Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1977)

1. The Committee has noted the report provided by the Government for 1992-94 in reply to its previous comments. The Committee has also noted the discussion at the Conference Committee in June 1993 as well as the observations drawn up by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

2. The questions which were the subject of allegations by the TUC and the comments made within the framework of the supervisory mechanism concerned primarily the consultations within the scope of Article 5, paragraph 1(d) and (e), of the Convention on, firstly, the questions arising out of reports to be made under article 22 of the ILO Constitution and, secondly, proposals on denouncing ratified Conventions.

3. The Committee notes with interest that following its comments and the discussion in the Conference Committee, the Government and the social partners came to an agreement in 1993 to amend the text of the 1977 agreement concerning consultations on reports due under article 22 of the Constitution. The new arrangements should ensure efficient consultations as provided in Article 2 of the Convention, with a view to preparing reports on ratified Conventions, in particular when they are the subject of comments by the supervisory bodies. The CBI has expressed its satisfaction with the functioning of the new procedure. For its part, the TUC, while having accepted the 1993 amendments, continues to express doubts as to the efficiency of consultations, due to the Government's refusal to accept the conclusions and recommendations of the supervisory bodies: according to the TUC the new procedure will not significantly improve the enforcement of ratified Conventions, which is the purpose of Convention No. 144.

4. With regard to consultations on proposals to denounce ratified Conventions, the Committee notes that the decision not to denounce Convention No. 97, taken with the approval of the TUC, seems to demonstrate the efficacy of these kinds of consultations although, in the case of denouncing Conventions Nos. 99 and 101, the TUC, after consultation, expressed regret that the Government had not replied to its arguments in favour of maintaining the ratifications.

5. The Committee, recalling its previous comments on the extent of the consultation requirement under the Convention, hopes that through good faith use of the consultation procedure, as amended by agreement between the Government and the social partners, the Convention obligations will be fully met in the interest of all the parties.