Bringing Hong Kong conditions to Clydebank

Scan page 5

The vicious exploitation imposed by employers in the sweat shops of Hong Kong, Singapore and Kowloon has long been the envy of every Tery businnessman.

But it took a former chairman of the Fabian Society, Professor Peter Hall, to have the gall to propose instituting a similar set-up in Britain.

He suggested a system of "freeports" in which employers are given carte blanche to expand, freed from any legal restrictions.

Seized upon

• The idea-harking back to the "laissez-faire" politics of nineteenth century capitalismhas been eagerly seized upon by the Thatcher cabinet, and last week they announced the first seven "Enterprise Zones" centred on areas already left derelict by the ravages of capitalism.

Within these zones-in Clydebank, Belfast, Speke, Swansea, Isle of Dogs, Manchester and Newcastleemployers are offered:

*Exemption from Development Land Tax.

*Exemption from rates.

*100% capital allowances for commercial and industrial buildings.

*Exemption from many planning restrictions.

*Exemption from the need for industrial development certificates.

*Exemption from the need to train young workers.

*Faster customs facilities.

Though Tory spokesmen claim that they will uphold health and safety laws on pollution, there is no doubt that the most vicious and un scrupulous employers will be the first in line to transfer their operations to such zones.

Anti-union laws

The plan should also be seen in conjunction with James Prior's anti-union laws: new firms set up in these "Enterprise Zones" would be among the first to cash in on the need to secure an 80% ballot vote to secure a closed shop agreement.

And since all of the "Enterprise Zones" are in ruined industrial areas they will of course be the first test of the Tory plan to drive unemployed workers into fow-paid and unhealthy jobs under threat of a withdrawal of dole and social security payments.

councils-which control most of the towns where the new Zones are sitedhave actually welcomed this Tory scheme to restore nineteenth century conditions. of work in the 1980s.

Many Labour MPs, however, have opposed the plan. The attitude of the union leaders is likely to be parallel to the attitude they have taken to every Tory attack: there will be verbal rumblings of opposition, but no attempt made to challenge this latest move.

Yet it is more essential than ever in the next period that unemployed workers and youth are organised by the trade union movament and mobilised in joint struggles with employed workers to ensure that union rates of pay and conditions are defended and extended.

Clive Jenkins of ASTMSwhich recruits no unemployed workers-has tabled a resolution for this year's TUC calling for a campaign to organise the unemployed: TGWU leader Evans has already announced this as union policy.

Now is the time therefore to press for Trades Council's to create special sub-committees for work amongst the unemployed and the general unions to mount an intensive recruitment drive aimed in Howe particular at youth and women who at present are shouldering the heaviest burden of unemployment.