|
86th Session
| ||
|
| ||
|
| |
|
Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards |
|
PART TWO
OBSERVATIONS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING PARTICULAR COUNTRIES
I. OBSERVATIONS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING REPORTS ON RATIFIED CONVENTIONS
(ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION)
A. General Observations and Information concerning Certain Countries
(a) Failure to supply reports on the application of ratified Conventions
The Employers' members emphasized that supervision was not possible without the availability of reports supplied by governments for examination. They noted that 57 countries had failed to comply with their reporting obligations which was quite bad. Although some reports had arrived during the Conference, it was nevertheless too late to examine them. Both the failure of governments to supply reports in due time to the ILO and their failure to reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts shook the very roots of the ILO supervisory machinery. Moreover, countries which had not complied with their reporting obligations had an advantage which was not justified since it was not possible to supervise their national legislation and practice in respect of ratified Conventions without a report. In conclusion, the countries in question should be urged to comply with their reporting obligations.
The Workers' members stated that they agreed with the views of the Employers' members and insisted that it was indispensable that reports on ratified Conventions be submitted to enable the supervisory mechanisms to function. They recalled that in spite of the changes in the reporting procedures that had been introduced in past years in order to simplify the task for the governments, the results were still unsatisfactory. They therefore requested that an urgent appeal to member States be made in order to improve the situation in this respect.
A Government representative of Grenada gave the same reasons as before for his Government's failure to supply reports on the application of ratified Conventions. These included a lack of technical skills, resources and a small Department of Labour. However, he was sure that with the training skills that the Labour Commissioner had recently received, reports would be submitted soon.
A Government representative of Liberia acknowledged that his country was late in supplying reports. He was embarrassed by the situation but it was mainly due to the war. His Government would try to comply with its reporting obligations as soon as possible.
A Government representative of the Republic of Moldova apologized for the failure to submit reports on ratified Conventions and assured the Committee that reports would be supplied in the near future.
The Workers' members noted that they had been confronted with the same explanations as in the past. They noted that several countries were not present and were thus unable to respond. They reiterated that the possibility existed to call upon the technical assistance of the Office.
The Employers' members indicated that the fact that only three countries had given information in respect of the failure to supply reports on the application of ratified Conventions, was not a brilliant performance.
The Committee recalled the fundamental importance of the supply of reports on the application of ratified Conventions, not just of their supply as such, but of doing so within the stipulated time-limit. This obligation constituted the foundation of the supervisory system, and the Committee expressed its firm hope that the Governments of Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Grenada, Liberia, Republic of Moldova, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Uzbekistan which had not to date submitted reports on the application of ratified Conventions would do so as soon as possible and decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.
(b) Failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions
The Workers' members noted, in relation to the lack of submission of first reports, that the Experts in paragraph 165 of their report had stressed that the submission of this report had an important purpose. It allowed for an initial examination of how member States fulfilled their obligations and was indispensable for the proper functioning of the supervisory system. The submission of this first report could also serve the purpose of avoiding future misunderstandings. The Workers' members expressed their concern that an increasing number of countries were mentioned in this paragraph.
The Employers' members noted the number of countries which had failed to supply first reports. They emphasized the importance of submitting a first report since this was the basis upon which the Committee of Experts made its initial assessment of the observance of ratified Conventions. Governments should reflect, before the ratification of an instrument, to what extent their national legislation was in compliance with the provisions of the instrument. Therefore, the preparation of a first report was only a consequence of the Government's prior reflections. The Employers' members also noted that a large number of countries had failed to supply a first report.
A Government representative of Liberia replied again that the failure to supply first reports was due mainly to the war. He nevertheless re-emphasized his country's interest in obtaining technical assistance from the Office.
A Government representative of the Republic of Moldova indicated that the first reports had been prepared by the Government in consultation with the social partners. These reports would soon be submitted to the Office.
A Government representative of the Seychelles pointed out that last year he had informed this Committee that his country was experiencing major difficulties in complying with the provisions of the ILO Constitution since it had rejoined the ILO only in 1994. He had explained that his country lacked resources in terms of personnel and technical expertise in applying and managing its international relations unit. However, after he had followed a course on international labour standards which had been highly beneficial, significant progress had been made in terms of responding to ILO correspondence and in complying with obligations under the ILO Constitution. In this respect, the detailed report on Convention No. 149 had already been formulated. It had been submitted to the social partners in a tripartite consultative meeting for their observations. Amendments were made after this consultation. He expected to report to the ILO on this matter not later than 30 July 1998.
A Government representative of Cyprus pointed out that her country was one of the first to ratify Convention No. 171. She was fully aware of her Government's obligations under the ILO Constitution and the report would reach the Office within the deadline set out, that is this year.
