Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the compatibility of their employment policies with the
International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the Government are proud to uphold our high,
internationally recognised labour standards. The UK continues to
be committed to enhancing labour standards globally by
negotiating and implementing International Labour Organization
standards, having raised domestic standards over recent years to
make them some of the highest in the world. To date, the UK has
ratified 89 ILO conventions, most recently the violence and
harassment convention, which was ratified in March this year.
(Lab)
My Lords, I only wish that the Government were indeed honouring
their international obligations, as the Minister suggests. Since
2010, the Government have reneged on ILO commitments time and
again, as he knows, most recently by allowing unscrupulous bosses
to break strikes with agency staff, which is a clear breach of
Convention No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the
right to organise. Now, they are proposing to do so again with
their disgraceful minimum service levels Bill, which is another
violation of Convention No. 87. Are these anti-union attacks
intended to deprive workers of the only means they have to
protect themselves against the greatest fall in living standards
in over 100 years?
(Con)
The noble Lord will be unsurprised to know that I completely
disagree with him. The Government are confident that all our
measures are in full compliance with our international
obligations. We remain in full compliance with ILO conventions.
We are trying to balance the understandable right to strike,
which I know that the noble Lord is very proud of—but I also want
to support the right of people to go to work, if they wish to do
so.
(LD)
My Lords, there is another area that the Minister could address
for your Lordships’ House. I had a meeting this morning with
about 20 representatives of manufacturing businesses, and one
thing that they were anxious to highlight was the failure of the
apprenticeship levy. When the levy was brought in, 150,000 young
people were going in to become apprentices; that number is now
below 50,000. The first way in which to solve a problem is to
admit that you have a problem. Will the Minister admit that there
is a problem, and will he undertake to solve it?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is slightly unrelated
to the point under discussion, but I would be happy to get back
to him in writing.
(Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether it is consistent
with the International Labour Organization’s declaration on
fundamental principles and rights of work to have Ministers in
this House one-third of whom are unpaid?
(Con)
The ingenuity of my noble friend in seeking to ask his questions
knows no bounds. As far as I am aware, Ministers do not have
employment contracts. We serve at the behest of the Prime
Minister and sovereign, and I am sure that most Ministers are
happy to continue doing so.
(Lab)
My Lords, in September, the TUC reported the UK Government to the
ILO, saying that they had taken steps to infringe the right to
strike. As the noble Lord, , said, that was done, first,
by passing a law to use agency workers to break legitimate strike
action and, secondly, by proposing a minimum service level of
transport. What consideration have the Government given to the
substance of this complaint in how they progress the Transport
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill?
(Con)
Forgive me for taking everything that the TUC says with a little
pinch of salt but, as I said to the noble Lord, , we are very confident that
all our measures do not infringe the right to strike. They seek
to provide a balance between, on the one hand, allowing trade
unions to take legitimate strike action but, on the other hand,
trying to ensure some level of minimum service for the public. I
hope that the Labour Party will take the opportunity to condemn
the disgraceful tactics of the RMT recently in seeking to deny
people their essential travel at Christmas.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as life president of RoSPA. This
year, the ILO declared that a safe and healthy working
environment is a fundamental right for all workers. Can the
Government confirm that this fundamental right will be included
in their proposed Bill of Rights, when that comes forward? Will
they also confirm that all the protections afforded by Britain’s
present health and safety at work Acts will be guaranteed to
anyone who is given permission to work from home?
(Con)
I am proud to say that the UK has one of the highest rates of
employment practice in the world. We have one of the safest
working environments in the world, and it is our full intention
that that should continue.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that the UK is in compliance with ILO
standards. The problem for him is that the supervisory bodies of
the ILO have consistently said that the United Kingdom is in
breach of numerous ILO conventions. Not only that but the Council
of Europe has also found that the United Kingdom is in breach of
various articles and provisions of the European Social Charter,
which the UK has ratified.
(Con)
The European Social Charter no longer applies to us, as we are
not in the European Union any longer. The noble Lord may have
noticed that we had a referendum on the subject.
(Lab)
My Lords—
Noble Lords
Order!
(Con)
My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? There is only one
question that he can ask in each Question.
(Con)
As I said, we had a referendum on the subject, and we are no
longer members of the EU. The Social Charter no longer applies to
the UK. As I further said, we have some of the highest labour
standards in the world, way in excess of the minimum standards of
many states of the European Union. Many other member states of
the European Union also have minimum service levels in their
law—this is not unprecedented.
(Lab)
Will the Minister acknowledge that the European Social Charter,
to which my noble friend referred, is an instrument of the
Council of Europe and not the European Union, so still applies to
this country?
(Con)
Of course, the UK is proud of its membership of the Council of
Europe, but we have left the European Union.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister blames train unions for the dispute. Would
it not be more effective if he and the Government stopped
interfering in those negotiations and allowed a fair settlement,
then we could get back to normal business on our transport and
our rail systems?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord: I do blame the train unions for the
strike, because they are the ones who are taking strike action
and depriving people of the right to go and see their relatives
and loved ones at Christmas.
(Lab)
The Government’s plan to introduce a minimum service level for
transport workers on strike, which reports in the media suggest
may be extended to the whole public sector, is clearly a direct
violation of Convention No. 87 and more, so how can the Minister
claim that the Government are keeping the UK’s international
obligations when they plan such egregious attacks on workers’
rights?
(Con)
The noble Baroness states that something is clearly in
contravention; we do not agree with that advice. If she were
right, then France, that bastion of liberalism, would not have
minimum service level provisions in its domestic law, which it
does.
(Con)
My Lords, so does Spain. Does my noble friend not agree that the
rail unions are holding this country to ransom in an entirely
unnecessary and very selfish way? They deserve any unpopularity
that accrues to them for taking this action.
(Con)
I agree completely with my noble friend. It is almost as if the
action that the trade unions are taking is designed to cause as
much inconvenience as possible to the travelling public. I know
that there is a dispute and they are entitled to take their
action, but they have been offered a very generous pay rise, and
the taxpayer has been extremely generous in supporting the rail
industry throughout the pandemic. It is about time some of those
workers saw just how well off they really were.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly said, apparently with
approval, that Britain has some of the highest labour standards
in the world. I assume he is referring to such things as the
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, trade union recognition
legislation and minimum wage legislation. Can he remind the
House, as some memories are short, which party was in power when
all these procedures were put in place?
(Con)
Indeed, but the national living wage has been raised to one of
the highest levels in Europe under this Government. For those who
wish to compare our record with those of European member states,
I remind Members that maternity leave provisions in the UK are
one year; the minimum standard in Europe is 14 weeks.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that those who support the right to
strike should be careful about seeming to be enthusiastic about
all strikes? Does he agree that the current train strike is not
simply against workers who want to get to work by train to
support their families and pay their mortgages but against sick
people who want to get to their hospital appointments and against
young people who want to get to their colleges and schools? Is it
not about time that we accepted that there are some strikes where
the balance shifts from a right to strike to holding the whole
country—the weak, the sick, the needy —to ransom, which is
increasingly the case with this train strike?
(Con)
My noble friend puts it extremely well and I agree with him
completely. It is almost as if this action is designed to punish
the travelling public. With the way they are targeting the
Christmas period, when a lot of essential engineering work was
due to take place to improve the service for the travelling
public, and with the way that they are targeting the weeks before
Christmas, when they know that many people travel to see their
friends and loved ones, it almost seems as if they are positively
enjoying the right to inflict damage on the public.
