A. Introduction

1. In accordance with article 7 of its Standing Orders, the Conference set up a Committee to consider and report on item III on its agenda: "Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations". The Committee was composed of 207 members (115 Government members, 20 Employers' members and 72 Workers' members). It also included nine Government deputy members, 51 Employers' deputy members and 103 Workers' deputy members (Endnote 1). In addition, two international non-governmental organizations were represented by observers.

2. The Committee elected its Officers as follows:

Chair: Mr. J.-J. Elmiger (Government member, Switzerland);

Vice-Chairs: Mr. A. Wisskirchen (Employers' member, Germany); and Mr. W. Peirens (Workers' member, Belgium);

Reporter: Ms. M. Daal-Vogelland (Government member, Suriname).

3. The Committee held 17 sittings.

4. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee considered the following: (i) information supplied under article 19 of the Constitution on the submission to the competent authorities of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference; (ii) reports supplied under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution on the application of ratified Conventions; and (iii) reports requested by the Governing Body under article 19 of the Constitution on the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) (Endnote 2).

5. As usual, the Committee began its work with a discussion of general aspects of the application of Conventions (particularly ratified Conventions) and Recommendations and the discharge by member States of standards-related obligations under the ILO Constitution. It then discussed the Special Survey made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on equality in employment and occupation. Following that, the Committee considered various individual cases relating to the application of ratified Conventions or compliance with the obligations to supply reports and to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities.

6. The examination of those cases, which is the essential work of the Committee, was based principally on the observations contained in the report of the Committee of Experts and the oral and written explanations provided by governments concerned. The Committee also referred to its discussions in previous years, comments received from employers' or workers' organizations and, where appropriate, the reports of other supervisory bodies of the ILO and other international organizations. In view of the short time available, the Committee made a selection among the Committee of Experts' observations and thus discussed a limited number of cases. The necessity of making this selection in no way affects the conclusion of the Committee of Experts in other cases. The Committee trusts that those governments will pay close attention to the requests of the Committee of Experts and will not fail to take the measures required to ensure fulfilment of the obligations they have undertaken. A summary of the information supplied by governments, the discussions in the present Committee and any conclusions it has drawn is set out in Part Two of this report. The Workers' members stated that they would wish, in principle, to consider including in the list of cases for discussion next year the following: Bangladesh (Convention No. 107), Indonesia (Convention No. 98), Japan (Convention No. 29), Morocco (Convention No. 98), Pakistan (Conventions Nos. 98 and 111), Romania (Convention No. 111) and Saudi Arabia (Convention No. 111). They hoped that positive reports from the governments in question concerning changes made would avoid the necessity of discussing those cases in fact next year.

B. General questions relating to international labour standards

Introduction

7. The Committee welcomed Sir William Douglas, who chairs the Committee of Experts. Sir William thanked the Committee, on behalf of the Committee of Experts, for the invitation once again extended to him to attend this session as an observer. He stated that he enjoyed the positive dialogue between the two bodies: a better understanding of their respective roles and complementarity could only be beneficial in reaching their common goals. He reminded the Committee of the heavy burden of work placed on the Committee of Experts by the great numbers of reports it had to examine. Having taken careful note of the general discussion, he referred in particular to the usefulness of the surveys under article 19 of the ILO Constitution. He wished the present Committee every success.

8. The Committee noted the indications of the representative of the Secretary-General that, under the new arrangements adopted by the Governing Body in November 1993, the Committee of Experts from now on meets in November-December rather than February-March. The main effect of this was to bring forward the date of publication of its report, so that all delegates to the Conference were able to receive it well in advance. In addition, there were savings as to costs from not having to send out advance copies of the report; and there was now a greater opportunity for the Office -- especially through the multidisciplinary teams -- to endeavour to help resolve difficulties with governments prior to the June Conference.

