HL Deb 22 January 1969 vol 298 cc933-49

3.8 p.m.

LORD COLLISON rose to call attention to the work and progress of the International Labour Organisation over fifty years; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the 50th anniversary year of the International Labour Organisation, and as part of the celebrations which are taking place all over the world, a tripartite committee, a sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Committee, representing the Government, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., proposed that a request should be made that to-day's debate should take place in your Lordships' House. I am deeply grateful, therefore, to those who have made to-day's debate possible, and I feel deeply honoured at being given the opportunity of initiating it and calling for Papers.

My Lords, as we all know, the I.L.O. was established in 1919 after the First World War. The Peace Conference of 1919 set up a 15-member Labour Commission under the chairmanship of Samuel Gompers, a prominent American trade-unionist. The Commission consisted of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Cuba, Poland and Czechoslovakia. As it turned out, only the United Kingdom delegation submitted a draft. The delegation consisted of Mr. George Barnes, who was formerly of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and was then a Cabinet Minister; Sir Malcolm Delavigne, from the Factory Department, and Mr. Harold Butler (later Sir Harold Butler) and Mr. Edward Phelan, from the Ministry of Labour. The delegation from the United Kingdom submitted a detailed draft which was in fact prepared at an office in No. 2 Whitehall Gardens on two pages of typescript. The creation of the I.L.O. was, however, the final outcome of a trend of thought which had been motivating social reformers over a long period of time. The trade unions movement of this country had played a major part in formulating that social attitude. Both before and after the 1918 Armistice the T.U.C. pressed for the creation of permanent machinery for the adoption and enforcement of international labour legislation. An international Allied Trade Conference in 1916 called for the inclusion of guarantees proclaiming "the national and international rights of labour."

The first International Labour Conference was held in Washington in October, 1919. It is interesting to note that the arrangements were made by a 7-nation organising committee, and virtually all the preparatory work was done in London, at 53 Parliament Street, by the British members, helped by officials lent ray the Factory Department of the Home Office. It took three months—a very short period—to do this work.

The committee also drew up the agenda for this Conference. It included three items: hours of work, unemployment and the employment of women and children. The Conference delegation from the United Kingdom was headed by Mr. George Barnes and Sir Milcolm Delavigne, and I was particularly interested to note that the workers' representative included Mr. Stewart Banning, of the Post Office, Mr. C. W. Bowman, of the T.U.C. and Miss Mary MacArthur. It was an extremely strong delegation and one which, I think, did a remarkable job at that first Conference. But it will be appreciated that following that Conference, until they moved to Geneva in 1920, the I.L.O. had no fixed abode. It met in different places—Paris, Parliament Street, Washington and Seymour Place—and equally, because there was no permanent home, the Governing Body met in various places. I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that the I.L.O. held its third meeting on March 22, 1920, in the Robing Room of your Lordships' House.

At that period a number of distinguished people played a part in the I.L.O. Mr. Edward Poulton, of the Boot and Shoe Operatives, was a member of the Governing Body from 1921 to 1931. Mr. Arthur Heyday, whose son, Frederick, has just been knighted by Her Majesty the Queen, served on the Governing Body from 1931 to 1938, and Mr. Joseph Hallsworth, later Sir Joseph Hallsworth, served from 1938 to 1948. Advisers during that period included a number of very distinguished names—Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Sir Arthur Pugh, Miss Margaret Bondfield, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Hubert Smith and Mr. Ebby Edwards.

I think it is of great significance that the organisation survived the Second World War and the demise of the League of Nations. This happened partly because during the war it found a home in Montreal, Canada, but I believe more particularly because of its internal strength due to its tripartite character. In 1946, it became the first specialised agency of the United Nations and has ever since been recognised within the United Nations family as having special responsibility for social and labour questions.

