Thankyou
The report before you today asks council to either accept the decision to sell the port freehold, or to refer it back to the mayor, with its views. I rise to ask the council to choose to
‘To object to the decision and refer it back to the Mayor, together
with its views’
and for its view to be to ask George not to sell the port freehold.
First, I would like to make it clear that the Green Party is fully supportive of Avonmouth docks and wishes to succeed and for it to investment in its future for the benefit of the city, for local people, local jobs, and the local economy.
However, I oppose the sale of council land in principle, because council land is a community asset, and the council holds that land - in effect - in trust for the people of Bristol both now and for its future generations. The council’s job as trustees therefore is to manage that land, not to dispose of it.
Once land is sold, it is lost to the city for ever, and Bristol’s current and future citizens are thereby impoverished for ever – all for a short term financial addition to its treasury.
I am also concerned that the loss of freehold and therefore the handing over of all control to the company could result in the sale of the business, or see its exploitation for purposes far beyond those concerned with a successful port.
I am aware that the council has long since lost most of its control over the port authority.
I am aware of the officer view of the relative value of the £10m compared with not selling.
However, I am not convinced that the sale price is sufficiently high to warrant the permanent loss of such a large area of land.
Having said that, I suspect that the mayor will approve the sale in which case, I ask him to take on board and put in safeguards for some of the concerns raised in public forum and elsewhere.
These include:
- we need to ensure good rail good passenger rail access for both staff and visitors to Avonmouth and Royal Portbury,
- we need to ensure the Henbury loop is retained for the use of passenger traffic
- we need to improve rail links from the docks to the rail network
- ensure that any sale of the freehold allows the full development of renewables on the land
To sum up, then, if the mayor is intent on going ahead with its sale, I urge him to ensure the relevant safeguards are built in. However, I do not think that the sale is actually justified at all. I ask him to reverse his decision and hold the land for future generations of Bristol residents.
Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Members remuneration (pay!) speech
My speech on members remuneration: rejects a 9% increase but make the point that we should base councillors expense on need. Points out that some people are excluded from being councillors because of the level of the allowance. Seemed to get jeered by some Labour councillors, goodness only knows why.
There are two basic reasons for supporting the recommendations of the member’s remuneration panel.
First off, it the panel is independent. As a rule, we as councillors should not seek to politically interfere with its suggestions. That is what it is for. As an aside, I wonder why we are even in the position where we end up taking a decision we clearly wish to avoid.
Second, the allowance for a councillor at the moment is sufficiently low at the moment that it – as a sole income – prevents a significant proportion of the population from being councillors at all. This is, therefore, an act of overt discrimination, an act of overt bias in favour of the wealthy. You can only be a councillor if you can afford the time, you don’t need the money, or you have another form of income. You can therefore argue that making a significant increase to the allowance of a councillor seeks to address this - particularly when you take into account the number of hours that many councillors work.
The problem – of course – is the fact that councillors are in the privileged position of being able to award themselves a pay increase. The panel can recommend, but we are the ones who vote. And here we are – at a time when local government is under attack like never before, and facing the prospect of further deep, and utterly unacceptable cuts. Hundreds of people at Bristol City Council have lost or will lose their livelihoods. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people in this City have suffered or will suffer as a result of loss of services or benefits.
At this time – can we seriously expect to both vote for a £100k increase in total expenditure on councillors and – at the same time – vote for a 9% increase in the basic councillor allowance?
The answer has to be no. And that doesn’t even begin to address the proposed increase for the mayor.
I do not have a strong view for or against most of the other proposals contained in the report. They are based on multiples of allowances as a way of defining the merit of a particular role.
If ‘I ruled the world’, I would take a different approach. One based on need. I would be asking myself if councillors with no outside source of income should be considered in a different way to those who have such an income. Greens want all people to earn at least a living wage as a fruit of their labours. This counts for agency cleaners and shop workers but it also includes councillors
Clearly, I do not rule the world. And in this world, had the total increase in allowance been similar to the pay rise that local government staff are receiving – with the levels of allowance being adjusted accordingly – I suspect this report would be adopted almost without discussion.
