We offer the wording below as a basis for motions for Labour conference 2023. The deadline for receipt of motions is 5pm, Thursday 21 September (conference Sunday 8 to Wednesday 11 October 2023), but some CLPs will decide their motions much earlier. Motions must be 250 words or less, and motion titles ten words or less.

---

The New Deal for Workers and the right to strike

Conference condemns the Tories’ drive to further restrict workers’ rights to strike and organise, including through the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and the Public Order Bill.

This adds to what are already among the most restrictive anti-strike laws outside authoritarian regimes: by leagues the most restrictive in Western Europe. Existing laws prevent industrial action in solidarity with other workers and in direct pursuit of political demands about how our industries and society are run – while severely hindering all industrial action.

Conference welcomes commitments to repeal the MSL Bill, as well as commitments in the “New Deal for Workers” to expand union rights. However we underline repeated conference policy for abolition of all laws aimed against the right to strike. The next Labour government must act on this and repeal them all.

Conference resolves:

1. To reaffirm Labour’s opposition to all laws introduced to limit rights to organise and strike
2. To urge CLPs to work with unions to campaign against anti-union laws
3. When next in government, Labour should repeal all anti-union and anti-strike laws (including the Public Order Bill) and replace them with positive legal workers’ rights, including rights:
– to strike freely by procedures, at times (without notice periods) and for demands of workers’ own choosing;
– for unions to determine their own decision-making procedures, including but not only through electronic and workplace voting;
– to picket any workplace freely;
– to strike in solidarity with other workers;
– to strike over any issue, including political issues.

(250 words not inc title)

To add a signature to this statement from the Labour Campaign for Council Housing, “Labour should commit to ending Right to Buy”, email labourcouncilhousingcampaign@gmail.com

It has already been signed by 14 council Labour groups, and many councillors, MPs, etc. Not so many trade union organisations or student Labour clubs, yet.

https://thelabourcampaignforcouncilhousing.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/rtb-statement-4.pdf

---

W: the undersigned agree with Lisa Nandy that “the idea of a home for life handed on in common ownership to future generations is an idea worth fighting for.” That requires the ending of the disastrous Right to Buy policy. In Scotland and Wales it has already been ended.

In England there are now less than 1.6 million council homes left. Even if councils were able to keep all receipts for sales they would have to build more than 12,000 council homes a year just to replace homes sold and demolished. That many haven’t been built since 1990.

RTB not only means the loss of homes but councils losing rental stream, leaving them with less money for the maintenance and renewal of their existing stock.

Many homes sold under RTB end up in the private rented sector; an estimated 40%. This drives up the housing benefit bill because of the much higher private rents.

Labour conferences in 2019 and 2021 voted overwhelmingly for RTB to be ended. It was incorporated in the 2019 manifesto. At the 2021 conference Lucy Powell said that it is the right thing to do and that is what the members want.

Ending RTB will stop the loss of homes and ensure that for the first time since it was introduced all new council house building will increase the stock and enable the waiting lists to begin to fall. It is also without cost and will stop the loss of rental income to councils.

We therefore call on Labour to commit to ending RTB when in government.

https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/coalition-to-keep-campsfield-closed-policy-submission (you can “vote” on that page to recommend the submission)

---

A motion concerning ‘free movement, equality and rights for migrants’ passed almost unanimously at the Labour Party Conference in 2019. This motion committed to ‘close all detention centres’.

We call upon Labour policymakers to honour and reinforce the 2019 commitment to close all detention centres ahead of the elections in 2023.

The government has published detailed plans for reopening Campsfield House Detention centre following its closure in 2018. While it was open, the centre saw hunger strikes, self-harm, and the tragic suicides of 19-year-old Ramazan Komluca in 2005 and Ianos Dragutan in 2011.

The site plans for Campsfield House represent a significant expansion of the facility, yet levels of distress are higher in larger and more securitised IRCs, where the criminalisation of detainees is most stark. There is a wealth of empirical evidence that immigration detention has immediate and long-term negative consequences on people’s medical and mental health.

Similar plans to expand Campsfield House in 2015 were withdrawn following broad opposition from politicians and the public.

We ask the Labour policy forum to confirm that work would cease on Campsfield House (and all other detention centres in the pipeline), and that no plans will be made to open new detention centres.