During the Second World War, it was not possible to hold regular meetings. However, a conference of allied and some neutral members was held in 1941 in New York. At that time, Mr. Attlee, later Earl Attlee, then Deputy Prime Minister, attended as a representative of the British Government. In 1944, a session was held in Philadelphia. This conference was of very great importance, because it hammered out a new definition of the organisation's aims and purposes and produced what has since then been known as the Declaration of Philadelphia. The original constitution drafted in 1919, at a time when the horror of the First World War was fresh in mind and people were thirsting for a stable peace, declared that: Universal peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice. That was magnificent. I still think that it was magnificent. But the Declaration of Philadelphia went further. It boldly affirmed that social objectives should be the primary aim of national and international policy. It proclaimed the right of all human beings to pursue both their material wellbeing and spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity. Indeed, one of the I.L.O. mottoes, "Poverty everywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere", is taken from the Declaration of Philadelphia, and I think that it is as true and as worthy of attention to-day as it was in 1954—maybe even more so.

I have not the time to give, and I will not weary your Lordships with, a detailed description of the structure of the I.L.O., of its annual conference and technical committee, or of the constitution and duties of the Governing Body or with the parallel work undertaken by its regional conferences, its industrial committees, which Mr. Ernest Bevin helped to create, and the rest of the complicated policy-making machinery which has evolved over the years. All I will say—and I would underline this—is that the essential tripartite character of the organisation has been reflected throughout the Governing Body and all its committees and conferences.

I think that it is proper to say that the I.L.O. has been extremely well served by its Directors. The first, appointed in 1919, was M. Albert Thomas, a former teacher, politician, Ambassador and wartime Cabinet Minister of France. The I.L.O. was fortunate in its choice, for M. Albert Thomas had the enormously difficult task of guiding the organisation in its formative years. He was followed in 1932 by our own Sir Harold Butler. Sir Harold's successor was Mr. John G. Winant, of the U.S.A., the man who arranged the war-time transfer to Montreal and who served until 1941. In 1941 Mr. Edward J. Phelan, of Ireland, was appointed Acting Director and became the first Director General in 1947. The present Director General, Mr. David Morse, previously United States Under-Secretary of Labour, succeeded Mr. Phelan in 1948 and since then has been re-elected three times.

A large number of our countrymen have earned great distinction in the I.L.O. Sir Guidham Myrdin Evans was President of the Conference in 1949. He was elected Chairman of the Governing Body from 1944 to 1947 and again in 1956–57. Sir Frederick Leggett was Chairman of the Governing Body in 1937–38. Others of our friends have served as Vice-Chairmen of the Employers' and Workers' Groups of the Governing Body. Sir John Forbes Watson was Employers' Vice-Chairman from 1941 to 1945, and again from 1948 to 1952, and on the workers' side Sir Joseph Hallsworth was Vice-Chairman from 1941 to 1948 and Sir Alfred Roberts was Vice-Chairman from 1954 to 1960. I think it is also proper to mention that from the Commonwealth Mr. Nash, who has been Prime Minister of New Zealand, was President of the 1944 Conference which produced the Declaration of Philadelphia. The late Mr. Harold Holt, Prime Minister of Australia, was President in 1957, and Mr. Jack Lynch, Prime Minister of Ireland, in 1962.

It is quite impossible to mention all those from this country who have served the I.L.O. representing their Governments or the employers and the workers' organisations, but I should like to say a word of compliment to Sir George Pollock, who was the employers' representative on the governing body, who has served with me for a number of years and who is just retiring, and to remind your Lordships of the good work done by Sir Denis Barnes, Mr. Conrad Heron and Mr. Morgan of the Department of Employment and Productivity.

Many of your Lordships will know that some of your colleagues have gone to the International Labour Conference as delegates and advisers: for instance, the noble Lords, Lord McCorquodale, Lord Geddes of Epsom, Lord Hill of Wivenhoe and Lord Wright. There must be many more: I am afraid my memory fails me, and I hope that those whom I have not mentioned will forgive me.

So, one asks the question: Has this service, this dedication, to the I.L.O. been worth while? If I may say so, I am quite sure that it has, because I am satisfied that the I.L.O. has made, is making and will make a major contribution to the development of social justice all over the world. As your Lordships know, the original function for which the organisation was conceived was to set international standards; and that continues to be an important aspect of its work. Since 1919, the foundation of the I.L.O., the number of instruments adopted by the conference has reached a total of 260—that is, 128 Conventions and 132 Recommendations—and the total number of ratifications has passed the 3,300 mark. The field covered is vast, dealing with all aspects of industrial and social life, from conditions of work on plantations and poor accommodation on board fishing vessels to protection against radioactive substances. So it is clear, I think, that every industry and worker in industry has benefited, either directly or indirectly, from the work of the I.L.O.