Assuming other party groups also reject this report, I suspect the solution to this lies in recommendation 14 which states:
RECOMMENDATION 14: That in the event that the Council does not accept the Panel’s recommended level of Basic Allowance, the values of special responsibility allowances be adjusted to the present or alternative Basic Allowance, using the same multipliers.
I suggest that the recommendations are adopted, but with a basic allowance set at or slightly higher than the current level, but as thing stand will vote against this report..
There are two basic reasons for supporting the recommendations of the member’s remuneration panel.
First off, it the panel is independent. As a rule, we as councillors should not seek to politically interfere with its suggestions. That is what it is for. As an aside, I wonder why we are even in the position where we end up taking a decision we clearly wish to avoid.
Second, the allowance for a councillor at the moment is sufficiently low at the moment that it – as a sole income – prevents a significant proportion of the population from being councillors at all. This is, therefore, an act of overt discrimination, an act of overt bias in favour of the wealthy. You can only be a councillor if you can afford the time, you don’t need the money, or you have another form of income. You can therefore argue that making a significant increase to the allowance of a councillor seeks to address this - particularly when you take into account the number of hours that many councillors work.
The problem – of course – is the fact that councillors are in the privileged position of being able to award themselves a pay increase. The panel can recommend, but we are the ones who vote. And here we are – at a time when local government is under attack like never before, and facing the prospect of further deep, and utterly unacceptable cuts. Hundreds of people at Bristol City Council have lost or will lose their livelihoods. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people in this City have suffered or will suffer as a result of loss of services or benefits.
At this time – can we seriously expect to both vote for a £100k increase in total expenditure on councillors and – at the same time – vote for a 9% increase in the basic councillor allowance?
The answer has to be no. And that doesn’t even begin to address the proposed increase for the mayor.
I do not have a strong view for or against most of the other proposals contained in the report. They are based on multiples of allowances as a way of defining the merit of a particular role.
If ‘I ruled the world’, I would take a different approach. One based on need. I would be asking myself if councillors with no outside source of income should be considered in a different way to those who have such an income. Greens want all people to earn at least a living wage as a fruit of their labours. This counts for agency cleaners and shop workers but it also includes councillors
Clearly, I do not rule the world. And in this world, had the total increase in allowance been similar to the pay rise that local government staff are receiving – with the levels of allowance being adjusted accordingly – I suspect this report would be adopted almost without discussion.
Assuming other party groups also reject this report, I suspect the solution to this lies in recommendation 14 which states:
RECOMMENDATION 14: That in the event that the Council does not accept the Panel’s recommended level of Basic Allowance, the values of special responsibility allowances be adjusted to the present or alternative Basic Allowance, using the same multipliers.
I suggest that the recommendations are adopted, but with a basic allowance set at or slightly higher than the current level, but as thing stand will vote against this report..
Monday, 27 April 2015
Why the Ashcroft opinion poll might just hand Bristol West to the Greens
Lord Ashcroft has published an opinion poll for Bristol West.
The relevant figures are second up from the bottom, so it predicts Labour to get 38% of the vote, Greens are second on 25%, LibDems third on 20% and Tories 4th on 14%.
Superficially, and perhaps in fact, this is great news for Labour. They are well ahead in this seat. And yet.....there are some messages which as a Green, I think it only right and proper to suggest:
1. The Tories are 4th
While stopping short of saying the 'Tories can't win here', well, it is pretty much inconceivable.
The single biggest reason the Labour Party have for people to vote for them is they ain't the Tories, and you have to vote Labour to stop the Tories.
In Bristol West, it clearly isn't true.
