Trade Union Rights

HC Deb 27 June 2002 vol 387 cc1065-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Angela Smith.)

7.13 pm

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore)

I welcome the opportunity to raise this very important and timely debate in the Commons. Every year, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions publishes a weighty document detailing the record on trade union violations globally in the year. That document of nearly 250 pages examines the extent of human rights abuses and union abuses in all four corners of the globe. It is timely not only because of the advances that have been made in many areas of the world, but because of the great strides that still have to be made to allow collective free association of trade unionists better to represent the needs of workers in all four corners of the world.

Part of the purpose of this debate is to say how far we have come, but also how far we still have to go. In the context of our collective memory, it is easy to forget how far we in this country have come. In just the past 200 years, we saw the advent of the Merthyr rising, in which 20 people were killed and many were injured, and which involved the famous Dic Penderyn, to some now very much a martyr. Such collective action is within our close folk memory, yet we have made great advances since then. However, even today, some of the worst ever abuses of trade unions and of human rights are occurring in countries sufficiently close to be travelled to by jet on a short break.

Interestingly, although the average life expectancy in Sierra Leone and Bolivia is 35, as recently as some 150 years ago it was 45 and 37 in Surrey and London respectively. We have come a very long way since then in terms of how we look after our work force, and of workers' rights to associate freely, to represent each other, and to put their interests to employers and to Government. However, on the other side of the world the story is very different.

I should take this opportunity to thank the International Labour Organisation, the International Confederation of Trade Union Regulations and many other international trade union organisations for the information that they supplied.

I apologise for giving a short history lesson, but as I will show it brings us to a very pertinent point. When the ILO was founded in 1919, it was based on the simple premise that labour is not a commodity to be bought, sold and abused but an asset that must be looked after and treasured by employers and Government. Even in 1919, people talked about the right of association for all lawful purposes, the payment of a decent wage for family life, the adoption of a maximum working week, and a weekly day off of 24 hours—matters that we talk about today as we extend rights in this country. Back in 1919, they were not taken for granted and were considered important enough to raise, as were the abolition of child labour, equal pay for men and women, and so on.

We have moved on well since then. The Philadelphia declaration, made towards the end of the second world war, reiterated the principle of freedom of expression and of association. It was followed by a raft of summits and declarations, the most important of which was—as the Minister will know—the international labour conference, at which the then employment Minister expressed support for the fundamental rights declaration, which established the fundamental rights of association and to work. Some 174 member states signed up to that declaration. In doing so, they signed up to the principle of freedom of association, and to the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining—a basic right that we take for granted, but which, as we shall soon see, is denied to many. The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour is also something that we take for granted, and there is a long way to go in terms of the effective abolition of child labour, and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.

The ILO has done great work on this front, but it deals with such matters in the boardrooms of corporations and of Government. In those boardrooms, it sometimes has to face intransigence and doors that are shut in its face. However, workers in plantations and textile factories in far-flung corners of the world have to face torture, murder, abduction and rape. The ILO does a fantastic job, but as the 250 pages of the annual document show, there are individual tragedies at the chalk face.

As many people are aware, Colombia has a reputation for some of the worst abuses of trade union rights worldwide. Surprisingly, the country is a signatory to the ILO conventions, but it is described by the International Centre for Trade Union Rights as the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade union leader or activist. In 2001, 184 people were assassinated, and more than 3,000 people have been killed or abducted in the past 13 years. That is an appalling travesty in what we call a civilised world. Alexander Lopez, who was supposed to attend a recent public meeting in the House, could not do so because he had been detained by the police in Colombia.

Colombia has a brief and bloody history when it comes to trade union rights. On 20 March, Luis Castillo and Juan Bautista Cevallos, members of the electricity workers' union, were ambushed and assassinated by paramilitaries. Luis Castillo had recently moved his place of work because of death threats. On 22 March this year, Ernesto Martinez of the teachers' association was assassinated outside Rio Negro. On 23 March, Jose Garcia disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. On 25 March, two members of the oil workers' union, Jose Perez and Hernando Silva, disappeared and their whereabouts are unknown. The list goes on and on.

I shall not bore the House with the statistics for the whole year, but only last week William Gomez, the president of the national union of food industry workers, suffered the horrendous experience of the attempted kidnap of his four-year-old daughter. The suffering in Colombia goes on and on, but that country is not alone.

In Brazil, the International Metalworkers Federation describes an unprovoked attack by military police at the Ford car factory. Mexico has seen assaults on labour lawyers Arturo Justiniani and Hernandez Calzada, because they accused an airline of hiring thugs in a dispute with the Mexican pilots' association. In Turkey, 12 teachers have been arrested for supporting Kurdish language teaching in educational establishments and Amnesty International is very concerned about the Turkish record of torture of people detained. In Costa Rica, workers are systematically dismissed for signs of union activity. In Guatemala, unions in textile factories doing work for multinational corporations are systematically intimidated.

