Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1975)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), communicated with the Government’s report on 3 October 2018, as well as the Government’s response thereto.

Articles 2–5 of the Convention. Formulation and application of a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave. The Government indicates that arrangements for paid educational leave have traditionally been made under voluntary agreements between employees and employers. The Government nevertheless refers to a series of training and learning measures that aim to promote increased access to paid educational leave. The Committee recalls that, following the 2011 consultations on the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme, the coalition Government decided to retain the scheme, but not to extend it to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee takes note of the report of the Institute for Employment Studies, published in October 2017, which noted that there was considerable variation across economic sectors in terms of awareness and use of the scheme, concluding that, although SMEs would have to accommodate higher set-up costs to administer and implement the scheme, the data gathered from the implementation of the current arrangements in larger organizations suggested that this could be accommodated if the scheme were extended to SMEs. The Government also reports on a series of new steps taken introducing stronger incentives to encourage employers to invest in training for staff, including the establishment of a National Retraining Scheme, which aims to provide individuals – particularly those hardest to reach – with the skills they need to respond to employers’ needs in a changing economy. In its observations, the TUC welcomes this initiative and the Government’s commitment to a social partnership approach in its development and implementation. In response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that there has been no analysis of the direct impact of the abolishment of the Train to Gain programme on the propensity to grant paid educational leave. It adds that, following the abolition of the programme, better-targeted entitlements to learning were introduced. These are funded through the Adult Education Budget and focus particularly on young adults, persons with low skills, and unemployed people who are actively seeking work. It also indicates that a series of skills policies, including apprenticeships, promote paid educational leave provision and constitute the policy response to the vocational objectives described in (a) and (d) of Article 3 of the Convention. In this context, the Committee notes the establishment of the Institute for Apprenticeships in April 2017, to ensure the quality of apprenticeship standards and the introduction of the Apprenticeships Regulations in 2017, giving all apprentices the right to off-the-job training for 20 per cent of their working time. It also notes the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017 to be charged on employers’ pay bills to raise apprenticeship quality and create long-term, sustainable investment in training. The Committee notes that, for employers that do not pay the apprenticeships levy, the Government pays 90 per cent of the cost of training and assessment for apprentices. The TUC welcomes the measures designed to boost employers’ investment in apprenticeships, but observes that low-quality apprenticeships are incentivized by the low National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates applicable to apprentices. It observes that enforcement of NMW rates is very weak, pointing to the latest government survey, which shows that nearly one fifth of apprentices are paid below the NMW rate for apprentices. Moreover, the TUC points out that fewer than five employers who failed to pay the NMW for apprentices were prosecuted between January 2016 and June 2017. The TUC calls for the apprenticeship NMW (ANMW) rate to be aligned to the youth NMW rate and to be restricted to young apprentices and other young workers who are under 21 years of age. The Committee notes the Government’s reply, according to which the ANMW is set at a rate that acknowledges the costs for employers and benefits for young people involved in the provision of apprenticeships and which does not adversely affect apprenticeship opportunities in the labour market. The Government indicates that, when the rate was introduced in 2010, it was in line with existing minimum pay levels for apprentices in England and that the Department for Education has asked the Low Pay Commission to consider the ANMW in the context of the ambitions for a world-class apprenticeship programme. Regarding the enforcement of the NMW, the Government indicates that it is carrying out targeted enforcement where a high risk of non-payment of the NMW is identified and is committed to cracking down on employers who break the NMW law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments relating to an extension of the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including through the establishment of a National Retraining Scheme, to promote the granting of paid educational leave.

Article 2(c). Paid educational leave for the purpose of trade union education. In response to the Committee’s previous comments concerning the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act 2002, the Government refers to the duty of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to provide practical guidance on the time off that an employer should grant to a trade union official or to a trade union member under the ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. The Government indicates that it continues to support Unionlearn, an organization of the TUC which aims to help embed a culture of learning throughout working lives, and which is funded by the Union Learning Fund (ULF). The Committee notes that every year, more than 42,000 union representatives, including union health and safety representatives and Unionlearn representatives, are trained through the TUC Education Service. The Committee requests the Government to include updated detailed information in its next report on the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act, 2002, and corresponding legislation.