To those people who say they will vote Labour because it stops the Tories, well, the Tories are stopped. This is NOT a reason not to vote Green. If you are diehard Labour or think they have the best policies, by all means vote for them. If you would consider voting Green, but want to stop the Tories first and foremost, we urge you to think again.
2. The LibDems are third
The LibDems are behind the Greens and a long way behind Labour. I like Stephen Williams as a person, but his time is up.
The LibDem vote has collapsed in recent council elections. It has now collapsed in the general election.
If there is to be a challenge to Labour, it will come from the challenger - and that is the Green Party.
We call on those thinking of voting Liberal Democrat to think again. If you want to see a challenge to Labour in Bristol West, vote for the nearest challenger - and that is the Green Party.
3. Vote for the status quo or vote for something other than the status quo
I have met the Labour candidate a couple of times, and have no problem with her as a person. However, she will just become another Labour MP, one of hundreds, and part of the Labour establishment.
Darren Hall, the Green candidate - if he came the second Green MP - and achieved a fraction of what Caroline Lucas has achieved - he will be a brilliant asset to Bristol, to the Green Party, to the planet and to those wanting achieve a socially just society.
So I urge voters in Bristol West to move beyond thinking of the statistically probable, but just this once, think of the possible ....
Monday, 23 March 2015
How we voted on Bristol's budget
This probably isn't very interesting, but if you analyse the votes at the last full council budget meeting, you'll see that
Labour and Conservative voted together for 17 of the 20 votes (ie 85% of the time)
(Greens and LDs voted with the Tories 11x out of 20)
I might mention this the next time I get a 'vote Green, get Tory' comment.....
Friday, 20 March 2015
Letter to the editor - libraries
Dear Sir
Now that Green cabinet member Cllr Radice has, with others, successfully lobbied the mayor to delay any closure of libraries, we need to look to the future.
It is completely obvious that for many of our libraries to succeed in the way many want, they need a substantial increase in investment. They need to be better resourced, open for longer, and better promoted.
We in the Green Party, therefore believe, we do not need a 20% cut in the libraries budget - as voted for by Bristol Labour and Conservative councillors. Far better would be a 20% increase.
Given that both main parties have also committed to further spending cuts whichever party forms the next government, we need to see evidence that their campaigns are more than just an election ploy - but to see a commitment from their parties to increase such expenditure in the long term. (It must also be noted that the Liberal Democrats, should they survive the election, are also committed to substantial further cuts).
Failure to deliver this is will lead to either a full complement of libraries which are scarcely ever open; or libraries run by untrained volunteers. Or closures.
The alternative would be to move the cut somewhere else - in which case, Labour and Conservative councillors should tell us - who do you want to lose their job? What service would your party cut?
Yours
Now that Green cabinet member Cllr Radice has, with others, successfully lobbied the mayor to delay any closure of libraries, we need to look to the future.
It is completely obvious that for many of our libraries to succeed in the way many want, they need a substantial increase in investment. They need to be better resourced, open for longer, and better promoted.
We in the Green Party, therefore believe, we do not need a 20% cut in the libraries budget - as voted for by Bristol Labour and Conservative councillors. Far better would be a 20% increase.
Given that both main parties have also committed to further spending cuts whichever party forms the next government, we need to see evidence that their campaigns are more than just an election ploy - but to see a commitment from their parties to increase such expenditure in the long term. (It must also be noted that the Liberal Democrats, should they survive the election, are also committed to substantial further cuts).
Failure to deliver this is will lead to either a full complement of libraries which are scarcely ever open; or libraries run by untrained volunteers. Or closures.
The alternative would be to move the cut somewhere else - in which case, Labour and Conservative councillors should tell us - who do you want to lose their job? What service would your party cut?
