CAB129-36 — Page 507

37489

C

240

10

This year has been marked by close co-operation between the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations on a number of matters of impor- tance and mutual interest. I only intend to refer to one which, although not on the agenda of the present Conference, is an integral part of freedom of associa- tion, the right to organise and the development of sound industrial relations generally. I refer to the question of the protection of trade union rights. Allegations have been made that, in various parts of the world, trade union rights are being infringed, and this is a problem which, during the past year, has engaged the particular attention both of the United Nations and of the International Labour Organisation. It is a problem to which part at least of the answer is the widespread ratification and implementation of the Convention on freedom of association. The problem, however, lies deeper than the ratifica- tion of Conventions, important though that is, or indeed than any formal action under the terms of the Constitution of the I.L.O. I would like to stress the need for finding means to ensure that allegations of the infringement of trade union rights can be examined upon the international plane authoritatively, impartially and without bias, and at the same time consistently with national sovereignty.

The International Labour Organisation in particular should, in matters of this kind, properly reflect the common conscience of its Members, arising from the obligations which they have in common freely accepted. How can this moral influence be brought to bear where necessary without improper interference in the domestic affairs of individual States?

The whole problem of trade union rights, their protection and enforcement is, in fact, one in which this tripartite Organisation has special interests and special responsibilities. It is a problem regarding which the eyes of the world turn naturally to the International Labour Organisation, and I therefore feel that no apology is needed for drawing the attention of the Conference to a question which, in the months and years to come, will call for the exercise of clear thought and practical statesmanship.

Before I conclude there are two matters bearing on the future work of this Organisation to which I should like to refer quite shortly. In the course of the debate, a number of speakers have expressed misgivings at the increasing weight of the agenda of the annual Conference and at the potentially bad effect this development may have upon the quality of the work performed. I understand that this question has been referred by the Governing Body to its officers for examination and report, and I would not at this stage, therefore, wish to express a view in one direction or the other. But I would say that this is a matter of the highest importance for the future effectiveness of the work of the Organisa- tion. There are many important problems waiting to be dealt with by inter- national regulation, and I appreciate to the full the need to deal with these matters with the utmost urgency. Nevertheless, in the field of legislation, with which the Conference is mainly concerned, quality is of greater importance than quantity, and it is better to build well and soundly than merely to build quickly. Both the speeches at the present session and the record of the Conference in the last few years indicate, I think, your support for this view. In the field of Conventions and Recommendations we need above all instruments which will command general acceptance, general ratification and, most important of all, general implementation. It may well be that we shall have to give more attention, in planning our legislative programme, to questions of priority in order to allow ourselves time to draw up instruments which will fulfil the objectives I have mentioned.

The second matter is one of perhaps even greater importance. But before I come to the main issue, I want just to refer to the remarks made on 21st June by the representative of the Irish Republic about the boundary between his country and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I was very sorry to read those remarks and I must point out that the boundary in question exists because of the clear desire for it expressed at successive Parliamentary elections by the people of Northern Ireland. I could say much more on this topic. Let me return, however, to the more general question which I want to bring to your attention. I have noticed in recent meetings of the

Organisation (not confined to sessions of the Conference own up in other

a tenllagey 50 imponto this Organisation a practice afichas own up in other organisations of using these debates for purposes of political propaganda and, in some cases, for the making of bitter attacks upon fellow Members of the

11