No one should be in doubt as to the main intention of the spons-ors of the proposed constitutional changes for policy-making in the Labour Party set out in the document Partnership Into Power (PiP, formerly Labour Into Power) circulated in revised form last month. It is that criticism of Government policy from within the labour movement should be muffled as far as possible by the setting-up of internal committees. These will be less likely to attract public attention than debates at Labour Party Conference. The proposals have much more to do with the management of criticism than with concern about deficiencies in the existing system. New Labour wants to ensure that protests about policy - inevitable as the Government's commitments unfold (Tory spending limits, no increase in income tax rates on the wealthy, very little, if any, redistribution of wealth and income and the retention of the main framework of anti-union legislation) - are kept within limits so as not to threaten these commitments.
The unions stand to lose much if the sponsors of these new proposals get their way. The great advantage of trade union influence in the Labour Party is that the unions bring to bear the bread-and-butter issues of the day - the experience and feelings of millions of working people. This is expressed in debates which focus on the main issues.
In an article in The Times written shortly before the recent General Election Tony Blair gave a clear signal of his attitude to the main body of anti-union legislation introduced during the years of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. He made it clear that it will remain and he acknowledged that Britain would continue to have laws which are among the most restrictive in western Europe. He made this acknowledgement not as a matter of shame about the state of Britain but as an assurance to the readers of The Times that New Labour if elected would make little real change to the restrictions on organised labour. It seems that he will be true to his word.
Today in Britain, not one of the fundamental rights of organised labour is properly observed. Employers can resist trade union organisation, recognition and collective bargaining without legal penalty. They can withdraw trade union recognition by their own decision and when they think they have sufficient strength to enforce their will. The right of workers to withdraw their labour is subject to a succession of legal hurdles, all designed to protect employers. The right of groups of workers to help each other through solidarity action in industrial disputes, as a combination of persuasion and demonstration of support, has been severely curtailed. Unions no longer have the right to determine their own system of elections for their principal officers and representatives. Union affairs are subject to legal interference on a scale far greater than for other voluntary organisations, including political parties.
The intention of the Labour Government in relation to trade union rights is to do just enough to enable them to show, justifiably, that they are better than the Tories. They have restored the right of trade union organisation at GCHQ. They have taken the initial step - by the appointment of an independent commission - for the introduction of a national minimum wage. The requirement for periodic ballots for the voluntary payment of union subscriptions through the employer's payroll will be abolished. Labour will accept the Social Chapter. Other modest measures are probable, but the basis of the restrictive legal regime introduced by successive Conservative governments will remain.
It is not only in relation to legal rights that the trade union movement will find it necessary to exert pressure on the Government. It is also on a whole range of economic issues.
Who in the trade union movement would have believed that one of the first acts of a newly-elected Labour Government would be to hand over the control of interest rates to the bankers? Since the election, interest rates have been increased on four occasions. Millions of families are paying extra through their mortgages and the interests of manufacturing industry and its employees have been damaged.
Who would have believed that it would be a Labour Government that introduced fees for university tuition and abolished maintenance grants? Whoever thought it likely that in its first Budget a Labour Government would introduce tax change to take billions annually from pension funds?
In the years of Conservative rule Britain became an even more unequal society. A recent report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrated that poverty has increased dramatically. The rich became richer. Why is New Labour so reluctant to do anything effectively about the obscene inequality of British society? The excuses of the Mandelsons and the Blunketts are unpleasant to witness.
It is against these policy issues that New Labour's proposals for the constitution have to be considered. Labour's conference must remain the focal point for key debates.