle against the Ministry of Defence over Farnborough -coverage focused on the protest rather than the usual celebration of new arms deals. SO: What has been CAAT's involvement in the landmines CAAT: CAAT was one of the organisations which created the UK anti-land mines moveSocialist Outlooli ment. Our principal concern is that the government destroy existing stocks of land mines. It refuses to do so on the grounds that 'the military might need them for war! The issue of landmines has significantly raised the profile of the arms trade as an issue _ we have noticed an increased awareness of the arms trade in the last year and aim to use that to build the movement against the arms trade.
People should understand it was a much easier job to mobilise people against the nuclear threat, because most people were afraid the bomb was going to be dropped on them. CAAT is trying to encourage people to adopt an internationalist perspective. The landmines campaign has helped significantly in this respect. The Left in particular has a key role to play in this. SO: Has CAAT done work on the issue of job losses in the arms industry? CAAT: I spoke at a fringe meeting at the TUC and we are working hard on building union contacts within British Aerospace. We take the argument about job losses seriously. SO: How do you see CAAT's task in relation to the Labour government? CAAT: Labour's love-in with the heads of multinational corporations is reflected in the fact that Lord Hollick, previously a nonexecutive director of British Aerospace, is now Special Adviser to Margaret Beckett at the Department of Trade and Industry.
The DTI issues the arms licences, which should give people some sense of the scale of the task we face. However, we also know that the majority of Labour's grassroots members support the CAAT position. One of our key jobs is to get them to speak up.
nRE «HASI
POLICY S