Memorandum submitted by the Trades Union
Congress (TUC)
INTRODUCTION
1.1 This document forms the TUC's submission
for the inquiry into cross-departmental working on development
and trade being conducted by International Development Committee.
1.2 The TUC is grateful for this opportunity
to submit comments to the Committee. The TUC is the voice of Britain
at work, representing six and a half million workers in 63 unions.
We represent workers in every industry and occupation, in every
town and district and from every community in Britain. The TUC
takes an active role in discussions on trade policy within the
international trade union movement via the European Trade Union
Confederation, the International Trade Union Confederation and
the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD.
TRADE POLICY
DECISION-MAKING
2.1 The TUC broadly welcomes the increased
role which DfID has now assumed in relation to trade policy. We
have long argued that trade is an essential element of strategies
to achieve sustainable development, strategies which must help
to rebalance the processes of globalisation so that the benefits
accrue to the many not just the few. However we are concerned
that unless well managed the process of cross departmental responsibility
could lead to a loss of focus and/or to departments failing to
act in a coordinated fashion.
2.2 Whilst it is our understanding that
the Secretary of State for International Development now takes
lead responsibility for all trade issues it appears less clear
what responsibilities will lie with other ministers. Whilst most
of the officials involved on a day to day basis with multilateral
and regional trade negotiations will remain within DBERR we are
uncertain what role the DBERR Secretary of State will take in
directing their activities. The role of the minister for trade
with their specific cross departmental brief will be central,
but only time will tell if this is a workable system in regard
to day to day coordination. The role of the new minister for trade
promotion also remains unclear, we are unclear how much this will
be a roving ambassadorial role promoting British exports and inward
investment compared to how much the post will be involved in trade
policy formulation. We trust that the post will be fully integrated
into the development objectives of the trade agenda.
2.3 To date we remain unclear on the exact
formal decision-making structures between ministers and departments
involved in trade policy although we understand that there will
be a ministerial level trade committee. There have been some promising
early initiatives regarding stakeholder consultation including
a joint DfID-DBERR seminar bringing together government officials
with NGO and trade union representatives. However the details
of how such a process of extended engagement will feed into formal
structures has yet to be made clear. Involving civil society,
unions, business and NGO's, in discussion on the trade policy
formulation is important for a range of reasons and we are keen
to learn more about how this will be done. For instance will the
Trade Policy Consultative forum be retained?
2.4 Given that trade negotiation remains
a competence that is exercised at the EU level the TUC also remains
concerned about how much the British Government is actually able
to influence DG trade on specific aspects of trade policy. We
understand that the government must pick the specific issues it
chooses to take up carefully, but would like more clarity on how
these decisions are arrived at and more openness in regard to
the positions taken by British ministers and officials in Brussels.
This is central to ensuring broad based support for a development
focused trade agenda amongst civil society.
DIRECTION OF
TRADE POLICY
3.1 As noted the TUC has consistently argued
that a trade policy, with the aim of increasing global trade flows,
in particular those from developing countries to developed and
between developing countries themselves, is an essential element
of any coherent approach to sustainable development. However we
have also always argued that simply increasing trade flows without
accompanying policies and action to ensure that the benefits of
such growth are more evenly distributed renders the development
impact meaningless.
3.2 We hope that the move of lead responsibilty
for trade to DfID will lead to greater emphasis on the interfaces
between trade policy and employment, in particular the impact
of trade agreements on the Decent Work agenda and the implementation
(or lack of it) of the International Labour Organisations core
labour standards[21].
DfID in its 2004 policy paper "Labour Standards and Poverty
Reduction"[22]
noted that "an essential part of poverty elimination is those
human rights known as core labour standards." We would like
to see more evidence of the British government stressing the importance
of the CLS during trade negotiations, specifically at present
in regard to talks on EPAs and the formulation of negotiating
mandates for the latest group of EU regional trade agreements.
We have consistently argued that not enough analysis is undertaken
of the real impact of trade agreements in the short, medium and
long term on employment in developing and developed countries.
Recently there have been encouraging signs that this is starting
to change for instance with the publication of a joint study by
the ILO and WTO on trade and employment. We hope that under the
new arrangments all government departments will work to put employment
and the decent work agenda at the heart of discussions of trade
agreements.
3.3 It is to be hoped that the increased
role played by DfID will lead to a strengthening of the existing
official British positions on the need for less than full reciprocity
in market opening, no forced liberalisation and a move away from
a zero sum mercantilist approach to trade negotiations. The strong
stand taken in the open letters from ministers McCartney and Thomas
last year on the direction of EPA negotiations is something we
welcomed and would wish to see developed within the new set up.