A Government representative of Grenada indicated that his Government was aware of its obligations arising from the ILO Constitution, but lacked the necessary technical skills to submit reports. Further to a request made to the MDT in the Port-of-Spain, the Labour Commissioner received a training course in Turin just two weeks ago. This had been of great benefit and he was sure that his country would be able to comply with its obligations shortly.
The Employers' members noted that many countries had referred to a shortage of resources and competent staff as reasons for the non-supply of reports. They pointed out that countries should make use of ILO technical assistance well in advance so that there would not be any delays in submitting first reports.
The Workers' members expressed their agreement with the statement by the Employers' members on this subject and noted that only five out of 13 countries had replied to this Committee.
The Committee noted the information supplied and explanations given by the Government representatives who took the floor. It reiterated the crucial importance of submitting first reports on the application of ratified Conventions. The Committee decided to mention these cases: namely, since 1992: Liberia (Convention No. 133); since 1993: Yemen (Convention No. 159); since 1994: Latvia (Conventions Nos. 111, 122, 135 and 151); since 1995: Armenia (Convention No. 111), Burundi (Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111), Kyrgyzstan (Conventions Nos. 133 and 160), Republic of Moldova (Convention No. 105), Nigeria (Convention No. 144), Seychelles (Convention No. 149); since 1996: Armenia (Conventions Nos. 100, 122, 135 and 151), Cyprus (Convention No. 171), Grenada (Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 144), Latvia (Conventions Nos. 81, 129, 132, 144, 154, 155 and 158), and Uzbekistan (Conventions Nos. 47, 52, 103 and 122) in the appropriate section of the General Report.
(c) Failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts
The Workers' members recalled that the responsibility to respond to the comments by the Committee of Experts was a follow-up to the obligation to submit a report. They agreed with the statement by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 169 of its report in which it stressed that the failure by governments in this respect was a hindrance to the work of the Committee of Experts as well as of this Committee. They insisted that it was necessary to submit substantial replies because otherwise the Committee could not but repeat its comments. They reiterated that the submission of replies to the Committee of Experts was an important element of dialogue.
The Employers' members shared the views expressed by the Workers' members. Countries should comply with their reporting obligations and take them seriously in order to contribute to the proper functioning of the ILO supervisory machinery.
A Government representative of Angola declared that in spite of the technical problems faced by her country, the report had been transmitted through UNDP. She was aware of the delay incurred but clarified that this very day she had forwarded the Acts requested to the International Labour Standards Department of the ILO.
A Government representative of the Bahamas stated that his Government had received the comments of the Committee of Experts only earlier this year. This information received would be collated and the relevant reports sent before 1 September 1998.
A Government representative of Barbados indicated that he was aware that his Government had been tardy in supplying information, but this was not deliberate. This failure to supply information in reply to observations made by the Committee of Experts was due mainly to a shortage of staff as well as the high turnover of the staff in the Ministry of Labour. Nevertheless, officials in the MDT had been helpful and he expected to submit reports in 1999. He also expected continued support from the MDT.
The Government representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo declared that her country understood fully the concerns by the Committee of Experts which continually had to supervise a proper application of standards in each member State. Her Government was aware of the delays and took this opportunity to explain to the Committee that during 1997 her country had been subjected to important political changes which coincided with the period in time when reports to the Committee of Experts should have been sent. In addition, the absence of any official representation at the 85th Session of the Conference and the resulting delay in receiving the relevant documents, contributed to the delays incurred. She clarified that the Government did now have before it the documents for 1997 and 1998 and assured the Committee that the preparation of these reports as well as replies to the comments by the Committee of Experts were on their way and would be transmitted to the Office in the near future.
A Government representative of Denmark wished to make two points which could explain why the Faeroe Islands had not been able to report on any of the Conventions ratified. First of all, the Faeroe Islands was a very small community of only 40,000 persons and with a very small public administration. Prioritization of tasks had not included reports to the ILO. Many resources in the public administration had been spent on a single major financing case. Secondly, the Danish empire had been structured in such a way that the Faeroe Islands had full sovereignty in most policy fields, including the labour market and social policy field. The Danish Government could not dictate policy formulation and administration in the fields concerned. The only possibility it had was to offer the Faeroe Islands guidance and information and support them in the implementation of their tasks. It was not possible to dictate to them to report on the Conventions they had ratified. Moreover, no sanctions could be imposed in the case of failure to report. However, his Government had tried through visits to the Faeroe Islands and the submission of documentation, to guide the authorities as much as possible. His Government hoped to remedy the situation, but it had no means to enforce it. Only support and guidance could be offered and this would be done to the widest extent possible.
A Government representative of France (French Polynesia and Guadeloupe) deplored that it had not been able to reply to the Committee of Experts concerning these two non-metropolitan territories. He clarified that in the case of French Polynesia, this non-metropolitan territory had just obtained a new status with increased autonomy and the implementation of this new status had caused it to incur certain delays. As regards Guadeloupe, he noted that the recent changeover of the persons in charge had caused certain misunderstandings which had now been sorted out and that further delays would not be incurred.