Choosing to spend taxpayer money on expanding the detention estate during a cost-of-living crisis is a shockingly bad use of public resources.

Evidence collected by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford suggests that 86% of people leaving detention in 2021 were released on bail, and that most made successful claims to asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection.

It costs the Home Office £107 per day to hold one person in immigration detention, the highest per-capita cost since records began in 2013. In addition to the £94 million spent on immigration detention in the financial year 2021-22, the Home Office was forced to pay out an astounding £12.7 million in compensation to people detained unlawfully.

These funds would be better spent clearing the asylum backlog, addressing the crisis in our National Health Service, and helping support struggling families with the rising costs of food and energy bills.

Individuals can be detained without trial, without proper judicial oversight and with little chance of bail and the UK continues to be the only country in Europe without a statutory upper time limit on detention. Vulnerable people who should not be detained, including survivors of torture, trafficking and gender- and sexuality-based violence are routinely held in detention. There are multiple reports of abuse and mistreatment at existing removal sites.

For these reasons, we ask Labour policymakers to reaffirm their commitment to closing all detention centres, to cease work on those currently being planned for and built, and to explore community-based alternatives to detention.

· This [Branch/CLP] supports Labour’s pledge in the New Deal for Working People to ‘oversee the biggest wave of insourcing of public services for a generation’;

· Believes that wherever Labour is in power it should be working to end the scourge of outsourcing, which creates low pay, two-tier workforces and reinforces inequality;

· Notes with concern that TfL has extended its outsourcing contract with ABM, in which 2,000 London Underground cleaners are employed on low pay, without sick pay or pension provision.

· Notes that the campaign to insource these cleaners has won support from across the labour movement including the TUC, the London Labour Regional Executive, the Labour Group in the London Assembly, 11 London Labour MPs, 9 London Labour peers and more than 200 London Labour Councillors.

· Welcomes the Mayor’s action in giving these cleaners free travel but calls on him to commit TfL to insourcing this contract in April and to work with the RMT to negotiate a proposal that can deliver this policy.

· Agrees to write to the Mayor enclosing this resolution and stating our support for the insourcing of London’s Underground cleaners.

The government is waging an escalating campaign against asylum seekers and migrants, overseeing an intentionally broken asylum system. This includes intensification of the hostile environment, the Rwanda deportation scheme, the rhetoric around the desperate channel crossings, and the Home Secretary’s refusal to condemn the violent mob attacks on asylum accommodation.

Controls on immigration create a tiered system of employment rights, creating precarity and super-exploitation for migrant workers and driving down pay and conditions for all.

We note the union response, coordinated by the FBU, which named the government as complicit with the rise in violence and intimidation by the far right against refugees and refugee accommodation.

Groups like Patriotic Alternative are preying on the vulnerabilities of communities which face multiple intersecting crises.

We stand in solidarity with the mobilisations of trade unions, political parties and social movements against the far-right violence directed at asylum seekers in Knowsley, Rotherham, Long Eaton and all across the country.

We demand

To tackle hate and division we demand the expansion of public services financed by taxing the rich and jobs and homes for all.

We demand:

Safe and legal routes for all to the UK and an amnesty on asylum claims

Restore and extend free movement rights

Close all detention centres.

Unconditional right to family reunion.

End “no recourse to public funds” policies.

Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.

Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents.

• Bakers’ Union call for amnesty for all asylum-seekers here: https://statusnow4all.org/the-bakers-food-allied-workers-unions-support-to-the-call-for-status-now-for-all/

• Joint union statement https://care4calais.org/news/trade-unions-issue-joint-statement-in-support-of-refugees/

Olenka Gulenok and Brie Kostrova, two activists from the Ukrainian socialist organisation Sotsialny Rukh (Social Movement) talked with Michael Baker, about how the war is affecting the struggle for women’s liberation in Ukraine, and how the international feminist movement can help.

Olenka and Brie are visiting the UK for a speaker tour organised by Workers’ Liberty, 4-16 March 2023. This interview cross-posted, wih thanks, from Women’s Fightback.

Can you introduce yourselves and Sotsialny Rukh?