OECD AND CORRUPTION
4.1 The TUC maintains a close watch on the
workings of the UK National Contact Point, the post to which cases
raised under the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises
are submitted. We have welcomed recent changes to the structure
of the NCP which have included making it a cross-departmental
function across DBERR, FCO and DfID and establishing a steering
board with representation from civil society alongside government
officials. We accept it will take some time for these new structures
to bed down and for plans to raise awareness of the Guidelines
to be implemented.
4.2 There are a number of issues relating
to the implementation of the guidelines and the acceptance of
cases which continue to cause us concern, including; the speed
at which cases are assessed, the training provided to officials
forming part of the NCP on industrial relations, the issue of
parallel proceedings and overall how the NCP views its role as
a proactive mediator once cases have been raised. We are addressing
these issues with the relevant civil servants and remain optimistic
that progress will be made.
4.3 In June 2006, the Government announced
that Hilary Benn, then the Secretary of State for International
Development, would lead the Government's work on combating overseas
corruption. Under the new Government, this role has been assigned
to John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Secretary of State
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
4.4 The Government published its first annual
cross-departmental action plan for Combating International Corruption
in July 2006 and its Interim Progress Report in March/April 2007.
4.5 The TUC welcomes the creation of the
post of Ministerial champion for combating overseas corruption
and the implementation of an annual action plan. It notes however
there is an urgent need to clarify the roles played by the various
departments and especially DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform. It also considers it essential to raise the profile of
the actions being taken, at home and at international level. The
UK has suffered considerable damage to its anti-corruption reputation
in recent months and must now act to demonstrate its commitment.
So far there has been no announcement that John Hutton is the
new Ministerial champion and only limited publicity regarding
the action plan. The TUC considers that the following would improve
clarity and effectiveness:
— Include in the 2007-08 annual action
statement a description of the role of the Ministerial champion,
and outline the respective departmental responsibilities alongside
the description of tasks.
— Convene a meeting of internal and
external stakeholders to discuss the final report of the 2006-07
action plan, as well as the priorities of the 2007-08 action plan.
— Ensure that the Anti-corruption Minister
attends the forthcoming High Level Conference of "The Tenth
Anniversary of the OECD Anti-bribery Bribery—Its Impacts
and Achievements" being held in Rome on 21 November 2007,
together with other high-ranking officials. so as to send a strong
message of UK support for the OECD Anti-bribery Convention.
— Extend the post of the Anti-corruption
champion beyond the two-year period recommended in the Report
Of The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, "The Other Side
of the Coin".
4.6 It is important that on both the issue
of the Guidelines and anti-corruption work unions continue to
be seen as key stakeholders. Earlier this year DfID and the TUC
held a successful one day seminar bringing together ministers,
officials, unions, business and NGO's to look at how we can increase
work on anti-corruption issues, but since this event we have had
difficulty convincing some officials that ant0-corruption is a
trade union issue.
NATURAL RESOURCES
5.1 The Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative has been a positive step in regard to economic and
trade governance and we would welcome consultation about plans
to expand the initiative and in particular more detailed work
on how trade unions in the countries and industries covered and
their relevant global union federations will be in involved.
CONCLUSION
6.1 Overall we feel that the current restructuring
of trade responsibilities in government has the potential to be
very positive in ensuring that development priorities remain at
the heart the UK trade agenda. As noted from a trade union perspective
and in line with the calls from our sister organisations in the
global south we want to see far greater emphasis on trade and
employment as fundamental part of the trade and development agenda.
We also wish to see an increased emphasis on consultation and
involvement of civil society. This is needed both to help create
good policy and to increase awareness amongst the public of the
importance of trade policy as a tool to achieve sustainable development.
We would ask that the International Development Committee continues
its close scrutiny of the new set up to monitor progress and to
help ensure that this restructuring achieves its stated goal of
greater coherence across Whitehall.
6.2 Finally we would ask the Committee to
consider how officials in the departments involved have been consulted
about the various changes and informed about where they will fit
into new structures, without the continuing hard work and commitment
of the civil servants in DBERR, DFID and other relevant ministries
progress will be much harder.
September 2007
21 The ILO have designated eight of their conventions
as core labour standards which are also deemed to be basic human
rights. These are summarised as freedom from child labour, freedom
from forced labour, freedom from discrimination in the work place
and the right to join a union and bargain collectively. Back
22
DFID, May 2004 Back
| 