I am, of course, very much interested in the work done in the field of agriculture and plantations. But we are a seafaring nation, and one industry which has benefited greatly from the work of the I.L.O. is the shipping industry. Many improvements made in the conditions of British seafarers have followed from Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the I.L.O. The vast improvement of seafarers' accommodation on board is only one example out of many. The work of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board has been inspired by I.L.O. recommendations. Both sides of the industry have shown realism, understanding and, indeed, patience. This year the I.L.O. is holding its preparatory maritime conference, and in 1970 there will be a full maritime conference, at which, without doubt, new Conventions and Recommendations will be adopted to shape the solution of the industry's manpower problems for the next 10 to 15 years. As a result of the rapid and extensive modernisation of the shipping industry, a whole range of new problems is arising in connection with automation, electronics and impressive technological advance, which is bringing about, and must bring about, profound changes in the working conditions and the social life of seafarers.

I would mention, too, that, since 1968 was Human Rights Year, particular interest attaches to the Conventions for the protection of basic human rights. Those Conventions concerned with freedom of association and collective bargaining, the abolition of forced labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment, are Conventions which set precise standards, implementing many of the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Looking forward in 1969, the I.L.O. is commencing a new and integrated programme aimed at improving employment opportunities on a world scale, particularly in developing countries, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible use of human resources. I know that while the employment objective should not be an end in itself, its development is a necessary forerunner for the achievement of the organisation's social objectives.

So far as ratifications are concerned, the United Kingdom have a good record. We stand fifth in the table, bettered only by France, Bulgaria, Belgium and Italy. I believe, too, that the British Government have always been completely honest in their approach to ratifications, and have ratified only when they really intended to carry out the letter and the spirit of the Convention. I think that is a great credit to us. Of course, I personally should like to see more of the Conventions ratified in this country, and, topically at the present time, particularly the provision on Equal Pay, No. 100.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

Hear, hear!

LORD COLLISON

Put together, the Conventions and Recommendations form what we call the International Labour Code. The standards embodied in the Code represent a common pool of accumulated experience available to all countries at all stages of development. In this sense, ratifications, important as they are, do not exhaust the impact of the work done, since the existence of the standards themselves is a powerful influence towards social progress. There are now 118 States which are members of the I.L.O. Its growth has been remarkably rapid. For instance, in 1948, when Mr. Morse took office, there were only 55 members. With this rapid growth of membership, new problems have had to be tackled and new duties accepted. Whereas in 1948 the I.L.O. was almost exclusively concerned with standard-setting activities, to-day, while the standard-setting activities have continued (30 Conventions and 49 Recommendations have been adopted since 1945, and in that time the number of ratifications has tripled) an equal emphasis is rightly put upon operational (technical assistance) and educational work.

As a result of this ever-expanding fieldwork, the sums allocated under the I.L.O.'s regular budget have been increasing each year. But, even so, the I.L.O.'s contribution is not the only one, or the major one, despite the fact that since 1950 the total sum involved has reached a level of 100 million dollars; and if you take into account Government counterpart contributions, the total is nearly 138 million dollars. The area of activity has been enlarged by projects assigned to the I.L.O. by the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance, the United Nations Special Fund and, following the combination of the two funds, by the Special Fund and Technical Assistance section of the United Nations Development Programme. In fact, the I.L.O. has been designated as executing agency for about one hundred Special Fund projects of the United Nations Development Programme.

This means that in 1969 a very large number of experts will be working in developing countries. It is interesting to note that the last figure I got was between 600 and 700, and out of these 130 came from this country. These people will be setting up vocational training centres, teaching the principles of good management and industrial relations, advising Governments on the framing of labour laws and the establishment of social security schemes, and, last but by no means least, helping workers to develop and improve their trade unions.

I feel quite sure that my own affection and enthusiasm for the I.L.O. have been evidenced by what I have said. In both its standard-setting and technical assistance roles, which I see as complementary to each other, the underlying aim is clear, for the world must develop better social and economic systems if mankind is going to have any kind of future worth thinking about. I would plead that the money spent is definitely not charity, any more than spending money on insurance or on education or on public health is charity. It is an investment, and I think an investment of the wisest and an indispensable kind. As to the practical benefits which flow from it, well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact is that demands for new I.L.O. projects constantly far exceed the limited resources available.