Bri: My comrades call me Brie. I came to the left in about 2014, when I joined the independent student union Direct Action. After that I was part of different queer, feminist and other leftist organisations. I joined Sotsialny Rukh in 2019, and since 2020 I’ve been on its Executive Board. I am responsible for internal communications and feminist issues, including different partnerships with queer and feminist organisations in Ukraine. I also created a project to gather people interested in leftist ideas — a summer school which explores the topics of trade unions, environmental issues, feminism, anticapitalism, social justice, etc. Sotsialny Rukh is a civil organisation for now, but aims to become a political party. It was established in 2016. We mostly work with different trade unions and organisations, and we have around 100 members.

Olenka: I’m a sociologist and researcher. I conduct interviews with people and write reports about their struggles. Before the war I dealt with migration and various urban issues. I used to research how Ukrainian musicians work overseas. Then the war began and I started researching the experiences of people living in Ukraine, staying in cities close to the front line. I joined Sotsialny Rukh after the beginning of the war — actually, during the summer school that Brie organises!

What effect has the war had on “traditional” feminist social issues, like domestic violence, marriage and divorce, access to abortions, and pregnancy and childcare? The war has clearly had a massive effect on infrastructure, what areas of womens’ rights do you think this has affected?

Olenka: The war has definitely worsened the situation in terms of gendered roles and stereotypes. Men are increasingly portrayed as warriors defending their families and their nation. Women are expected to be good mothers, even more so than before. But it’s not just about discourses, it’s about practices as well, because it’s mostly men who are at the front line — there are a lot of people of all genders fighting, but it’s still mostly men — and therefore it’s mostly women who stay at home looking after children or other relatives.

Then there’s the infrastructure: a lot of schools and kindergartens were closed or ruined because of the war. A lot of schools switched to an online format. So Ukrainian women now perform even more unpaid reproductive labour than they used to. A lot of volunteer jobs are also done by women. In the long term, the fact that women are staying at home, because the kindergartens are closed in many regions, will probably result in an increase in the pay gap between men and women. Regarding access to abortions, there’s no data, no statistics, but it’s definitely an issue for women fleeing to Poland. I think Ukrainians mostly go to Poland because it’s close, but abortions are prohibited there so a lot of Ukrainian refugees were complaining that it was very difficult for them to get an abortion, even if they were survivors of rape; they had to go to Germany or elsewhere to get it.

Brie: And even in Ukraine, in some regions women also don’t have access to different plan B pills and so on, so it’s definitely a problem here, too.

What are the main feminist groups in Ukraine? Do they tend to be more recent, or older and more established? How have they adapted to wartime activity?

Brie: There are a lot of feminist organisations in Ukraine, and their number has grown significantly in recent years. I think this is because the ideas have become more popular in Ukrainian society. These organisations are usually autonomous, but very often cooperate with each other. I myself am part of a feminist organisation called the FemSolution Collective, which has been operating in Ukraine since 2016. Before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we were an educational project; we covered topics like the LGBTQ+ community, queer feminism and the like. We also worked with students a lot, providing all kinds of lectures. But after the invasion, we started to focus mostly on humanitarian aid, as the most vulnerable groups became even more vulnerable during the war. We now provide support to women and children, and people with mental health issues. A similar process took place with many other feminist organisations — most of them have now reorganised into humanitarian aid organisations. We try to do other things; we work with the media, for example, and we try to engage with internally displaced women. But it’s really hard to do, because our organisations have very limited resources, and we don’t have enough staff to do all of these things right now.

How does Sotsialny Rukh orientate itself towards feminist politics and LGBTQ+ politics in Ukraine?

Brie: For many years, Sotsialny Rukh has supported the 8 March International Women’s Day celebrations, and marches in support of the LGBTQ+ community. We also work with queer organisations on labour laws and legislative changes. For example, we have a situation now in which the word “gender” has just been introduced for the first time to our labour laws, which caused a big reaction from right-wing radicals. SR responded at the time by openly supporting the position of the LGBTQ+ community on the issue. Recently, I initiated the creation of a women and LGBTI group within the organisation, so that queer people and women in the group can organise together. I hope this year we can devote more time to queer and feminist politics; so far we’ve not been able to. For a while there weren’t many women in the organisation, but more have joined now, so we’re looking forward to doing more work on feminist issues this year.