Yours
Saturday, 21 February 2015
My speech at the recent budget meeting
BUDGET SPEECH
The ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to discussing the budget are the cuts. The cuts dominate local government. Nationally, according to the chair of the Local Government Association, spending on adult social care has fallen by 26% over 4 years (with 200,000 clients no longer getting a service), spending on early intervention has fallen by 54%, on youth services by 55% and so on
They are part of the coalition government austerity programme that we – as Greens – believe is quite simply wrong. I was reading a report from the PCS union which pointed out that
‘From 1918 to 1961 the UK national debt was over 100% of GDP. During that period the government introduced the welfare state, the NHS, state pensions, comprehensive education, built millions of council houses, and nationalised a range of industries. The public sector grew and there was economic growth.’
The Coalition austerity programme - designed to cut debt - has seen it increase by about 80% from 2010 levels, but it is still below the level in which we managed to achieve all those feats between 1918 and 1961.
And of course, it is worth repeating that the victims of the cuts are those who in no way, shape or form caused the crisis in the first place, they are the poorest and most vulnerable in society. They disproportionately discriminate against women. Some are quite simply vicious – some councillors will have attended a briefing - as I did - about the Disability Living Allowance – in which we were told that 55% of recipients would have their allowance either cut or entirely removed.
The cuts are not an act of necessity. They are an act of ideology.
At a national level, the alternative to austerity is simple. It is to not do austerity. Keynes told us many years ago that you should spend your way out of recession, and pay the money off in the good times. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the coalition approach of cuts has potentially set the UK economy back to the tune of £100 billion. I’m not the biggest fan of economic growth, bur even I can see that that is a big missed opportunity.
When it comes to the election, with the best will in the world, I don’t actually expect the Greens to form the next government. (pause) We do expect to be picking up additional MPs, especially one or two near here (smile wryly), but in reality the next government will be a version of business as usual.
So – if we get Cameron, well, the Tories have told us that they will cut public expenditure by £25 billion. The LibDems will cut public expenditure by £16billion. And Labour – well Ed Milliband told the Hugo Young lecture in February last year that
‘Clearly the next Labour government will face massive fiscal challenges. Including having to cut spending.’
I gather Ed Balls has admitted that the first year of a Labour government will cut £3.3billion from local government expenditure.
None of them have said any money will go back into local government. You have to reckon money will continue to be removed. Indeed I have been told by senior officers that whoever wins, they expect Bristol to face cuts of 12% or £45m over the first two years of that government.
So where does this leave us locally? Well, looking at the amendments before you today, the majority take the easy targets – they go for the one-off funding that George identified in his budget. Some of them seek one off things. Others, however, clearly seek to maintain a revenue funded service for just one year. While I clearly understand the politics of this, I do hope the proposers explain how they expect the services to be maintained in the future. I don’t think anyone has a ‘Get out of Cuts free’ card.
When it comes to the Green Party approach, we have tended to view the one-off savings as a red herring. We have looked at a number of proposals – and I’d like to pay tribute at this stage to the excellent input of Cllr Malnick.
These include the use of prudential borrowing to generate further income. For example we wondered if it would be possible to generate income by investing in the City Design team - whose activities currently generate a small surplus. The answer came back that it is an interesting idea, but more of a policy change than a budget amendment. Similarly, we wondered if further investments in the councils Energy Company could generate both income and make the City more sustainable. The answer came back – ‘great idea but we have so much to do at the moment, we can’t cope with any more’. We asked about using some of the one-off moneys to increase support for early intervention projects now - investing today for pay off in years to come. The answer came back that the money would neither be enough nor for long enough.
We have considered seeking to introduce a work place parking levy. Something else which is not appropriate for a budget amendment. But – in my view, we do need to be considerably upping our game when it comes to improving our bus service. I’d like us to have a plan to double the number of buses users in the city and then double them again. Not by spending vast amounts of money on over-engineered projects which remove much loved pieces of green space. But just by having more buses and more bus routes. The money generated by a workplace parking levy could help to fund this.