Article 8. Equal access of workers to paid educational leave. The Committee notes that the Government provides additional financial support to ensure that high quality apprenticeships are accessible to persons from all backgrounds, under-represented groups and those facing traditional and more recent barriers, including: young people and care leavers, people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, women, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. The TUC welcomes the initiatives taken, which seek to boost access to high-quality apprenticeships for specific groups. It indicates that Unionlearn is currently producing a series of apprenticeship equality and diversity guides for union representatives to encourage employers to recruit from among these groups. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the nature and impact of measures adopted or envisaged with a view to ensuring that all workers have equal access to paid educational leave.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Formulation and application of a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2013 containing detailed information in connection with its previous comments and highlights the substantial contribution from the Trades Union Congress (TUC). With respect to the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme, introduced across Great Britain in April 2010 for those working in organizations with 250 or more employees, the Committee notes that the coalition Government decided to retain the scheme, but not to proceed with an extension envisaged by the previous Government. The Government explains that its decision recognized the need to maintain a focus on the importance of workplace training while protecting smaller businesses from potential burdens. The Committee takes note of the Government’s intention to undertake a formal evaluation of the scheme by April 2015 and that a specific appeals procedure applies in case the employer refuses to accommodate the request. The Committee notes that TUC considers that the Government’s report is misleading in that it describes a “right to request time off to train” when in fact it is the “right to request time to train”. According to TUC, this is a significant indication that the scheme was designed to trigger training for the individual, but not necessarily supported by paid educational leave. In TUC’s view, the right to request time to train does not as a statutory measure consistently fulfil the definition of paid educational leave of the Convention. With respect to the Government’s decision not to extend the right to employees working for employers of 250 individuals or less, TUC states that evidence collected in two surveys conducted by union learning representatives found that the right has been establishing itself as a way of advancing training opportunities in workplaces without creating onerous burdens on employers. The Committee invites the Government to include information in its next report on the evaluation made on the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme. The Government is also invited to describe how it promotes the right to paid educational leave for small and medium-sized enterprises. Please continue to provide information on how the granting of paid educational leave contributes to the promotion of appropriate continuing education and training (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention).

Leave for the purposes of trade union education. The Government indicates that it continues to fund and support Unionlearn, TUC’s learning and skills organization, and the Union Learning Fund. The Government highlights the role that Unionlearn plays in promoting apprenticeships and quality work experience for young people preparing to enter the labour market. The Committee notes that even though the Union Learning Fund does not directly fund learning courses, it provides learner support and facilities, and observes that approximately 230,000 individuals access courses each year through Unionlearn activities. The Committee also takes note that 600 union learning centres have been established; and that learning centres are increasingly being opened up to disadvantaged people in local communities. In its contribution, TUC thanks the Government for recognizing the role that it plays in engaging employers through Unionlearn, Wales TUC Learning Services, STUC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, but highlights that the UK Employer Survey shows that the overall picture is getting worse with 41 per cent of UK employers now reporting they did not train any of their staff in 2011. The Committee invites the Government to continue to include information in its next report on the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act, 2002, and corresponding legislation in the Devolved Administrations.

Train to Gain. The Committee notes that following widespread criticism, the programme Train to Gain was abolished in 2010. The Government has subsequently reshaped and expanded the Apprenticeships programme to form the core of work-based learning and replaced the Train to Gain programme with an offer more focused on the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. This offer comprises financial incentives to recruit apprentices, more high-level apprentices, co-funding arrangements, coaching and management training. TUC indicates that, since the abolition of the programme, the Government has removed most subsidies for adult education, including entitlements to public funding support to attain level 2 qualifications. TUC argues that this has created a large gap in public policy with regard to supporting working adults who do not hold these qualifications (now regarded as essential for employability). The Committee invites the Government to provide further information on the impact that the financial arrangements implemented after the abolishment of the Train to Gain programme have had on the propensity to grant paid educational leave.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

