Issues to Watch for Atlabour -conference

Scan page 7

Once again this year, questions of democracy and accountability will be central at Labour Party conference. The register is the big issue, but there are others. And once again, too, rank and file delegates will have to be able to cut their way through procedural manoeuvres The CLPD gives a guide to the agenda.

и CONFERENCE/BRICHTO in order to assert their voice.

Contrary to the fashionable assertion that Labour Party members are losing interest in constitutional issues, some 133 resolutions and amendments in this year's agenda are on 'Party Administration' - some 60 of these reflecting CLPD proposals. In addition, out of 12 resolutions and amendments on 'Public Ownership', 7 contain the CLPD demand to 'bring into common ownership at least 25 of the largest 100 private sector manufacturing companies.

Despite this relative success, one of the main features of this year's Conference will be the struggle between the various issues to be timetabled for debate. This is because Conference will spend much time debating the draft of Labour's 1982 Programme: Normally: 7. resolutions and amendments are sufficient for subject to qualify for debate. This year the minimum number may well be higher.

Above all the limited time available is likely to be used as an excuse for excluding subjects' Labour's establishment finds particularly inconveniNew issue of Women's Fightback - 16 pages and articles on the ent. They will either not b time-tabled at all, or els time-tabled at the end of day so that in practice the: will never be reached. It is im portant that delegates repre senting resolutions on CLPI subjects should be alerted ti these dangers.

The above pitfalls al c unfortunately not the onl ones. Thus resolutions ani amendments on what essentially the same subjec have been artificially divider into two sections This is almost cetainly ni accident, but a further man oeuvre by the Conferenc Arrangements Committee tr deny Conference thi opportunity • to conside positive alternatives to th Militant Tendency Report The Conference Arrangement Committee could well. nov advise that the subject of th 'Register' should be take! separately from that of 'Part! Unity', and that it should als be taken first.

Since the 11 excluder amendments were all added tr a resolution which appear under the 'Party Unity' head ing (Resolution 3 from Manchester Withington and Plymouth Drake - see Agenda p. 15, also see Appendix), the Conference Arrangements Committee could thus prevent them being put to a vote even I comerence rejects mue rullig if Manfaranna raianto tha rulini that they are out of order.

Once the Militant Tenwithout political interference from the NEC, and the right of CLP's to decide on the eligibility of those applying for Party membership. This means a separate: composite resolution.

Travesty It would be a travesty of justice to use the pretext of the Militant Tendency Report to deprive these key issues of proper consideration in their own right.

Altogether 13 resolutions and amendments (see Agenda pp 35-36) were submitted on the subject of party leader. 8 of them demand that no changes in the present structure of the electoral college should be considered this year. The others ask the NEC to Parti Ledut.

Deputy Leader by individual ballot.

The importance of the first proposal becomes clear when it is realised that there is a constitutional amendment on the agenda which demands that the share of MP's of the electoral college should be increased from 30 to 50%c, and the share of trade unions and CLP's reduced to 25% each.

The constitutional ASUL amendment was submitted last year by the Union of Communication Workers (UCW), and in accordance with the present rules it will be put to a vote.should the movers wish. A number of large unions would nrefer this chanoe hut come pities to calor, vut of them are also mandated. for 'no change this year' if the question arises in this form. It is important that they should be given this opportunity.

It is not certain, however, whether composite resolution based on the 8 resolutions and amendments will be time-tabled and if it is to be taken before the UCW constitutional amendment. Once again the Conference Arrangements Committee could be attempting a manoeuvre to get a major reactionary constitutional amendment taken and carried without Conference having any opportunity to consider an alternative.

Reject The NEC has rightly recommended rejection of the UCW proposal. Nevertheless, for the above reasons it is vital for affiliated organisations to ensure that a 'no change' composite resolution is timetabled for debate and that it is taken before the constitutional amendment.

