Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1966)

1. The Committee notes the Government's comprehensive report for the period ending June 1994, and a communication from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) which was transmitted by the Government and in which the trade union organization gives its observations on the above report. It also notes the information provided to the 80th Session of the Conference (June 1993) and the discussion in the Conference Committee.

2. The Committee notes with interest that the trend of the continued rise in unemployment over the previous period has been reversed. In a context of economic recovery, following a long period of recession, the unemployment rate, which reached 10.5 per cent in December 1992 (14.1 per cent in Northern Ireland), fell back to 9.2 per cent in 1994 (and 13.6 per cent in Northern Ireland). According to the most recent OECD data, this trend of the decline in unemployment has been confirmed and the unemployment rate fell to 8.4 per cent in March 1995. The Government notes that the reaction of the labour market to the improvement in the situation was particularly rapid. However, the TUC draws attention to the decline in activity rates. Furthermore, according to the trade union organization, the moderate recovery in employment rates has to be attributed to the sharp rise in self-employment and an increase in temporary work and part-time work. In its analysis of the employment statistics, the TUC again emphasizes the inequality of ethnic minorities as regards unemployment; in 1993 they experienced unemployment rates two or three times higher than the average, and their situation (particularly with regard to women) has deteriorated further.

3. The Government considers that the results obtained in terms of the decline in unemployment demonstrate the success of its growth strategy which aims to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy by emphasizing its openness to international trade and by lifting excessive regulations that are a burden to trade and harm the labour market. It emphasizes that the priority it gives to containing inflation also contributes to the creation of the necessary conditions for the growth of employment, which remains one of its fundamental objectives, and that a high level of employment cannot be obtained through the application of inflationary policies, as demonstrated by past experience which shows that a boosted demand tends to result in rising inflation and unemployment. The Government also believes that the considerable resources that it is devoting to assisting individuals who are unemployed to find employment and to the modernization of training systems bear witness to the sincerity of its commitment with regard to the principles set out in the Convention. The Committee notes in this respect the detailed information provided on the implementation and evaluation of labour market policy measures. The TUC states that the number of participants in employment and training programmes has declined, as have the resources devoted to active measures, with the Government preferring to rely on measures that are neither costly nor effective, such as jobseekers' programmes. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide full information on the manner in which the various measures are subject to regular evaluation and review in the framework of a coordinated economic and social policy, on the basis of their results in achieving the objectives set out in the Convention.

4. The major part of the TUC's criticism is directed against the harmful effects of the policy of deregulating the labour market on the quality of the jobs provided. In the opinion of the trade union organization, the so-called flexible employment which the Government is encouraging by promoting temporary and part-time work, is in fact resulting in increased insecurity for workers in precarious, low-paid jobs in which they cannot be represented by a trade union. Furthermore, this insecurity is not conducive to training and the mobility of workers. The Committee notes the improvement in numbers unemployed but recalls in this respect that an employment policy in the meaning of the Convention must not only endeavour to pursue the objective of full employment, but should also ensure that there is "the fullest possible opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use his skills and endowments in, a job for which he is well suited," without any discrimination (Article 1, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention).

5. With reference to its previous observations, in which it expressed its concern at the difficulties in establishing the tripartite dialogue required by Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee notes the Government's new explanations and its opinion that the fact that one of the social partners holds a different opinion on the means of achieving employment objectives should not be interpreted as implying an absence of consultation. The Government recalls that there are various tripartite institutions in the field of employment policy, but that it regularly reviews institutional arrangements with a view to their usefulness. In this way, it was necessary to abolish the National Economic Development Council (NEDC) when it was concluded that it no longer reflected the needs of the economy. The abolition of the NEDC was supported by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and other employers' organizations. The Government indicates that it now gives priority to direct consultations. Furthermore, it considers that in a pluralist society where many interest groups exist, employers and unions cannot hope to represent all the "persons affected" in the meaning of Article 3. The Committee is bound to join with the Conference Committee in recalling in this respect that representatives of employers and workers have a special interest in collaborating in the formulation of employment policies. It trusts that consultations with the other persons affected, as described by the Government, do not take place to the detriment of dialogue with the principal recognized social partners.