1. Formulation and application of a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report received in August 2008. The Committee notes that, further to the Leith Review of Skills in England, the Government sought to adopt a strategy aimed at: (i) encouraging employers in England to take responsibility for the skills of their workforce by making a Skills Pledge, to support their employees to become more skilled and better qualified, with Government support; (ii) improving the Train to Gain brokerage service to support employers to address all their training needs; (iii) with the Devolved Administrations, instituting a fundamental review of the Investors in People employer standard; and (iv) supporting the Trades Union Congress “Unionlearn” and union learning representatives. The Committee notes that, in addition to these measures, the Government is consulting on a proposal to give most employees in England a statutory right to request time to train which would give employees a legal right to ask their employer to give them time to undertake relevant training, and place a duty on employers to consider these requests. The Government indicated that there are around 22 million employees in England who could potentially benefit from time to train, and it estimated that around 300,000 persons will undertake training each year as a result of the introduction of this statutory right. The Committee notes that consultations ended in September 2008, and understands that, following the outcome of these consultations, the Government of the United Kingdom intends to legislate for a right to request time to train for all employees throughout Great Britain. The Committee asks the Government to include information in its next report on the progress made in the process of legislating for employees to request time to train, and to provide further information on measures for implementation and sanctions for breach once promulgated.

2. Leave for the purposes of trade union education. In response to the Committee’s last comment, the Government indicates that section 43 of the Employment Act, 2002, provides rights to Union Learning representatives for reasonable time off with pay so as to carry out their duties and undergo training. The Committee notes that corresponding legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland under section 31 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The Committee also notes that, following the establishment of the Union Learning Fund, £98 million has been provided to help trade unions develop their capacity to promote the uptake of learning and skills in the workplace, helping over 600,000 workers back into learning. The Government also indicates that it has supported the TUC in establishing its learning and education organization “Unionlearn” which seeks to build on and bring greater coherence to various aspects of trade union learning and education. “Unionlearn” seeks to provide a platform to raise the number of trained Union Learning representatives in the workplace from 20,500 to 22,000 by 2010, so as to help over 250,000 workers per year back into learning. The Committee asks the Government to continue to include information in its next report on the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act, 2002, and corresponding legislation in the Devolved Administrations.

3. Train to Gain. In response to the Committee’s last comment, the Government indicates that the Employer Training Pilots (ETP) which sought to test the effects of offering financial incentives to improve access to training, engaged over 90,000 employers and around 196,000 learners. In light of these results, the Government decided to run a national programme building on the ETPs. Accordingly, Train to Gain was rolled out from April 2006 and, as at May 2008, it had engaged almost 97,000 employers, of which 74 per cent were “hard to reach” employers, 81 per cent were from small and medium-sized enterprises, and around two-thirds were employers who engaged less than 50 employees. In this time, the Train to Gain programme enabled over 488,000 employees to begin learning programmes, and delivered over 241,000 qualification achievements. The Government indicates that it continues to develop and expand Train to Gain to better meet the needs of employers and learners, and to tailor it to meet the needs of specific sectors. The Committee asks the Government to continue to report on the practical implementation of the Train to Gain programme, and the steps taken to further develop and expand this programme. The Government is also requested to include information in its next report on how these financial incentive arrangements have affected the propensity by which paid educational leave is granted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, received in October 2003, containing useful information in reply to its previous observation.

1. Young workers. The Committee notes the information related to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Established by the Government in April 2001, it is responsible for planning and funding post-16 learning (up to and including higher education in England). It notes that, for the financial year ending 31 March 2003, the LSC was responsible for an education and training budget of £7.6 million (£3.946 million for young people and £2.638 million for adults). According to the report, this represented a real term increase of 5.9 per cent on the previous year and was used to finance some 6 million learners. Please continue to provide information on how the granting of paid educational leave contributes to the promotion of appropriate continuing education and training (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention).

2. Leave for purposes of trade union education. In relation to its previous request, asking the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that the granting of leave for purposes of trade union education is not reserved solely for trade union representatives, the Committee notes that, as from 27 April 2003, in virtue of section 43 of the Employment Act 2002, union learning representatives (ULRs) and members of an independent trade union recognized by the employer have the right to be granted leave for purposes of trade union education. The report also indicates that in some cases companies may formulate a learning agreement with the union for workplace learning. Please provide information on the effect given in practice to section 43, in relation to workers who are not trade union representatives (Article 2(c) of the Convention).