You’ve mentioned internal displacement — how has that changed the nature of local and regional political organising? Are there prospects for doing practical work with people who live near the frontlines?

Olenka: I was actually discussing this with a colleague that I conduct interviews with. We believe that the main thing we can do right now is just document the experiences people are having, so this information can be collated and analysed. But that’s more about research. Around 8 million people have become internally displaced in Ukraine. This means that there are a lot of activists that have been moving to different regions, a lot of initiatives or groups have relocated to relatively safer locations. On the one hand, it’s great for these groups and for the communities they’ve relocated to, because new social connections are being developed and so on. But on the other hand, the cities and communities they’ve left don’t have them anymore, so there is a lack of activist resources in areas closer to the front line. In this respect, migration brings both advantages and disadvantages. The same goes for people moving overseas. If they are activists, if they belong to leftist or other groups, then this migration helps local community initiatives, but they’re needed here as well. Especially considering that a lot of the work we do these days is not just political — there’s a lot of humanitarian work to be done.

What are the main things you hear from the people you interview who live on the front lines?

Olenka: There’s so much to say. Perhaps one interesting detail comes from the fact that a lot of people are losing their jobs during the war. Factories and businesses are being shut down, and there are a lot of labour rights issues. I notice in interviews that people seem to realise that their problems are shared with others, and aren’t just individual to them. Very often, they’re ready to fight for their labour rights and sue their employers, which is something I hadn’t noticed as much before the war. One woman from Kramatorsk told me during an interview that before the war she wouldn’t have been so active in fighting her employer. But now, after surviving war, she’s no longer scared of workplace conflict.

Some of your student comrades are involved in a student organisation in Ukraine — could you tell us a bit about it?

Brie: Direct Action has existed since 2008, and the community has existed in some form since the 90s. It’s been around for a long time, and our student members have simply revived it. I was part of this organisation from 2014 to 2019. I ran the libertarian film club, the lecture club, and I also organised several demos with them against cuts to scholarships and sexual abuse in universities. It was my first experience of a left-wing organisation. I’m really delighted that our student activists have decided to revive Direct Action, because I really believe students must work together on the political level — they are one of the most powerful social forces that exists.

Their main focus for now is cooperating with Youth 4 Ukrainian Resistance, a coalition of international university students who are organising an international solidarity campaign and collecting signatures on an open statement. They also want to educate people from different backgrounds using social media, and once it has all been established they would like to continue by doing lectures and other activities like that. They now have 15 members with another 10 waiting for approval, so it’s already made a great start. For a long time, Sotsialny Rukh was the only leftist organisation here, so I’m really happy that Direct Action is back, and operating in Ukraine again. It’s wonderful news! Before we finish, is there anything you think isn’t being discussed as much as it should, or anything you’d like to highlight?

Olenka: I think what we really want most of all is for the leftist and feminist community outside of Ukraine to support our armed resistance, and to understand that we’re fighting Russian imperialism; that it’s not simply a fight between two governments.

That brings us quite neatly to the last question: what kind of support and discussion would you like to see from internationalist feminists outside of Ukraine? Which campaigns, which forms of solidarity need attention or material support, beyond the initiatives you’ve already mentioned?

Brie: We really need campaigns for arming Ukraine — that’s the most important thing right now. But there are also a lot of grassroots organisations that provide direct help to people here, like FemSolution. We don’t have a lot of monetary support, but we have a lot of people coming to us and requesting help. Last year, we already sent almost 800 packages of hygienic products and clothes to internally displaced women, and we also supported a lot of children, providing all kind of school materials. We’ve also started some work with people in the Kherson region this year and we want to be able to support them properly.

Olenka: There are loads of grassroots initiatives in Ukraine, and they can react very quickly to meet people’s needs, unlike the bigger organisations that get most of the attention and funding. So in terms of solidarity and support, it’s really important to give financial support to small, local initiatives. They solve people’s problems right away, the next day, without all the bureaucracy, and they really lack funding. They’re usually volunteer-led, without any salaries or full-time employees.