In the case of mandatory re-selection, a major constitutional change which has already taken place has been widely undermined by the shortlist of one. The Paddington Constitutional Amendment (see NEC Report, P 27) seeks to uphold the decision of successive Confer ences by blocking the loophole which was subsequently discovered in the rules, while the NEC recommendation to reject the Paddington am'endment would gravely weaken a fundamental democratic reform.

The NEC has allowed its own memorandum on the selection of Parliamentary candidațes to be flagrantly disregarded in a large number of constituencies, so the reason given for opposing the Paddington amendment ('the NEC reject this in favour of its own memorandum on the selection of Parliamentary candidates' Report of the National Executive Committee 1982, p 27) cannot be taken seriously. The NEC recommendation should be rejected.

Unfortunately only 5 resolutions and amendments were submitted on this subject. Thus while there is going to be a 'postal composite resolution', this is unlikely to be enough to ensure full debate unless there is a powerful demaná for it.

However, the issue will come before Conference as the Paddington delegate will insist on a vote, and there is a strong case for this to be preceded by a proper debate. It is vital that Conference should support Paddington When the demand for a proper debate is made, and of ..course it should also support the amendment when this is put to the vote.

A composite resolution on the Parliamentary Labour Party was remitted, atter debate, to the NEC (see 1981 Conference Report, p 203). It' asked the NEC to submit to this year's Conference.

all the necessary constitutional amendments .to fully incorporate the Parliamentary Labour Party's Standing Orders into Party Constitution, and at the same time to review:

CLPD CLPD urges affiliated organisations to support in.

NEC Division 1 - Trade Unions: Eric Clarke, Terry Fields, Douglas Hoyle, Alex Kitson, Charlie Kelly, Sam MoCluskie, Teddy O'Brien,Terry O'Neill, Tom Sawyer, Syd Tierney. NEC Division II - Socialist, Cooperative & Other Organisations: Leslie Huckfield. NEC Division III - Constituency Labour Parties: Frank Allaun, Norman Atkinson, Tony Benn, Eric Heffer, Jo Richardson, Dennis Skinner, Audrey Wise.

NEC Division IV - Women M Members: Margaret Beckett, Judith Hart, Joan Maynard, Frances Morrell, Barbara Switzer.

'those Standing Orders so as to make the weekly Parliamentary Party meetings a vital policy forum to ensure the implementing of prin ciples laid down by the Labour Party Conference.

Yet if we look up this year's NEC Report, the section 'Action on Resolutions Remitted Conferenceafter Debate at COCCICE makes mention of this Composite. Could this be because the NEC would like to see it quietly forgotten?

In asking for remission on behalf of the NEC last the reason given by Eric Heffer was the 'need for further discussion to get this matter right, to get the relationship right...

Yet not only has the NEC failed to report, but there is even some doubt if the CAC will recommend a debate, despite the same demands being raised again in eight resolutions and amendments. Delegates should be mandated to ensure that it is given a hearing.

The subject of Women's Rights has attracted considerable support - twenty six CLP's chose this issue as their resolution or amendment for the 1982 Labour Party Conference.

• The resolutions centre on four main demands. the right of the Women's Conference to send five reso lutions to Annual Party Conference, the mandatory inclusion of at least one woman on parliamentary shortlists, the election of the Women's Section of the NEC by the National Conference of Labour Women, and the election by the Women's Conference of its own executive.

It is essential that each of these issues is debated and voted on separately. This means that where resolutions contain several demands, CLP's should try to reach agreement prior to the pre-Conference compositing meeting to produce a separ ate composite resolution for each demand. To maximise the chance of winning each individual demand, it is necessary to avoid losing support by linking a demand to others which may not attract the same support. Delegates should be mandated to this effect.

slate Heffer NEC Treasurer: Michael Mea cher.

Conference Arrangement Committee: Pete: Willa

----- pull-quotes -----

submit to next year's Confer- one pro Party Leele ton