3. Learndirect. In relation to the Committee’s question on the effective application of programmes giving effect to the principles of lifelong learning, including the establishment of a learning network distributed through new information technologies (Learndirect), it takes note of a research report sent by the Government, published in June 2003 by the Institute for Employment Studies, entitled "New learners, new learning: A strategic evaluation of UfI" (University for Industry) which thoroughly assesses the practice and perspectives of these learning techniques. Some of the conclusions of the report are that Learndirect has so far had more of an impact on individuals than on organizations; it contributes to lifelong learning by engaging new learners; it leads to further learning progression; it helps some learners to enhance their employability and finally Learndirect is contributing to the expansion and diversification of the learning market.

4. Finally, the Committee takes note of other useful information sent by the Government related to, inter alia, employer training pilots (ETPs), which were launched in September 2002 in six local learning and skills council areas to test the effect of offering financial incentives to improve access to training and enable employees to attain basic and level-2 skills. All the pilots were due to finish in August 2004. Please provide information on the results of these measures and continue providing information on the practical application of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending May 2000, containing useful information in reply to its previous observations.

2. The Committee had noted the comments of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) to the effect that the contract of employment of young workers should stipulate their right to education and training in view of the fact that the little paid educational leave negotiated collectively tends, in practice, to benefit non-manual workers in the professional categories. In its latest report, the Government states that since 1998 it has adopted a series of laws and regulations which provide for the granting to young workers of time for study or training to acquire a national vocational qualification at level 2 which, according to the Government, is the minimum level of qualification required to benefit from sustained employability. The Government also mentions the implementation of measures to assist apprenticeship for young workers aged between 16 and 24 years. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of the Convention, it is the responsibility of the Government to formulate and apply a national policy designed to promote the granting of paid educational leave with a view to contributing to the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Convention and that in this respect workers must be able to benefit, among others, from paid educational leave for the purpose of "training at any level" (Article 2(a)). It requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the manner in which the national policy ensures the granting of paid educational leave to young workers for each of the objectives set out in Article 2 of the Convention. To this end, the Government is requested to include extracts from reports, studies and inquiries, and statistics showing the effect given in practice to this policy and the number of workers granted paid educational leave.

3. The TUC’s comments also referred to the restriction placed by the 1989 Employment Act on the possibilities of granting leave for the purposes of trade union education. The Committee wishes once again to recall that such leave, as envisaged in Article 2(c) of the Convention, should, under the terms of Article 3(b), be designed to contribute "to the competent and active participation of workers and their representatives in the life of the undertaking and of the community". Also noting the information provided by the Government concerning the recent establishment of the Union Learning Fund (ULF), the Committee requests it to indicate in its next report the manner in which it is ensured that the granting of leave for purposes of trade union education is not reserved solely for trade union representatives.

4. Finally, the Government enumerates various programmes giving effect to the principle of lifelong learning, including the establishment of a learning network distributed through new information technologies (learn/direct). The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will contain detailed information on the effective application of these programmes. In this respect, the Government is also invited to provide extracts from reports, studies and inquiries, and the available statistical data.

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

1. The Committee notes the Government's report and the enclosed comments of the Trades Union Congress (TUC). In the main, the information contained in the Government's report deals with various aspects of its training policy, such as the introduction of a national record of achievement system and training for work for the unemployed with a view to their return to employment. The Committee observes that the above measures concern the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), and the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), to which the United Kingdom is also a party, rather than Convention No. 140 which is intended specifically to promote the grant of paid educational leave defined as "leave granted to a worker for educational purposes for a specified period during working hours, with adequate financial entitlements" (Article 1 of the Convention).

2. The TUC submits that the 1989 Employment Act restricts the grant of leave for trade union education which is now limited to those matters for which a union is recognized for collective bargaining. Noting that such leave is granted only to trade union officials, the Committee recalls that paid educational leave for the purpose of trade union education provided for in Article 2(c) of the Convention should, under Article 3(b), contribute "to the competent and active participation of workers and their representatives in the light of the undertaking and of the community".

