Rule breaking

There were two important points of order raised on the CAC report.

The first picked up the issue of the reference-backs on the NPF report not being taken – as rules say they must be, and the Delegates’ Briefing says they will be (see https://labourleftint.uk/2026/09/28/conference-diary-seven-more-on-the-disappearing-reference-backs/)

The CAC response was just “The CAC has sent all reference backs directly to NPF”.  We know that!  That’s why the point of order was raised!  Rules (and the Briefing) say this is a conference decision, not a CAC one.  Yesterday’s CAC response was “Reference backs were fully debated by CAC and you will get an email”. It is not for the CAC to debate reference backs, any more than to debate motions. It is a political decision to decide whether or not the NPF has got a particular bit wrong, not a conference arrangements one.

Delegates should keep pushing, and demand that rules are not broken again on this.

The second was on the motions from the Women’s Conference.  Again, the CAC has broken party rules, by sending the Violence Against Women and Girls to be composited, not straight to conference floor as rules demand.

The CAC response was inadequate again – just ‘we did it’. The delegate knew they did it, or she wouldn’t have raised the point.

Taking this up should be part of a campaign  for a standalone inclusive women’s conference, able to exert the rights it has in the rules.

There was only a smattering of votes against the CAC report.

Motions

There are three motions to be debated on Tuesday morning (none on Tuesday afternoon):

• Women in Politics
• Housing and Homelessness
• Glasgow City Council (emergency motion)

The emergency motion comes from the fact that on 24 September, Glasgow City Council said that more than 20,000 workers could face dismissal and re-engagement by the end of the year – “potentially the biggest single act of fire and rehire in British history”.

This would be the biggest, but not the first – there have been a rash of fire and rehire actions by bosses, as workers wait for the Employment Rights Act to come into force – expected to be January next year.

It was obvious that some employers would get in quick, with such a long time between the passing of the act and its implementation.

The ERA doesn’t exactly ‘ban’ fire and rehire, as it is often put.  Employers will still be able to do it.  Workers will still need to resist.  The constraint on it in the Act is that it will automatically constitute unfair dismissal for ET purposes “for employers to use the practice to change certain core employment terms” unless they meet an exemption (loophole) for financial difficulties: “evidence of financial difficulties that were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect their viability”.  

This is why the emergency motion calls for the government to “deliver the New Deal for Working People in full, without further dilution or delay, and finally end the scandal of fire and rehire”.

The motion does not say it unfortunately, but to “deliver the New Deal for Working People in full” is more than the current ERA, and means an ERA2.

Given how the issue arose, it also calls for the government to “make equal pay reform an immediate legislative priority to deliver on our manifesto commitments”.

Glasgow City Council has “paused” the plan under pressure. The BBC reports that the letters which had been due to be sent to staff informing them of the fire and rehire plans will not be issued. But this does not mean the plan may not re-emerge under a different guise, and the fact the council even considered it requires a response. It will be an issue in many other workplaces too.