And talking of over-engineered projects which remove much loved pieces of Green space, we did enquire about a cheeky little budget amendment to cancel the whole Metrobus project. It is no surprise that we weren’t allowed this, but I can’t help thinking that we are going to end up paying again and again for a project which will overspend and underachieve. Money which could be used to finance all sorts of other things - cycling and walking infrastructure, for example.
Overall, then, we support the intention and specifics of many but not all of the proposed amendments, we caution against getting too distracted by who gets what through, because we all know that this time next year, we will again be facing severe cuts, and choosing one cut from one vital service over another.
As for the rest of the budget, we support the increase in council tax because it raises the base level of local government expenditure. We think officers have actually made a pretty good job of managing the cuts process – I suspect far more would have closed had we been living elsewhere. We are pleased to see proposals for a swimming pool in East Bristol and recycling centre in Hartcliffe – on a personal level, I prefer the LibDem proposals because they have more of a plan to run them.
Bristol as a Green capital presents Bristol with the possibility to plan to become a city with a truly green future. However, there must be adequate funding to do this. We don’t need to cut Green capital legacy funding. We need to increase it. Perhaps the most significant event in creating a greener city is the project to create an energy company – something we applaud and support. We also welcome the proposals to improve local rail services, and plans to fund better cycling infrasructure.
As a Green, I want to see a socially just and environmentally sustainable city, country and planet. In Bristol, there are some positive moves towards sustainability. People, however, are only going to consider their long term future when their short term future is secure. And, set against the backdrop of the cuts, too many poorer and vulnerable people have been made the victims in ways which can only make me fear for their future.
We must all therefore support the council and the mayor to develop long security over its finances, its infrastructure, but above all, improve the security for those most in need.
I thank you. Anyone for a pint.
The ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to discussing the budget are the cuts. The cuts dominate local government. Nationally, according to the chair of the Local Government Association, spending on adult social care has fallen by 26% over 4 years (with 200,000 clients no longer getting a service), spending on early intervention has fallen by 54%, on youth services by 55% and so on
They are part of the coalition government austerity programme that we – as Greens – believe is quite simply wrong. I was reading a report from the PCS union which pointed out that
‘From 1918 to 1961 the UK national debt was over 100% of GDP. During that period the government introduced the welfare state, the NHS, state pensions, comprehensive education, built millions of council houses, and nationalised a range of industries. The public sector grew and there was economic growth.’
The Coalition austerity programme - designed to cut debt - has seen it increase by about 80% from 2010 levels, but it is still below the level in which we managed to achieve all those feats between 1918 and 1961.
And of course, it is worth repeating that the victims of the cuts are those who in no way, shape or form caused the crisis in the first place, they are the poorest and most vulnerable in society. They disproportionately discriminate against women. Some are quite simply vicious – some councillors will have attended a briefing - as I did - about the Disability Living Allowance – in which we were told that 55% of recipients would have their allowance either cut or entirely removed.
The cuts are not an act of necessity. They are an act of ideology.
At a national level, the alternative to austerity is simple. It is to not do austerity. Keynes told us many years ago that you should spend your way out of recession, and pay the money off in the good times. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the coalition approach of cuts has potentially set the UK economy back to the tune of £100 billion. I’m not the biggest fan of economic growth, bur even I can see that that is a big missed opportunity.
When it comes to the election, with the best will in the world, I don’t actually expect the Greens to form the next government. (pause) We do expect to be picking up additional MPs, especially one or two near here (smile wryly), but in reality the next government will be a version of business as usual.
So – if we get Cameron, well, the Tories have told us that they will cut public expenditure by £25 billion. The LibDems will cut public expenditure by £16billion. And Labour – well Ed Milliband told the Hugo Young lecture in February last year that
‘Clearly the next Labour government will face massive fiscal challenges. Including having to cut spending.’
I gather Ed Balls has admitted that the first year of a Labour government will cut £3.3billion from local government expenditure.