Finally, my Lords, I would maintain that the I.L.O. has served the world well, has grown in size and expanded its horizons. It has proved, proved without doubt, that people of different races, of different languages, colours, religions and political ideas, and from differing backgrounds, can come together to try to solve problems which extend beyond one country. It has also proved, if I may say so, the value of active participation in decision making by those affected by those decisions, for I believe that we have found from experience that instruments and conventions adopted by the votes of representatives of employers, workers and Governments together carry far more weight than they would if the I.L.O. were a purely Governmental body.

But I think there is something more. Perhaps of all the international organisations the I.L.O. is the one best able to build bridges between countries with differing political ideologies; and I think this is so simply because the I.L.O. deals exclusively with practical everyday affairs, which is a region of activity where, with good will, I believe power politics can be excluded. I do not pretend that we have fully succeeded in excluding such influences, but those of us who are dedicated to the social and humanitarian work of the I.L.O. endeavour to do this, and I am optimistic enough to believe that we are having some significant success, despite of course some setbacks. But surely there is hope in the simple fact that in the I.L.O. men and women of all races, creeds and ideologies, sit down together, representing their Governments, their employers' and their workers' organisations, to devise ways and means of promoting social justice for all mankind and to give assistance where it is most needed. So that maybe—I personally think for sure—in addition to all the direct benefits the I.L.O. is providing for humanity, it is in fact doing more than it knows by promoting peaceful understanding and tolerance in this troubled world of ours.

Your Lordships will realise that I have kept very strictly to the terms of the Motion I have put down; that is, "the work and progress of the International Labour Organisation over fifty years". But perhaps for one moment it is right also to project our thoughts into the future and ask: What will the next fifty years hold for the I.L.O.? in the first place, I believe that the I.L.O. will continue to hold its place in the retard of the United Nations family and in the regard of the peoples of the world. Again, I repeat that I believe this because I believe that the strength of the organisation comes from its tripartite and democratic character. But surely, my Lords, we must hope and believe that in fifty years' time the so-called developing countries will have taken an equal place with the developed countries in terms of economic progress, with all the social advantages that come from such economic development.

But in the foreseeable future it is quite clear that the I.L.O.'s field work must continue and expand. The workers' members of the Organisation are wanting to see the tripartite character of the; I.L.O. carried into this field. We want to make sure that in both the planning of projects and their implementation employers' and workers' representatives are consulted by Governments at all levels. At the same time, we are anxious to avoid any duplication of effort, and we encourage the co-ordination of work done by the United Nations Agencies, and on a bilateral agreement basis, and on a voluntary basis.

Side by side with this field work, we of the workers are quite satisfied that the traditional standard-setting activities must continue, for new industrial techniques demand proper control in the interest of the workers' well-being. As time passes many of the existing instruments need, and will need, querying and updating. Equally important is the need to keep all this intensive work under the control of the Governing Body, particularly now that we have accepted a policy of decentralisation. In this regard, I believe that evaluation of work done is almost as important as determining the work to be attempted. I have no doubt that the I.L.O. will meet the new demands which will be made upon it in terms of structural alterations and structural adjustments, as it has done in the past, in terms of administrative efficiency, provided that the Governing Body remains vigilant and continues to render dedicated service to the organisation and, through that organisation, to the workers and the peoples of the world. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.36 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, it is fitting that the first Motion to be debated in this House on our Wednesday Sittings in 1969 should be To call attention to the work and progress of the International Labour Organisation over fifty years"; and I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who has himself played, and is playing, such a distinguished part in its work and progress, not only on having taken this initiative to-day but on having given your Lordships such an admirable and informative outline of the subject in a speech of very wide sweep and depth. He has looked at the past, the present and the future. He produced a remarkable roll of honour of our fellow citizens who have served the Organisation and have served this country in the Organisation, including, as is right and proper, those of our trade union leaders who have played a leading part there.