The Labour Party’s National Policy Forum “consultation” is under way and ends on 17 March. CLPs and ward branches can send in “submissions” (of up to 600 words, with no fixed format), though they should not really expect a reasoned yes-or-no response to these. The “policy commissions” then feed into a full NPF meeting on 21-23 July 2023, which in turn will send proposals to conference (8-11 October), where they can be amended (though that is difficult).

There are six policy commissions to which you can send submissions.

https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/npf-consultation-2023

The Labour Campaign for Council Housing (LCCH) has urged CLPs and branches to send submissions to the policy commission report entitled “A future where families come first”:

https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/supporting-families

LLI has backed the LCCH push, because adding weight to a push already underway on a particular issue has more chance of some effect than a scattergun range of left-wing submissions.

The Socialist Health Association has (as we understand it) indicated a wish for submissions based on the 2022 conference motion (below). Momentum has published (late in the day) a range of other submission proposals:

https://peoplesmomentum.com/national-policy-forum-23/

On the anti-union laws they clearly say repeal all anti-union laws (not just the most recent). Though they also say “permit electronic ballots” which I think only makes sense if there remain legal impositions on how unions can and can’t ballot…

Conversely on migrants’ rights they go no further than repeal the most recent anti-asylum legislation and “scrap the hostile environment”. And on protest rights and policing, only repealing the PCSC, with nothing broader on curbing police power, increasing accountability, or dealing with older legislation like the 1986 Public Order Act

On energy ownership they include “democratic worker and citizen control” of energy extraction, transmission and supply and “offering all workers in the fossil fuel industry retraining and unionised jobs in the renewable industry on at least equivalent terms and conditions with high job security”.

On trans rights they call for GRC reform for self-ID but nothing else (e.g. nothing to say on addressing the grossly inadequate state of NHS trans healthcare)

More: https://peoplesmomentum.com/national-policy-forum-23/

LCCH says: “Whatever we may feel about this process it’s important to get in submissions from where we can to get across the message that we want a commitment to policies overwhelmingly passed at the 2019 and 2021 conferences. Wycombe CLP has decided it will send in to the consultation its call ‘to accept in full the Housing Composite motion passed at the 2021 conference’.” Since LCCH has done the work to study the documents and propose submission text, you may wish to support that effort, even though there are many other policy areas where we’d want input.

Below is the Wycombe CLP motion (pruned to cut out its detailed local references). You can put together 600 words from that and the 2021 conference policy (below) for a submission.

https://thelabourcampaignforcouncilhousing.org/2023/01/30/wycombe-clp-supports-the-call-for-ending-right-to-buy/

Wycombe CLP Notes:

Housing costs continue to rise faster than earnings with private rent rising at almost double the pace of wages. Social Housing provision is totally inadequate
The right to adequate housing is a human right
To re-affirm our previous call upon the Policy Forum, Shadow Cabinet and Leadership to accept in full the Housing composite motion passed at the 2021 Conference
To call on the Leadership of the party to unequivocally commit to following the lead of the Labour administration in Wales, and Scottish Government, in ending Right to Buy / Acquire

This is the motion passed at 2021 conference

# Summary from Labour List

• funding councils to deliver 150,000 social rent homes each year, including 100,000 council homes;
• enshrine a right to adequate housing in law;
• repeal anti-squatting legislation and the Vagrancy Act;
• end Right to Buy and ‘no-fault evictions’;
• give councils stronger powers of compulsory purchase to tackle land banking;
• give councils powers to restrict second home purchases;
• end homelessness by instituting a ‘housing-first’ system;
• commit to strengthening tenants’ rights;
• fund the retrofitting of council housing.

# Full text

Conference notes that Labour has a longstanding record of positive policies based on respect for human rights, and housing policies aimed at ensuring that everyone can live in a home that is healthy, safe and affordable.

The Grenfell Tower fire and COVID pandemic have now highlighted a lack of investment in public housing, unsafe building practices, and weak legal protection for tenants and leaseholders alike. In addition, we know that the current housing crisis disproportionately affects women, ethnic minorities, young people, and people on lower incomes.

The Covid pandemic has aggravated the severe economic and health impacts of the housing crisis. In December 2020 the Health Foundation identified that prior to the pandemic a third of households in England had housing problems relating to overcrowding, affordability and poor-quality housing.

Prior to the pandemic, thousands of households were struggling with their housing costs in the unaffordable and insecure private rented sector.