None of them have said any money will go back into local government. You have to reckon money will continue to be removed. Indeed I have been told by senior officers that whoever wins, they expect Bristol to face cuts of 12% or £45m over the first two years of that government.
So where does this leave us locally? Well, looking at the amendments before you today, the majority take the easy targets – they go for the one-off funding that George identified in his budget. Some of them seek one off things. Others, however, clearly seek to maintain a revenue funded service for just one year. While I clearly understand the politics of this, I do hope the proposers explain how they expect the services to be maintained in the future. I don’t think anyone has a ‘Get out of Cuts free’ card.
When it comes to the Green Party approach, we have tended to view the one-off savings as a red herring. We have looked at a number of proposals – and I’d like to pay tribute at this stage to the excellent input of Cllr Malnick.
These include the use of prudential borrowing to generate further income. For example we wondered if it would be possible to generate income by investing in the City Design team - whose activities currently generate a small surplus. The answer came back that it is an interesting idea, but more of a policy change than a budget amendment. Similarly, we wondered if further investments in the councils Energy Company could generate both income and make the City more sustainable. The answer came back – ‘great idea but we have so much to do at the moment, we can’t cope with any more’. We asked about using some of the one-off moneys to increase support for early intervention projects now - investing today for pay off in years to come. The answer came back that the money would neither be enough nor for long enough.
We have considered seeking to introduce a work place parking levy. Something else which is not appropriate for a budget amendment. But – in my view, we do need to be considerably upping our game when it comes to improving our bus service. I’d like us to have a plan to double the number of buses users in the city and then double them again. Not by spending vast amounts of money on over-engineered projects which remove much loved pieces of green space. But just by having more buses and more bus routes. The money generated by a workplace parking levy could help to fund this.
And talking of over-engineered projects which remove much loved pieces of Green space, we did enquire about a cheeky little budget amendment to cancel the whole Metrobus project. It is no surprise that we weren’t allowed this, but I can’t help thinking that we are going to end up paying again and again for a project which will overspend and underachieve. Money which could be used to finance all sorts of other things - cycling and walking infrastructure, for example.
Overall, then, we support the intention and specifics of many but not all of the proposed amendments, we caution against getting too distracted by who gets what through, because we all know that this time next year, we will again be facing severe cuts, and choosing one cut from one vital service over another.
As for the rest of the budget, we support the increase in council tax because it raises the base level of local government expenditure. We think officers have actually made a pretty good job of managing the cuts process – I suspect far more would have closed had we been living elsewhere. We are pleased to see proposals for a swimming pool in East Bristol and recycling centre in Hartcliffe – on a personal level, I prefer the LibDem proposals because they have more of a plan to run them.
Bristol as a Green capital presents Bristol with the possibility to plan to become a city with a truly green future. However, there must be adequate funding to do this. We don’t need to cut Green capital legacy funding. We need to increase it. Perhaps the most significant event in creating a greener city is the project to create an energy company – something we applaud and support. We also welcome the proposals to improve local rail services, and plans to fund better cycling infrasructure.
As a Green, I want to see a socially just and environmentally sustainable city, country and planet. In Bristol, there are some positive moves towards sustainability. People, however, are only going to consider their long term future when their short term future is secure. And, set against the backdrop of the cuts, too many poorer and vulnerable people have been made the victims in ways which can only make me fear for their future.
We must all therefore support the council and the mayor to develop long security over its finances, its infrastructure, but above all, improve the security for those most in need.
I thank you. Anyone for a pint.
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
Response from mayor re Blacklisting
44
MEMBER FORUM – 20 JANUARY 2015 GRN. QUESTION 6
Question(s) to the Mayor from Councillor Fodor
Subject: BLACKLISTING
Could the mayor please say what actions have been taken to implement the
'Blacklisting motion (shown below) agreed by full council on 10th September
2013?
