 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
ILCCR: General Observation concerning United Kingdom, St. Helena. Published: 2007Description:(ILCCR General Observation) Country:(United Kingdom) TERRITORY:(St. Helena) Session of the Conference:96 Document:22 Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 122007SHN I. Observations and Information concerning Reports on ratified Conventions (Articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution) A. Discussion of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting and other standards-related obligations (a) Failure to supply reports for the past two years or more on the application of ratified Conventions A Government representative of Denmark regretted that the local authorities of the Faeroe Islands for the second consecutive year had not submitted the reports due. She indicated that the Faeroe Islands, with a view to fulfilling their reporting obligations, had asked the Danish Government to clarify the following: (1) which ILO Conventions they were bound by; and (2) whether those Conventions had been submitted to the Faeroese authorities. The Danish Government, consequently, sought clarification from the ILO, which provided a list of 22 Conventions by which it considered the Faeroe Islands to be bound. With regard to the second question, the speaker indicated that the Danish Government and the Faeroese Home Rule were in close dialogue on how to resolve the issue of reporting on Conventions that dated back some 30 to 50 years. She reminded the Conference Committee that the local authorities of the Faeroe Islands had full autonomy in the area of public welfare and labour, which meant that the Danish Government could neither instruct them in this area nor fulfil the reporting obligations on their behalf. However, the Danish Government would assist the Faeroese local authorities as best as possible so that they could fulfil their reporting obligations in the future. A Government representative of Cambodia explained that over the past few years changes had occurred in the administration in charge of labour matters, owing to the creation of a new Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training. That had led to changes in the composition of the staff working in the technical departments. In that context, the Ministry had appointed a group of officials to undertake and follow up on the obligations prescribed by the ILO Constitution, in particular the Government's obligation to respond to the observations made by the Committee of Experts. As the group had recently been formed, it had been impossible to submit the reports due. He further indicated that with a view to fulfilling the unaccomplished tasks, an official had been sent to participate in the international labour standards training organized by the ILO International Training Centre in Turin. He undertook himself on behalf of his Ministry to speed up the fulfilment of all reporting obligations. A Government representative of the United Kingdom apologized on behalf of the non-metropolitan territories of Anguilla, Montserrat and St. Helena who had been unable to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts and, in some cases, had failed to supply reports on ratified Conventions. He stated that the Government of the United Kingdom went to great lengths to endeavour to ensure that all local authorities in non-metropolitan territories met their reporting obligations in full and on time. However, they had not always been successful and he regretted the effect that this could have on the supervisory system. He assured the Conference Committee that such failure was not due to a lack of political commitment on the part of the competent authorities, but rather was a question of capacity. He hoped that the Committee would recognize that heavy reporting schedules could place a considerable strain on even the largest administrations. Non-metropolitan territories were, for the most part, small and largely autonomous island administrations with limited human and financial resources. His Government would continue to work closely and actively with the local authorities on how best to ensure that they continued raising their human rights standards as well as fulfilling their ILO reporting obligations. A Government representative of Togo indicated that the Ministry of Employment and Labour was experiencing difficulties owing to a shortage of personnel and skills. The Government had therefore requested ILO technical assistance in the form of training two officials and hoped that this would enable it to fulfil its standards-related obligations. The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor. The Committee recalled that submitting reports on the application of ratified Conventions was a constitutional obligation essential to the supervisory system. The Committee stressed the importance of submitting reports, not only for their actual communication, but also of doing so within the prescribed time limits. The Committee recalled that the ILO could offer technical assistance to contribute to the fulfilment of this obligation. In those circumstances, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the Governments of Cambodia, Congo, Denmark (Faeroe Islands), Iraq, Liberia, Saint Lucia, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom (St Helena) and Uzbekistan, that had not yet submitted reports on the application of ratified Conventions, would do so as soon as possible, and decided to mention these cases in the corresponding section of the General Report. ------------------ (c) Failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of ExpertsA Government representative of Comoros explained that, for the past ten years, her country had been experiencing difficulties, which had largely destabilized governmental institutions. At that time, those institutions were progressively being reestablished in accordance with law, and, thanks to the support of the ILO Office in Addis Ababa as regards training labour administration staff, the governmental services were undertaking to fulfil the standards-related obligations of Comoros. A Government representative of Congo indicated that the reports requested for 2006 and 2007 had already been prepared and were being submitted to the social partners. Concerning the response to the Committee of Experts' comments, Congo had received the relevant observations and direct requests from the Director of the ILO Office in Kinshasa on 8 May 2007. The Government undertook to submit the replies due before 1 September 2007. A Government representative of Djibouti stated that the reports expected had been prepared and submitted to the Office, but it appeared that they did not meet the Committee of Experts' expectations. The Government of Djibouti therefore undertook to review the reports and ensure that, in the future, they were submitted on time and met the Committee of Experts' expectations. A Government representative of France indicated that her Government regretted not having been able to supply the information requested from the Department of Martinique, in order to respond to the Committee of Experts' comments within the prescribed time limits. This was due to a lack of capacity, particularly concerning the officer in charge of Martinique, and to the significant number of reports on the application of ratified Conventions to be submitted to the ILO, including for the non-metropolitan territories. France was committed to its constitutional obligations and undertook to submit the reports due as soon as possible. A Government representative of Jordan expressed his surprise that the reports sent by his Government in 2006 had not been received by the ILO. Jordan had never failed to supply the reports requested. In the meantime, the Government had sent copies of the outstanding reports. In addition, the speaker informed the Committee that an agreement had been made with the ILO regarding training relevant officials. A Government representative of Kiribati recognized that the comments made by the Committee of Experts were of urgent importance. The harmonization of the legal and political situation with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 was ongoing. A Government representative of the Russian Federation stated that his Government was firmly committed to fulfilling its obligations in the context of the supervisory system. Efforts were being made to submit reports in a timely manner. The difficulties in replying to the Committee of Experts' comments were due to technical problems arising out of the recent restructuring of the government units responsible. All missing information would be provided to the ILO before 1 September 2007. A Government representative of San Marino explained that the failure to submit replies to most of the Committee of Experts' comments was linked to the delay accumulated by the Ministry of Labour, the competent body for the preparation of reports due to the Committee of Experts, over the last three years. He indicated, however, that new staff had assumed office in 2006 and were undertaking to eliminate the accumulated delay. The submission of the reports on Conventions Nos 29, 87, 105 and 160 - albeit past the deadline of 1 September 2006 - represented the first fruits of their work. Among those four reports, two also contained responses to the direct requests made by the Committee of Experts. He reiterated that the delay should not be construed as a lack of commitment by San Marino to the obligations of member States or to the supervision of international labour standards. The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor. The Committee emphasized the great importance, for the continuation of dialogue, of providing clear and full information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that this formed part of the constitutional obligation to supply reports. In this respect, the Committee expressed its great concern at the high number of cases of failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Committee recalled that governments could request ILO technical assistance to overcome any difficulties they might face in responding to the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee urged the Governments of Albania, Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, Comoros, Congo, Cyprus, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, France (Martinique), Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom (Anguilla, Montserrat, St Helena) and Uzbekistan to make every effort to provide the requested information as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report. |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |