I.L.O. CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION) (Hansard, 9 December 1949)

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I apologise for detaining the House, but I should like to take this opportunity to raise a matter on which I have asked the Government to give facilities for Debate before but without success. I wish to raise the question of the International Labour Organisation with particular reference to the ratification of conventions. The procedure laid down in the Statute of the I.L.O. is that each member State is obliged' to submit to the competent national authority, which is not defined, the various conventions passed at each conference of the organisation. They should do that within 12 months.

2319 That has been done technically in this Parliament by printing White Papers giving the record of the conferences of the I.L.O. and making reference therein to the various conventions which have been passed. But these have never been placed before Parliament in circumstances which would enable the House to discuss their merits and consider whether or not we should ratify the convention. I question very much whether the technical procedure which has been adopted meets the purpose and the spirit of the Statute of the I.L.O.

I wish now to make reference in particular to one or two conventions, and if the Minister does not arrive before I have finished, I hope note will be taken of my remarks. There are conventions which were adopted by the I.L.O. as long ago as 1919 and which have not yet been ratified by this country In particular, there is the famous eight-hour day convention which was No. 1 of the I.L.O. conventions and over which there was considerable controversy in this country for a number of years. That convention remains unratified. I know that there are special reasons why that is so. The same remarks apply to a number of other early conventions which have not yet been ratified, but I think that it is time that some attention was given to the position created by the existence of these conventions. If it is necessary that they should be modified, extended or amended in any way to make them valid, that ought to be done. If not, they ought to be scrapped and something else put in their place.

There are other conventions in connection with which the explanation may not be so simple. There is, for instance, the convention—I do not remember the actual year—for the marking of heavy packages for conveyance on vessels. That convention has been ratified by all the maritime countries in Western Europe except the United Kingdom and Turkey. That position is very difficult to understand. If there are technical reasons why that convention cannot be ratified, it would appear that these would also apply to Norway, Sweden, Denmark and other countries. I should like to know why that convention has not been ratified by this country and what the difficulties are.

2320 Another one affecting seamen which we have not ratified, although it has been ratified by other maritime countries, is the convention dealing with the repatriation of seamen. That is a most important convention. It has been on the statute book of the I.L.O. for many years apparently without any action having been taken by this country.

Then, there are certain social insurance conventions, one of them dealing with maternity in the case of women in industry. That is another of the 1919 conventions which has not been ratified here. It may be said in this case, and in the case of some other social insurance conventions, that our social insurance arrangements in this country far surpass the provisions of these conventions. In so far as that is true, that would appear to me to be a reason, not for non-ratification, but rather for ratification, because at the moment we stand second on the list of ratifications. I think our number is 41, whereas France leads with something like 49. I think this should be explained to the House, and I think it is unfortunate that there has not been an opportunity for the Minister to make a statement on these points before now. It is about time that we considered whether the procedure adopted for reporting these conventions to the House is adequate.

There are three further points I want to make. One is in regard to the special position of Turkey, which is at the bottom of the list of Western European countries in regard to the record of ratifications of I.L.O. conventions. Turkey has ratified five in all, and Turkey is now a member of the Council of Europe. As a member of that Council, she is a signatory to the acceptance of the standards of human rights embodied in the Statute of the Council of Europe, and so it is to be desired that Turkey will now review her position in regard to I.L.O. standards of employment. I hope that will be done and steps will be taken to bring to her notice her special obligations in this direction.

The next point is in regard to Germany. It has been stated in the House in reply to Questions that it is the intention of the Government to invite Germany to join the I.L.O. on some special basis, "special basis" presumably meaning that she shall go there as an observer or as an associate member. I submit very seriously to the 2321 Government that this is just not good enough. Here is no question of giving to Germany prestige or any kind of advantage, because every member country is involved in certain obligations in regard to the labour standards which she recognises within her own territory.

There has been a lot of complaint in the House recently about the development of German industry, and much fear has been expressed about the competitive power of this developing German industry and the competitive prices which Germany can offer in the world's markets precisely because of the low rates of wages and very unsatisfactory conditions operating in the German labour field. If that is so, surely we are not giving Germany any privilege in suggesting that she should come into the I.L.O. with full rights and obligations?

What we are saying is that Germany, too, has this obligation of establishing reasonable labour conditions on I.L.O. standards in her own territory, and that Germany, not less than any other European countries, should make her contribution to the elimination of unsatisfactory labour conditions, and that she can only do that in the I.L.O. with full membership. If she is only there as an observer, she will have no say in the framing of these conventions and cannot make any contribution to them by indicating the special difficulties of conditions in Germany, and if the conventions are completed without the Germans being consulted in them they could not have any responsibility for accepting the standards set down in them.

In this particular matter, we should say definitely to Germany, not only that she is invited to join the I.L.O. as a full member, but that she ought to do so and that we insist that she shall do so, because only by such action do I believe that we can impose upon Germany the obligation of recognising the standards laid down in I.L.O. Conventions.

There is one final point, which is a minor though important one. I have observed that, in the Western European countries, there is a system of I.L.O. directors, or, in the smaller countries, correspondents. There is a director established in London, and there are directors or correspondents in a number of other Western European countries. 2322 There are, not only in Sweden and Italy, but even in Greece and Austria, already I.L.O. correspondents, who can offer information about the facilities of the Organisation to trade unions, employers, Members of Parliament and so on. According to the records, in the whole of the Benelux countries there is not a single I.L.O. correspondent or office. Now, I think that is a remarkable situation. I should have imagined that Brussels was a point where there should be direct contact between the I.L.O., the public and Parliaments. I therefore ask the Minister, if he will, to look into this point to see whether there is any substantial reason why an I.L.O. correspondent should not be established in Brussels immediately, and as soon as possible in Western Germany.

I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to be present at this Debate. I did notify him, and I was hoping he would be here. Nevertheless, I welcome this opportunity of expressing these views, which I think are of some importance. I hope my right hon. Friend will take note of them and maybe give us some information about them in some other form.