He referred to his own affection and enthusiasm for the I.L.O., an enthusiasm which he has certainly made manifest, not only by his words to-day but by his actions over many years. As elsewhere, agriculture has sometimes had to be treated as a special case in the I.L.O., and it has a fair number of Conventions to itself, though none, I think, since 1952. But in the adoption of all these I am sure the noble Lord has taken a special interest and a leading part. He has shown that his affection and his interest have alike been comprehensive, and he commands the respect, not only of his countrymen but of men and women of many lands.

It is a good thing that we are debating this subject to-day. The I.L.O. does not obtain a great deal of publicity in the ordinary Press and broadcasting in this country, perhaps because its work is sensible and largely non-contentious; yet it is well known by all who take an active part in employer/employee relations. It has pioneered in the work of promoting the interests of working people everywhere. It has done this, first through the international setting of standards for conditions of work and employment— promoting the common welfare in freedom and dignity", to use the words of the Philadelphia Declaration—and, secondly, and more recently, through its technical co-operation programme in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. In other words, it is both a forum in which 118 nations meet and discuss social and employment questions and determine minimum standards, and also a practical organisation for helping developing nations to help themselves.

As a forum, the I.L.O. does much more than adopt pious resolutions or even Conventions and Recommendations. The procedures that it has worked out since the Second World War ensure that attention is paid to its Conventions—Conventions which require, I may say in passing, a two-thirds majority. Countries are invited from time to time to report on the steps taken to implement the Conventions they have ratified. Their reports are carefully examined, first by the Committee of independent experts and then by the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Those countries which have not ratified are also invited to report on the extent to which they have brought, or are bringing, their law and practice into line with the requirements of the Conventions. No country can ignore a Convention, for all member States accept an obligation to submit all Conventions to their Parliaments or other competent national authorities, together with their comments. In this country it is normally done in a White Paper.

No country is under any legal or moral obligation to ratify a Convention, even if its representatives have voted in favour of it. A Government may have good reasons of law and practice for not ratifying it. For example, although the Government accepted the main provisions of the 1967 Convention on Invalidity, Old Age and Survivors' Benefits, they have not ratified it because, to quote from the White Paper, Command 3765: of the Convention's lack of flexibility and the fact that ratification would involve commitment to every detail of its provisions for ten years", and also because the United Kingdom schemes are at present being reviewed". I understand that the result of that review is due next Tuesday. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to confirm that.

The noble Lord, Lord Collison, laid great emphasis on the tripartite nature of the I.L.O. One of the most distinctive features of the I.L.O. is that each member State delegation to its Conference includes not only two officials but also a representative of employers and one of employees. These representatives, I need hardly say, at any rate in the non-Communist countries, do not always vote the same way. This means that the substance of the matter under discussion looms larger at the I.L.O. than considerations of national prestige, and that in turn stimulates a sense of unity of purpose which is often somewhat lacking at other international conferences and institutions, including the United Nations Organisation itself.

Another advantage of the tripartite system is that both workers' and employers' organisations can make representations. This in turn works as another safeguard against non-observance of Convention obligations. I should like to think also that this tripartite organisation has an influence on the way in which all parties look at the problem, and in particular in these days, when what particular sections of the community may do affects almost everybody else, it may have a growing effect—and I hope it will have—on the injection of the conception of the public interest into all that is done in employer and employee relationships on both sides.

For my part, I first took an interest in the activities of the I.L.O. over colonial development some 15 years ago. At that time this country had to represent not only these Islands but a great many dependent territories. In the case of each Convention, Britain had to indicate in respect of which of those territories she was prepared to ratify it without modification, in respect of which territories she ratified subject to reservations or modifications, and for which territories she considered the Convention inapplicable or not yet appropriate. The I.L.O. Conferences provided a useful training ground for those who would later become responsible for running those territories; for they were permitted, if I remember aright, to send observers to the Conferences, who had the opportunity to discuss the issues involved, if not in the actual sessions at least in the lobbies and elsewhere at the Conferences.

Not many Conventions have been ratified by 75 countries or more (that is, roughly two-thirds) but among them are the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949—to which the noble Lord referred—and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention revised in 1957. The Labour lnspection Convention of 1947 also has a large number of signatories.

But the number of ratifications is not an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a Convention. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Conventions which were adopted at Seattle in 1946, on the welfare of seamen, their wages and hours of work, manning, and the accommodation of crews at sea, although not ratified by many seaboard countries are acknowledged to have had profound and far-reaching influence on legislation, collective agreements and administrative action alike.