9. The Workers' members thanked the Chair of the Committee of Experts for having once again accepted the invitation to attend the work of the Conference Committee. The Committee of Experts had made brief reference in its report to the complementary role of the two supervisory bodies. The Workers' members were convinced that this complementarity lay behind the success of the supervisory system. Although it could hold discussions of a legal nature, the Conference Committee should not question the points of view of the Committee of Experts, whose composition and working methods guaranteed its impartiality in its assessment of national situations as they related to Conventions. The tripartite Committee had a role to play in transmitting the concerns and priorities of those most closely concerned. In this respect, while the earlier publication of the report of the Committee of Experts made it possible to prepare the work of the Conference more thoroughly, it was to be regretted that the shortening of the Conference and its organization deprived the Committee of two half-days of work. This prejudiced the work of the Committee and the complementarity of the two bodies and should be reconsidered. The Workers' members noted that there was a consensus in the Conference Committee on the excellent quality of the Committee of Experts' report and on the credibility of the supervisory machinery, as well as on the importance of standards. The cases of progress reported by the Committee of Experts showed that a supervisory system based on dialogue and collaboration had a real impact for workers and their families. The involvement of organizations of workers and employers, as well as the provision of technical assistance to support the action of the supervisory bodies, sometimes resulted in more progress than might have been expected. Nevertheless, the supervisory system could be strengthened still further in response to the frequently uncooperative attitude adopted by certain countries. In such cases, the social clause would have a role to play in reaffirming the system's credibility.

10. The Employers' members noted that, although the present Committee had to take into account new information every year, its task remained the same. In accordance with article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference, it was responsible for examining whether member States were discharging their obligations under the ILO Constitution, as well as the obligations they had assumed through the ratification of Conventions. The Committee had been carrying out this task for around 70 years. The Committee's role concerned legal issues, and it was for this reason that the comments contained in the report of the Committee of Experts were important. However, the Conference Committee needed to make its own evaluation and arrive at its own conclusions. Its task was not confined to repeating the work of the Committee of Experts. Although many of the cases brought before the Committee were emotionally and politically charged, its principal role was to encourage better implementation of the obligations of member States under the Constitution and ratified Conventions. The number of ILO member States had increased to 173 and membership of the Conference Committee was higher this year, although that might be more a question of duty than of desire to participate in its work. The Employers' members welcomed the fact that five women were members of the Committee of Experts, and that the report of the Committee of Experts had been published sufficiently early, following the bringing forward of its meeting to November-December 1995. In its report, the Committee of Experts emphasized the continuity of its work and took into account the discussions in the Conference Committee with regard to both general and more specific matters. In this context, the Employers' members welcomed the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of Experts had once again accepted the invitation to attend the work of the Conference Committee, thereby strengthening the links between two supervisory bodies.

11. Several members reaffirmed the principles of impartiality, independence and objectivity on which the Committee of Experts' work is founded. They also welcomed the early dispatch and receipt of the Committee of Experts' report, enabled by the bringing forward of its meeting. The Government member of Japan said that the role of international labour standards was crucial in improving the quality of life of workers around the world, and the supervisory system would achieve better results if it reflected and summarized a wide range of opinions both in the elaboration and in the application of standards. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic hoped that in future the Arabic version of the general part of the report would also be published earlier than it had this year.

Interpretation of Conventions

12. The Workers' member of the Netherlands agreed with the Workers' members that there should be no repetition of work between this Committee and the Committee of Experts, but instead their work should be complementary. The Committee of Experts was a legal body and a balance should be struck between a legal and a political approach. If this Committee were transformed into another legal body it would quibble with the Committee of Experts and an important part of the supervisory system would be lost.

13. In reaction, the Employers' members were of the view that interpretations made by the Committee of Experts concerning ILO Conventions are not legally binding as long as the International Court of Justice had not confirmed that view. In particular, they considered that the interpretation given by the Experts on the right to strike was far too detailed and excessive. They referred, for greater detail, to relevant documents which gave evidence of this.

14. The Workers' members recalled that their position in this respect was based on that of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts and they supported the Committee of Experts in this regard. The Workers' member of Germany pointed out that, according to article 37, paragraph 1, of the ILO Constitution, the International Court of Justice is responsible for interpreting standards and recalled that in earlier years a number of members of the ICJ were also members of the Committee of Experts; he believed that this overlap should be repeated as soon as possible.