City Council is deeply concerned by revelations that major companies have been involved in
blacklisting in order to deny employment to workers who have engaged in trade union
activity, such as reporting breaches of health and safety regulations.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) found that a blacklist of over 3,200 construction
workers was maintained, and their personal details traded for profit. This blacklist was used
by over 40 companies and included information about workers personal relationships, trade
union activity and employment history.
Many of the workers who were blacklisted for reporting breaches of health and safety work in
the construction industry which employs 5% of all workers in Britain but produces 22% of
fatal injuries.
The ICO list of companies which used the blacklist service includes companies contracted
by Bristol City Council. The use of such blacklists is unacceptable and cannot be condoned,
having a potentially negative impact on the employment rights of Bristol’s 8,000+
construction workers.
Several local authorities across the country have passed resolutions to refuse to accept
tenders for publicly funded contracts from companies that use blacklisting. It is time that
Bristol joined them.
This Council resolves, wherever lawful to do so to:
- exclude companies involved in blacklisting of workers from securing future Council
contracts.
- require companies tendering for contracts to demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.
- require that companies that tender for Council contracts demonstrate that they have
processes in place to encourage the reporting by workers of workplace concerns, particularly
in respect of health, safety and welfare.
- seek, where this can be done without financial or legal penalty, to terminate contracts
where companies are found to be using blacklists.
- examine existing contracts with any of the companies listed by the ICO and ask for
reassurances that the company uses no form of blacklisting to inform their employment
decisions.
Reply:
Since the Blacklisting’ motion of the 10th September 2013 the Council has introduce a
vetting process in all appropriate procurement projects at the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire stage ensuring that companies tendering for Council contracts demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.
In addition, a termination clause is incorporated into appropriate contracts to allow the
Council to cancel the contract if it is discovered that a company is or has used a blacklist.
MEMBER FORUM – 20 JANUARY 2015 GRN. QUESTION 6
Question(s) to the Mayor from Councillor Fodor
Subject: BLACKLISTING
Could the mayor please say what actions have been taken to implement the
'Blacklisting motion (shown below) agreed by full council on 10th September
2013?
City Council is deeply concerned by revelations that major companies have been involved in
blacklisting in order to deny employment to workers who have engaged in trade union
activity, such as reporting breaches of health and safety regulations.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) found that a blacklist of over 3,200 construction
workers was maintained, and their personal details traded for profit. This blacklist was used
by over 40 companies and included information about workers personal relationships, trade
union activity and employment history.
Many of the workers who were blacklisted for reporting breaches of health and safety work in
the construction industry which employs 5% of all workers in Britain but produces 22% of
fatal injuries.
The ICO list of companies which used the blacklist service includes companies contracted
by Bristol City Council. The use of such blacklists is unacceptable and cannot be condoned,
having a potentially negative impact on the employment rights of Bristol’s 8,000+
construction workers.
Several local authorities across the country have passed resolutions to refuse to accept
tenders for publicly funded contracts from companies that use blacklisting. It is time that
Bristol joined them.
This Council resolves, wherever lawful to do so to:
- exclude companies involved in blacklisting of workers from securing future Council
contracts.
- require companies tendering for contracts to demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.
- require that companies that tender for Council contracts demonstrate that they have
processes in place to encourage the reporting by workers of workplace concerns, particularly
in respect of health, safety and welfare.
- seek, where this can be done without financial or legal penalty, to terminate contracts
where companies are found to be using blacklists.
- examine existing contracts with any of the companies listed by the ICO and ask for
reassurances that the company uses no form of blacklisting to inform their employment
decisions.
Reply:
Since the Blacklisting’ motion of the 10th September 2013 the Council has introduce a
vetting process in all appropriate procurement projects at the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire stage ensuring that companies tendering for Council contracts demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.
In addition, a termination clause is incorporated into appropriate contracts to allow the
Council to cancel the contract if it is discovered that a company is or has used a blacklist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)