3. The TUC observes more generally that there is no statutory entitlement to paid educational leave. In this connection it considers that the contracts of employment of young people should stipulate a right to education and training. Furthermore, there is very little paid educational leave negotiated collectively and it tends to be available to white-collar or professional employees. According to the Committee, such a situation should draw attention to the purpose of "training at any level" attributed to paid educational leave by Article 2(b) of the Convention.

4. In its reply to the TUC's comments, the Government states that it does not regard statutory entitlements in this area as appropriate and that its policy is to meet the provisions of the Convention by encouraging motivation and choice, not statutory imposition. It points out in this context that, under Article 2 of the Convention, the methods by which the promoting of the granting of paid educational leave is implemented should be "appropriate to national conditions and practice". The Committee must none the less draw the Government's attention to the fundamental obligation, which is also laid down in Article 2, to formulate and apply a policy for this purpose. As it pointed out in its General Survey of 1991, such a policy presupposes that the public authorities have decided upon a specific course of action that necessarily involves authorities and bodies for a certain length of time (paragraph 327), even if the Convention allows a large measure of flexibility in the formulation and application of the policy (paragraph 328).

5. The Committee hopes that the Government's next report will contain additional information demonstrating that it is effectively formulating and applying, in association with all the concerned bodies referred to in Article 6 of the Convention, a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave for the purposes set out in Articles 2 and 3 and which meets the requirements, in particular, of the provisions of Articles 1 and 11.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1988, published 75th ILC session (1988)

Further to its previous direct request the Committee has taken note of the Government's comments on the observation submitted by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) concerning the application of the Convention.

The TUC states that it does not share the Government's view that "voluntarism and collective bargaining constitute the most effective means of applying the Convention" because of the employers' widespread resistance to releasing staff for education and training. In the TUC's opinion the lack of an explicit government policy to promote the granting of paid educational leave and the cut down on adult education spending restrict adults' education and training opportunities and it is therefore considering the need for statutory support for the principles embodied in the Convention.

As far as paid educational leave for trade union education is concerned the TUC observes that both section 27 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act of 1978 and codes of practice restrict the rights to leave to officials of independent trade unions and the legislation provides that paid educational leave be extended only for courses which are relevant to the carrying out of industrial relations duties. Furthermore, it points out that the Government's intention to limit the range of duties for which time off with pay must be allowed to the scope of union recognition by the employer would restrict trade union representatives' access to education by removing part of their current entitlement to paid educational leave.

In its comments the Government stresses that the purpose of recent reduction of financial support for adult education by university extra-mural departments (EMDs) and the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) has been to provide these bodies with an incentive to operate more responsively and cost-effectively, and not to bring about a reduction in overall provision. Local education authorities (LEAs) were called upon to provide savings in adult education expenditure but rate support grant settlements in recent years have been designed to enable the great majority of LEAs to maintain and even improve their service. The Government adds that these forms of liberal or non-vocational provision do not represent the whole of adult continuing education and the number of persons above 21 taking non-advanced courses in colleges of further education has been rising very rapidly in recent years.

The Government adds that through its Professional, Industrial, and Commercial Updating (PICKUP) programmes it intends to increase the number of employees taking vocational updating training in colleges and universities and that available figures on such courses show that the employer attitudes mentioned by the TUC are beginning to change. Consequently the Government maintains its view that direct action to promote paid educational leave must at present take second place to more pressing priorities within the field of continuing education, and that there are insufficient grounds for abandoning its belief in voluntarism as the correct approach for the United Kingdom.

Concerning paid educational leave for trade union education, the Government states that there will be no change to the wide range of purposes for which time off can be warranted. The right to paid time off is already restricted, and always has been to recognised trade unions, to duties concerned with industrial relations with the employer. The Government believes that there is no justification for imposing on employers the cost of paid time off to enable officials to deal with matters out of the scope of recognition. On the other hand safety representatives can be appointed by recognised trade unions from any employee (not only union officials).

The Committee takes due note of the above information. It would be glad if the Government would indicate in its next report any developments regarding the policy for the promotion of paid educational leave and the manner in which employers' and workers' organisations are associated with the formulation and the application thereof (Article 6).