Due to Covid, many more households are struggling. In Cornwall, the private rented sector is also dramatically shrinking due to second home ownership and as houseowners sell up to make the most of the Covid house price bubble or rent as AirBnB/to students.
The lifting of the temporary ban on evictions and ending of the Furlough scheme will make matters worse and lead to a rise in homelessness.

The Conservative government has done little to support those struggling to access decent, affordable and secure housing to rent.

Homelessness continues to rise and is expected to accelerate with 1 in 200 people now homeless, while there are more than 200,000 empty homes and over 1.15 million people on social housing waiting lists.

The UK’s provision for the disabled was based on the needs of those who suffered their disabilities from injuries during the two World Wars. However, changes in the demography and needs of the disabled over the last 80 years, including those that become disabled in later life, have led to a significant gap in the provision of housing.

Factors affecting this include:
• A reduction in the proportion of council housing
• Our NHS enabling a greater number of disabled people to live long and valuable lives
• The design, standards, and density of modern houses

Houses are often compact, ill designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and two storeys.
The adaption of such houses takes a very long time to be completed; typically, more than a year, and is costly. These adaptions are removed when the houses are no longer needed for the disabled. Some councils do have houses specially adapted for families with disabled members but have no provision for single disabled or couples.

Conference believes:

• The UK housing market is broken.

• The Conservative government has done little to support those struggling to access decent, affordable and secure housing to rent

• The UK has obligations under international law to ensure that everyone enjoys the human right to housing that is affordable, accessible, habitable, secure and culturally appropriate, without discrimination. Unfortunately, while the 1998 Human Rights Act protects rights such as free speech, it does not explicitly guarantee the right to adequate housing. Setting this right into legislation would help to eradicate homelessness, and could avert housing problems for people in all tenures.

• The very large number of second/holiday homes in Cornwall and similar areas has greatly increased the level of housing insecurity and household impoverishment linked to housing unaffordability.

Local economies suffer when so many local households are left with little disposable income after meeting their housing costs.

Many families with young children are finding that reliance on insecure, expensive and often low quality private rentals, is a permanent condition rather than a transitional phase in their lives.

The impact on housing availability of second/holiday homes is felt not only in areas popular with visitors but in places to which the residents of visitor orientated areas are forced to move.

• Local authorities should have powers to compulsorily purchase development land that is being ‘land-banked’ and not developed by the landowner.

• There is now a clear need for the building of houses designed specifically for the disabled and reserved solely for such people.

• People in this country should be able to live in a council property that is properly maintained, especially in circumstances where a council tenant has to also pay service charges and is not getting a quality service from that. From cutbacks to making the service about targets; we are not figures but human beings.

• Many experiencing homelessness are denied support because of ‘priority need’ rules or having ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ Conference calls on the Labour Party to demand that the government takes action now to end the housing crisis by: • Fully funding councils to deliver the building of 150,000 social rent homes each year, including 100,000 council homes.

• Enshrine the right to adequate housing in domestic law, to ensure that future Governments respect, protect and fulfil the human right to adequate housing.

• Repeal the 2012 anti-squatting legislation, the Vagrancy Act and all legislation that criminalises being homeless. End the use of anti-social behaviour legislation against begging and rough sleeping

• Scrapping the tax loophole on second homes and allowing councils to charge a levy on second homes to be used to provide local social housing.

• Giving local Councils additional planning powers in the form of change of use restrictions to restrict the number of second/holiday homes in areas where they are eroding the sustainability of local communities.

• End ‘right to buy’

• End homelessness by implementing a national ‘Housing First’ system with floating support, to house all those experiencing homelessness regardless of immigration status.

• Reviewing council housing debt to address underfunding of housing revenue accounts.

• Ending Section 21 (no fault) evictions

• Commit to strengthening tenants’ rights

• Commit to giving local authorities powers to compulsorily purchase development land that is being ‘land-banked’ and not developed by the landowner.

• Fund the retro-fitting of council housing to cut greenhouse gases, provide jobs and promote a shift from outsourcing to Direct Labour Organisations

• Build disablity housing and in the meantime encourage local councils to include houses specifically designed for single occupation or couples. This should, in the short term, include private developments.