In China, South Korea and Indonesia, attacks are made on work force activists with the complicity of Governments. Anybody trying to start up a union in China that is not sanctioned faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Amnesty International and, I am sure, the Government, are aware of the human rights abuses in prisons in China. Trade union activity is repressed in Belarus and any democratic activity in Burma results in jail. Unions are banned in much of the middle east, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which have a total ban on unions. Iraq and Syria allow only single unions, which are controlled by the ruling parties. That is an A to Z of harassment, intimidation, deaths, abductions and kidnapping that represents the complete abuse of human rights.

Over the past 10 years, the Committee of Freedom of Association of the ILO has tracked all those murders, disappearances, arrests, detentions and forced exiles, even to the extent of the declarations of states of emergency and the suspension of civil liberties that are imposed on unions. What can we do? Many people throw up their hands in despair and say that the problem is a direct result of globalisation and multinational corporations that can move easily from one place to another, and Governments that will sign away the rights of their workers in order to welcome any foreign aid investment. What can we do in the face of that situation? Well, there is much to do but it is a question of political will,

I welcome the initiatives taken by the Government, especially by the Department for International Development, and the money that has been put towards developing union activism in various countries, including many that I have already mentioned. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, the world went through a period of unfettered neoliberalism. Companies were able to go where they wanted, and do what they wanted. They faced no consequences in terms of what happened to the work force, nor in terms of what happened, implicitly or complicitly, to workers' rights. We must get away from that period, and the Government are already playing a role in achieving that. I urge them to keep on leading from the front and putting the message to our more recalcitrant partners.

The US is a signatory to the International Labour Organisation conventions, but it has not ratified conventions 87 and 98. We must put pressure on to ensure that it does so.

These are global problems, and they need global solutions. Two years ago, Anthony Giddens identified the need for Governments to collaborate with non-governmental organisations and third-sector groups worldwide, as the problem required worldwide co-operation.

International trade union representation also has a role to play. I began by referring to the Merthyr rising, but the battle has moved away from these shores and become truly transnational and international. That is how it must be fought. We must push for more ethical trading, and we must push recalcitrant Governments to change their ways.

The Government are leading the way. It is a matter of political will. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), to keep on pushing hard for international agreements on the way forward. The document to which I have referred is one of despair: let us turn it into one of hope in years to come.

7.27 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this most important debate and bringing its international theme to the House's attention. I congratulate him also, and most sincerely, on his very well researched speech. It was laced with much compassion and eloquence, and I look forward to hearing other contributions from my new and hon. Friend in the months and years to come.

I was struck by the way in which my hon. Friend reminded us of our history, as no Member of this House must ever take for granted the rights that we enjoy in a democratic society. He also spoke passionately, as a true internationalist. He reminded us that our ethics, democratic values arid rights do not end at the white cliffs of Dover, but that we need to spread them across the earth.

The Government strongly condemn international violation of the rights of trade unions, their members, and their members' families. We fully support the work of the International Labour Organisation, which is the UN specialist agency with specific responsibility for protecting and promoting workers' rights worldwide.

The ILO was founded in 1919, at an important point in our history. It is no coincidence that that happened at the end of the first world war, and the ILO's goal was to promote peace through social justice, and to recognise internationally human rights and labour rights. Its tripartite structure, which enables workers' and employers' organisations to participate equally with Governments, is unique in the UN system.

In 1948—shortly after another world war, and again I think that that is no coincidence—a convention on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise was launched. The UK was the first country to ratify the convention, and we are proud of that. The right to organise is fundamental to democracy, yet my hon. Friend reminded us that even in the 21st century trade union rights are being violated around the world. As my hon. Friend noted, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions 2001 survey reported a rise in the number of murdered or so-called disappeared trade unionists, and 223 is my statistic for that year.

Some 140 countries have now ratified the ILO convention on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. In 1998, more than 50 years after adopting that convention, all 175 member states of the ILO signed up to a declaration of rights and fundamental principles at work. All those member states agreed to respect, promote and realise the ILO core labour standards, regardless of their level of economic development and—crucially—whether or not they had ratified the relevant ILO conventions.

The ILO's core labour standards cover freedom of association, promotion of collective bargaining, abolition of forced and child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing the 1998 declaration, and we continue to support the follow-up process to the declaration.

The Government provide substantial financial support to the ILO. Equally importantly, we also work closely with the organisation to ensure that the international framework to combat abuses of workers' rights throughout the world is in place and effective. The recent annual survey of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions shows that there can be no grounds for complacency on trade union rights' violations. Indeed, some of it makes disturbing reading.

