WeeklyWorker

04.03.1999

Call for SLP compromise

In a last desperate move as party members, officers of West Ham, Lewisham East and Deptford CSLPs break Scargill’s ban on the circulation of documents

February 22 1999
Please pass on to all CSLPs, sections and affiliated unions

Dear Comrades,

We are very pleased to report that Carolyn Sikorski, Brian Heron, Terry Dunn and Helen Drummond (all founder members of the SLP) for the time being remain in the party.

The ‘complaint’ taken out by Arthur against these comrades was scheduled for February 13. But the complaints committee decided that they could not hear the ‘complaint’. (Arthur’s ‘complaint’ came in two versions. The first, on January 5, said that the four had refused to comply with an NEC instruction to withdraw the Appeal and “cease their activities”. The second, on January 27, claimed that they had “contravened” 13 clauses of the constitution: clause VI (2) and (4), clause III (3), clause VI (1) and (3), clause VII (1) and clause X (3); and Clause III (3) - again - and (4), clause XI (2) and (4), clause XII (3) and (6) and clause VII (4).

The essence of the matter remains the right of party members, or (now) constituencies, to put forward an appeal for 25% support by the membership for a special congress.

Before the hearing started on February 13, Imran Khan (as a party member, friend and representative of the ‘respondents’) pointed out that the complaint should not go ahead because the complaints procedure could not be followed. There was no appeal panel established by congress, as required by the procedure.

At first Arthur argued there was a panel. It had been appointed on his suggestion at the January 1999 NEC. He quoted a general clause in the constitution that allows the NEC to stand in for the congress between congresses.

However, the complaints procedure adopted at the 1997 congress states categorically that the appeal panel “shall” be nominated by congress. This is completely mandatory. Other clauses in the procedure allow more flexibility. This one does not. Also, it is natural justice that the appeal panel is entirely separate from the NEC. The NEC may be involved on one side or another in a complaint. (The procedure states that it is guided, at all times, by natural justice.)

In this case Arthur’s accusation related to an NEC instruction. The three-person complaints committee, established by Arthur, was all male and, crucially, contained two NEC members. The complaints committee impartiality was therefore open to question from the outset, given the NEC member’s involvement, which broke with any sense of ‘natural justice’.

Arthur said he would have to take the matter back to the NEC. He explained that the NEC by itself could carry out any disciplinary measures, including expulsion. Paul Hardman, as chair of the complaints committee, then said that Arthur was right and the hearing was over. As the rest of the complaints committee had not yet uttered a word on the matter, the ‘respondents’ and their friends offered to leave to enable the committee to discuss what they were going to do. The complaints committee agreed. After a five-minutes meeting the committee said they had decided that they could not go ahead with the hearing.

It was pointed out by the ‘respondents’ that the complaints procedure had been drawn up in the first place because the idea of trial, judgment and sentence by the NEC, especially when the NEC were involved in a complaint, was grossly unfair. It is important that the party acts to stop expulsions by the NEC. The next scheduled NEC is on March 20.

In addition to the charges, Arthur has now written four letters to West Ham CSLP. He refuses to give them, “or anyone else”, a list of the secretaries of CSLPs and affiliated unions and sections. He refuses to circulate the Appeal for a Special Congress to discuss how our Party is organised despite the Appeal now being presented by a constituency. It seems that the clause giving 25% of the membership the right to call a congress does not really exist.

Further anti-democratic steps have been taken. ‘CSLP women’s sections’ have now been told not to give information to national women’s section officers; regions have been told they cannot circulate motions they have passed to CSLPs in their regions. Some people seem to be given names and addresses or information about their areas or sections; others are refused.

In his latest letters Arthur takes another step which undermines our party’s democracy. He states that no CSLP, union or section of the party may write to any other, without permission of the congress, the NEC or without going first through the “general secretary’s office”.

We need to sort this out quickly, The whole party needs to settle these and many other questions about our internal party organisation. Clearly they are not answered by our constitution. We cannot accept a situation where one officer, however important to the party, simply makes up new rules as we go along. Questions as important as these need to be answered by the membership after proper discussion.

If we do not have a special congress to deal with these issues then our next full congress will have to be four days. Congress arrangements committee voted down a proposal for a properly prepared four-day conference. It decided on a two-day congress in November 1999. But we cannot sort out the growing list of anti-democratic rulings or the serious problems in our organisation, as well as all the other vital political issues, in a rushed, two-day congress in the 1997 congress style. Let us deal with the problems in a rational and a comradely spirit.

The long delay now in dealing with Arthur’s charges; the undermining effect on the party of these charges and the discussion which is starting on counter-charges; Arthur’s ‘rulings’; impositions by the NEC, etc, etc are affecting the functioning and the future of the party. These problems will not go away by trying to silence those who voice them, but good members will leave if they are not democratically resolved.

In light of this three CSLPs propose the following compromise:

  1. All charges (and potential counter-charges) relating to the matter of the Appeal for a Special Congress are dropped.
  2. The NEC decides to convene a special congress on internal organisational issues, for one day only, in July, which can make decisions and if necessary amend the constitution. Constituencies, affiliates and sections to send in brief resolutions on those matters only.
  3. The appeal panel to be established at the special congress.
  4. The NEC to draw up a paper looking at the best month for annual congress and submit a rule change to the special congress with immediate effect.
  5. A special commission be established by the NEC composed half of supporters of the Appeal and half of opponents (if they wish) to agree an agenda and do the work to organise the special congress.

We put forward this resolution to the next meeting of the NEC with the genuine desire to get all of the SLP moving again. We call on all parts of our party to support this compromise. It is not too late. But we will not be able to challenge Blair’s leadership of the labour movement if our democratic credentials are getting worse than those of New Labour. Our party started on a great wave of enthusiasm and commitment. That came, partly, from the sense that the SLP was something new on the British left: open, democratic and full of respect for every comrade’s experience and opinion if they dropped membership of any previous party. That is the foundation to which we must return. Support this resolution before the next NEC.

In comradeship

Ann Brook, John Mulrenan, Terry Dunn