A Government representative of Ghana indicated that the relevant information was contained in the written document supplied.
A Government representative of Grenada apologized for his Government's failure to supply information but indicated that with the necessary training of staff in the Ministry, it would soon bepossible to submit reports.
A Government representative of Liberia pointed out with regard to Convention No. 29 that his Government had done all that was possible to ensure that the remnants of forced labour were removed. With regard to Convention No. 87, he assured the Committee that there was complete freedom for workers to organize themselves.
A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that his Government was always ready to maintain a dialogue. The previous year his Government had received comments from the Committee of Experts on a number of ratified Conventions which had been studied by the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry was reviewing the provisions that needed to be amended in order to bring national legislation into conformity with the Conventions concerned.
A Government representative of Malta regretted that his country had fallen behind in its reporting obligations. The main reason for this was that his Government was in the process of updating labour laws in consultation with the social partners. Once these labour laws were updated, his Government would be able to reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos. 111, 119 and 173 very soon.
A Government representative of the Netherlands indicated that last year he had explained to this Committee what the constitutional situation was in the kingdom of the Netherlands with regard to Aruba and, more specifically, with regard to reporting obligations. Aruba was an equal partner in the kingdom of the Netherlands and fully responsible for fulfilling these obligations. The only role that his Government could play was further to a request to this effect by the Aruban authorities. This explanation was put into writing in a letter to the Office in which it was also mentioned that the Government wanted to involve the ILO Caribbean Office in a joint effort to enable the Aruban authorities to fulfil their reporting obligations on ILO standards. However, since the previous year, there had been a number of developments. First of all, a number of reports had been sent to and received by the ILO. Secondly, a member of the staff of the Labour Directorate of Aruba had attended a course given by the ILO Caribbean Office concerning the reporting on ILO Conventions. Finally, later on in the year, arrangements would be made between the Aruban and Dutch authorities to work out a solution to the repetitive problem of the reporting obligations of Aruba. His Government hoped to involve the ILO Caribbean Office in its efforts to enable Aruba to be self-sufficient in its reporting obligations in the foreseeable future.
A Government representative of Niger thanked the Committee of Experts as well as the Committee on Freedom of Association for their respective recommendations. As regards the delay incurred in responding to the Committee of Experts, he noted that it was caused by a technical problem. The participation of the responsible person in an ILO seminar in Turin had contributed to resolving this problem.
A Government representative of Paraguay stated that the Ministry of Labour in her country was undergoing a profound transformation, both on the institutional and technical levels. She informed the Committee that further to the technical assistance received from the Office, her Government had been able to fulfil its obligations concerning submission and the supply of reports. However, as the report of the Committee of Experts had noted, her Government had not complied fully with its reporting obligations. Her Government intended to submit a reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts.
A Government representative of the Seychelles pointed out that with regard to the direct requests made by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos. 99 and 105, three reports which were due this year had been sent and the report on Convention No. 99 had been included in the batch. Since the Office had not as yet received it, he would ensure that another copy would be sent upon his return. With regard to the direct request on Convention No. 105, discussions thereon were being undertaken by the competent ministry and the ILO would be informed shortly.
The Employers' members noted that several countries had referred to the familiar reasons of lack of technical skills and resources as the causes for failure to comply with reporting obligations. They expressed concern at this trend and hoped that this would not continue.
The Workers' members supported the comments made by the Employers' members concerning this discussion.
The Committee took due note of the various information provided and explanations given by the Government representatives who took the floor. It insisted upon the great importance, for the continuation of an essential dialogue, of communicating clear and complete information in response to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that this was an aspect of the constitutional obligation to report. In this connection, it expressed its profound concern at the very high number of cases of failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that assistance from the ILO could be requested by governments in order to overcome any difficulties they may be facing. The Committee urged the Governments concerned, namely, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark (Faeroe Islands), Djibouti, France (French Polynesia, Guadeloupe), Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Netherlands (Aruba), Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Tajikistan to spare no effort to provide the information requested as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.
(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards(1)
Bangladesh. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Bolivia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Cameroon. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Chile. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Côte d'Ivoire. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all the Committee's comments.
Cyprus. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Czech Republic. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Ethiopia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all the Committee's comments.
Gabon. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all the Committee's comments.
Ghana. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Haiti. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all of the Committee's comments.
Honduras. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Iceland. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Israel. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Kuwait. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Lao People's Democratic Republic. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Malawi. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all the Committee's comments.
Malaysia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Morocco. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to all the Committee's comments.
Myanmar. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Nicaragua. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Sri Lanka. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
United Republic of Tanzania. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions, as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Tunisia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
Venezuela. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.
Yemen. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.
1. The list of the reports received is to be found in part I, C of the Report.