Conference also calls upon Labour to place these actions at the centre of its housing policies.

---

---

Health: 2022 conference motion

Conference notes:
• 12 years of Conservative underfunding, neglect and mismanagement have left our NHS with waiting lists at the highest on record and the lowest level of patient satisfaction since 1997
• those needing mental health support have been particularly let down
• that the imposition of US-style structures such as Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) in the Health and Care Act 2022 shows how corporate involvement in 11 policy making leads to private profits at the expense of patient care and workers’ pay
• that the ICSs, rather than integrate, obstruct high quality social care alongside the NHS
• that the personal experiences of many in countries with healthcare for profit systems, most notably the USA, warn of the dangers of privatised healthcare systems
• that there is a crisis in which GPs work under extreme pressure, beyond contracted hours; numbers entering training will not sustain the workforce
• that good mental health runs through all aspects of life and can only be tackled as an embedded part of wider living standards
• a quarter of mental health beds have been cut, over a third of children were turned away from mental health services last year alone, and right now 1.6 million people are waiting for mental health treatment
• that Labour created the NHS and should be its primary defender and reject any plan to increase privatisation in the healthcare system. Conference reaffirms:
• Labour’s unequivocal commitment to a publicly funded, publicly provided, publicly accountable, universal and comprehensive National Health Service.
• There must be direct employment of NHS workers, ending commercialisation and fragmentation and the use of outsourcing, private providers and public-private partnerships within the NHS.
• Ending outsourcing better enables our friends and allies in the union movement to secure fair pay and conditions for their members, whose work during the pandemic saved tens of thousands of lives.
• Health services are of better quality, more equitable and cost-effective when nationally planned and provided by democratically-accountable, public authorities with local expertise.
• The socialist achievements of the Welsh government in publicly providing and funding a public Welsh NHS Conference resolves Labour must:
• adopt a position of unequivocal support for the National Health Service and a position of outright opposition and commit to vote against any and all forms of privatisation of the NHS;
• commit to returning all privatised portions of the NHS to public control upon forming a Government;
• not accept donations from companies interested in outsourcing NHS functions;
• immediately launch a public campaign against privatisation of the NHS and actively support current campaigns and activist groups;
• publicly support all NHS Trade Unions campaigning to return to and retain all public control of the NHS, including, but not limited to any legal Industrial action;
• commit to support GPs so that everyone can access care when needed and staff are developed and valued;
• guarantee an appointment for all citizens
• allow medical professionals to use a variety of appointment types (e.g. virtual or in-person) based on medical need
• provide more places for General Practice, Nurse Practitioners, and other staff roles where a shortage exists
• build and maintain an NHS fit for the future, by providing the staff, equipment and modern technology needed to treat patients on time.
• commit to a national well-being strategy in which mental health prevention is embedded within wider aims. The strategy would elevate the importance of mental health and link to other policy areas of our society and economy.
Conference therefore resolves:
• To repeal the Health and Care Act 2022 and to reverse and eliminate Integrated Care Systems
• To establish a publicly funded, publicly provided, publicly accountable, universal and comprehensive National Health Service
• To return all privatised portions of the NHS to public control upon forming a Government;
• To ensure a Labour government and economy are fit to handle another pandemic with proper preparations and regulations.
• To ensure Labour invests in research that focuses on epidemiology, biomedical sciences and research in other STEM fields, bracing for all forms of a pandemic.
• To establish comprehensively improved public health
• To establish a publicly funded and publicly provided National Care Service with care and support for independent living for all who need it.
Mover: Socialist Health Association Seconder: Lewisham Deptford CLP

The national committee of the revived Labour Students organisation, and a slew of uni Labour Clubs, have called on the Labour leadership to stand by existing Labour policy to end uni tuition fees.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe-8eveEq5IbgxB3zn0JXhq4a-jTd5SraICO40K6LhjsY4vCg/viewform

CLPs may wish to pass motions on the following lines:

This CLP supports the call by the National Labour Students Committee and many uni Labour clubs for the Labour leadership to stand by existing Labour policy to end uni tuition fees.

Now more than ever we need to challenge the marketised system and fight for free education. A failure to oppose tuition fees is neither progressive nor popular, and Labour will not be thanked for sidestepping the issue.