The UK has continually supported the ILO's work in defending trade union rights. We have ratified all the ILO core conventions, including those relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and we encourage other countries to do so. When looking at international labour rights, however, we clearly need to keep in mind the complexity of the issues involved and not underestimate the concerted effort that is needed by the whole international community to bring about change. Such change will not happen overnight. Against that background, the ILO declaration that I referred to earlier, which was adopted only four years ago, and its follow-up system of global reports are already making an extremely valuable contribution to effecting change.

The very first global report was published in 2000 and covered freedom of association and collective bargaining. The report underscored the crucial role of those rights in today's globalising world, highlighted the fact that violations still occur and set out priorities for technical co-operation aimed at reinforcing those rights. As might he expected, many of those countries criticised by the report were also highlighted by the ILO global report.

As a result of that report, an action plan to promote rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining has been agreed and is being implemented. Quite apart from the many activities that the ILO is undertaking in this area—meetings, publications, advisory services and ongoing projects—more than 20 ILO co-operative programmes have been launched. These involve many of the countries highlighted in the survey.

The ILO, more than any other body, has kept up pressure on the Burmese Government to stop their horrendous and inhumane practices of forced labour and suppression of the trade union movement. The UK has been at the forefront of the international community's efforts to bring about national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. It is only through the return of the rule of law and democracy in Burma that substantive progress will be made.

In the ILO, we have worked together with the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and European partners in our efforts to compel Burma to comply with its obligations to end forced labour. The European Union common position on Burma is designed to bring pressure to bear for positive change. It contains an arms embargo, a visa ban, an assets freeze, a ban on high-level visits, a ban on the sale of items that could be used for torture and a ban on non-humanitarian aid. The European Commission suspended Burma's generalised system of preferences trading privileges in 1997 in response to concerns over forced labour. In addition, we do not encourage trade, investment or tourism with Burma. All these measures remain in place.

The release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi on 6 May is, of course, a positive step forward. I know that all of us in this House have the highest regard for this remarkable woman who, in the most difficult circumstances, including family circumstances, has kept alight the flame of freedom in Burma. However, her release is only one of the many steps that will be required. We have called on the Burmese authorities to move ahead at an ever-faster speed to bring about substantive change in Burma.

Similarly, we remain extremely concerned about the degree of violence against all human rights defenders, including trade unionists, in Colombia. We have raised the issue with the Colombian Government and noted the concerns expressed, most recently by the TUC on a visit to Colombia in February, on the situation of trade union members in that country. We continue, bilaterally and in partnership with EU countries, to urge the Colombian Government to take effective measures to protect the lives of all human rights defenders. The Government contributed generously to the UN human rights office in Bogota, giving more than £250,000 during the past year.

Both the Burma and Colombia cases were discussed at this year's international labour conference by the ILO's committee on the application of standards—as were many other cases of trade union repression highlighted in the report to which I referred.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that only Labour Members are present for this debate—a telling point. He has referred to the pressure rightly brought to bear by the EU in respect of trade union and human rights throughout the world. Turkey is an applicant member of the EU and the United Kingdom Government has a veto on such applications, so can the Minister assure the House that Turkey's record on trade union and human rights will be borne in mind by the Government when they make their assessment of Turkey's application for admission to the European Union?

Malcolm Wicks

Although I cannot discuss tonight individual applications from would-be members of the EU, I remind the House that the strength of the EU is that it is a collective of democratic states which take seriously the rights of all their citizens, including trade unionists.

It is important to realise that the ILO's approach is not sanction-based in the main, although I have mentioned Burma in that regard; it is based on awareness raising, promotion, peer pressure, consensus and technical co-operation. Such an approach is both transparent and highly effective. We should not forget that one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to honour the pledge to restore trade union rights at Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham—a more recent episode in our history. That was in conformity with our ILO obligations, following ILO criticism of previous UK Government policy.

We must realise that the ILO core labour standards are inter-related. Strong trade unions can help to combat discrimination in employment and end forced labour. We actively support the ILO in its work to promote other core labour standards, such as the elimination of child labour which is a great stain on the world economy. We support the efforts of developing countries to strengthen their democratic institutions—for example, through the electoral process, parliaments and civil society—so that all people have effective representation and participation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned globalisation and its implications. Although there is not enough time to discuss those important issues, I certainly acknowledge them. Most of us would agree that the answer is not to call for protectionism or the tearing down of international institutions—indeed, my hon. Friend wants them to be strengthened and the Government share that view. It is not a question of being for or against globalisation, as he knows.

Perhaps the wisest words on this issue have come most recently from Kofi Annan, who said that our challenge is to ensure that globalisation becomes a positive force for all the world's people, instead of leaving millions of them behind in squalor. We need to think through the implications of that.

In summing up, I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising a most important issue. It is difficult to think of an issue that has a more important impact on human beings in peril. I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to work actively and constructively with our partners in all international forums to promote the implementation of all ILO core labour standards and to bring an end to the violations and abuses of the rights of our fellow human beings.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.