Many Conventions have dealt with workmen's compensation and social security. In these fields Great Britain has an outstanding record. The pre-war Conventions tended to come after statutory provision had been made in this country. The Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944, which acknowledged the duty of the I.L.O. to achieve the extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need", came after the acceptance by the wartime Government of the Beveridge Report; and our National Insurance, Act preceded the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention by six years. We have ratified 17 out of 22 social security Conventions—which is hardly surprising considering the comprehensiveness and virtual universality of our National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes and of our Health Service. A score or so of officials from the old Ministry of National Insurance have gone overseas to assist other countries in their social security problems and to advise on the setting up of schemes. There are, I understand, three of our officials doing so at this moment.

Between 1921 and 1967 the I.L.O. conference adopted 128 Conventions, as the noble Lord said, of which 110 received sufficient ratifications to bring them into force. Of these we adopted 65. So we have not done too badly. As the noble Lord said, we are fifth in the list. Our policy, however, has been to ratify only when our law and practice are already in conformity, or have been brought into conformity, with the provisions of a Convention. Sometimes we have not ratified Conventions because they required the imposition by law of standards which in this country are traditionally determined by collective bargaining, or other forms of voluntary action. But that is not to say that our practice is not in line with the standards required by the Conventions. Indeed our practice may be superior. A case in point was the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention of 1958. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, this question. Now that the Race Relations Act has been passed, can the noble Lord tell us whether we have ratified that Convention or whether we intend to do so?

However much a country may be in advance of the standards set by the I.L.O., it would still have much to gain from membership as well as much to contribute to the I.L.O. Perhaps three of its greatest advantages are, first, the pooling of experience, particularly by countries which have already put into practice progressive ideas and are able to convince others that they work and do good; secondly, the influence both on legislation and practice that Conventions and resolutions exercise in countries even if they do not ratify them; and, thirdly, the obligation which a country assumes in ratifying a Convention not to alter its legislation in a manner which would be at variance with its provisions. This obligation, of course, should not be interpreted as preventing countries from improving their legislation, even if in so doing they have to depart in some particulars from the provisions of a Convention. It is the spirit, rather than the letter, of Conventions that matters—and, goodness knows! lawyers can argue enough about the letter of Conventions. After all, their purpose is to raise standards progressively, not to fix them immutably, irrespective of changing circumstances and conditions. At the same time, a country which does legislate in a way that is at variance with a Convention which it has ratified must make very sure that the advantages to be gained by so doing are real and substantial and that it can justify denouncing the Convention if need be.

Finally, the work of the I.L.O. has greatly expanded since the War. Perhaps its work in the field of technical co-operation has now assumed—the noble Lord said equal importance: I would say perhaps even more importance than its work in the field of standard setting. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the I.L.O. now acts as the executive agency for carrying out projects of the United Nations development programme. The aims of the technical co-operation are stated to be to develop resources, to foster labour relations, trade unions and the growth of social institutions, and to improve conditions of work and life. It seeks to develop new skills and to train those who will train others. For example, it assists in setting up management and teacher training institutes; it helps small industries and handicrafts; it develops apprenticeships and upgrades skills; it encourages also the vocational training of women, where such has hardly been known in developing countries.

This year it is inaugurating a world employment programme. Its main concern, in the words of its Director-General, David Morse, will be with those who do not have work, rather than with those already in employment. As he has pointed out, in the next decade it is expected that the world labour force will grow each year by 28 million; that is more than the total labour force in this country. This is the measure of the task that the I.L.O. and other Agencies are facing.

My noble friend Lord Bessborough will be dealing in greater detail with technical co-operation. Let me conclude by saying this. As the noble Lord, Lord Collison, has shown, the I.L.O. is a truly international organisation. Its staff is drawn from 100 different countries, and I am told that about 10 per cent. of those staff come from Great Britain. Our influence in other world institutions at present may not be what it was, but in the I.L.O. it is still among the strongest. For Great Britain's support for the I.L.O. and its aims is not in doubt, and the example we have set and the help we have given and are giving are acknowledged and respected. So in its fiftieth anniversary year I would join with the noble Lord in saluting the Organisation and wish it well.