15. The Government member of Germany noticed that, according to the Committee of Experts, national courts were increasingly having reference to ILO instruments: whilst this was interesting, it was a two-edged sword, since there was no guarantee that the national court's interpretation would be the same as that of the ILO's supervisory machinery on all points. The Workers' member of Germany considered the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association extremely important in this regard and saw in these comments a sound basis for uniform interpretation of standards, facilitated by the Office and the governments concerned, through, for instance, ensuring translations of texts of the ILO supervisory bodies and thus giving assistance to the national courts; article 19, paragraph 8, of the Constitution preserves any national provisions which provide superior protection for the workers.

Organization of the work of the Committee

16. The Government member of the United Kingdom thought that the effectiveness of the supervisory system would be increased if the focus was on serious cases involving human rights rather than technical issues.

17. Several Government members (Germany, Switzerland, the United States) suggested that examination of individual cases by the present Committee should be grouped by theme, such as freedom of association and forced labour, in order to provide a better focus of the Committee's concerns.

18. The Government member of the United States stressed that this should not compromise the manner in which the Committee selected cases or formulated its conclusions. She said that the most important element of the Committee's work was the examination of individual cases and, in the light of the condensed schedule of the Conference, she proposed that the Committee spend more time on the examination of cases, reducing the time allotted to the general discussion. She did not believe that the Committee should discuss only the most grievous violations of human rights Conventions, since it was established to look at all kinds of important cases. The Committee's report should never be turned into a blacklist. More attention should focus on countries that continually failed either to file reports on ratified Conventions or to respond to the comments of the Committee of Experts.

19. The Government member of France found the general discussion very important to the Committee, enabling as it does the representatives of the three groups to express freely their views on the present situation. He opposed shortening it.

20. The Workers' member of Argentina was concerned that the shortening of the time available for discussions in the Committee would mean that not all the most important cases could be examined. The Workers' member of the Netherlands noted a paradox in that the report of the Committee of Experts was received well in advance for thorough preparation before the Conference, but there was not enough time to consume all the fruits of such advance preparation, because of the constraints imposed by the Governing Body. This Committee tended to concentrate on gross violations of human rights. However, it was not a tribunal and the workers did not want to work under such limited time. Thus, this Committee would not be able to discuss the application of technical Conventions or those relating to employment policy, tripartite consultation or indigenous peoples. Even though the general discussion was so valuable, especially for newcomers to the Committee, to enable due attention to be given to individual cases, he suggested limiting it to the statements of the Employers' and Workers' groups and speakers on behalf of different groups of governments. Other members could submit written contributions for inclusion in the report. There was consensus in the UN system, he said, that the work of the ILO supervisory bodies was superior to that of other UN bodies.

21. The Employers' members felt that it would not be correct to focus exclusively on the seven fundamental Conventions, as had been suggested by other speakers on many occasions. To illustrate this point, they referred to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81). If the supervision of the application of this Convention did not continue, then the relevant reports would no longer be prepared in member States, or at least no longer sent to the ILO. However, those reports acted as a basis for evaluating many aspects of working conditions in those member States. Those reports also assisted the supervisory machinery in evaluating the observance or non-observance of other Conventions in those States. As a result, the Committee had to continue to focus on Conventions other than the seven fundamental ones. There was one other proposal in particular which suggested that discussions in the Committee should be grouped according to particular areas of concern. However, nobody had indicated what particular improvements could be derived from this new procedure. They should be clearly explained before a decision could be taken.

22. The Workers' members did not agree with proposals to limit the discussions to the most serious cases of violations of the fundamental Conventions, or group individual cases and have discussions by theme. The present Committee should not be transformed into a tribunal discussing only very serious problems of application. The tripartite Committee should also discuss problems and cases of progress in the application of technical Conventions. As for shortening the examination of the General Survey or the general discussion, one should not be hasty. They rather wished to evaluate the functioning of the newly established system.

23. The Government member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) thought that more specific criteria could be established for selecting cases to be discussed in the Committee, in order to make the process more transparent and focus better on the most flagrant violations. The Government member of Cuba also wished those criteria to be revised.

24. While the Employers' members had a great deal of understanding for these concerns, they stated that nobody had actually indicated what criteria should in fact be applied. As a result, this proposal was not feasible in practice. The Workers' members recalled the criteria and spirit which determined the choice of individual cases to be discussed, stressing that this choice was not based on abstract criteria but rather on the need to maintain a constructive dialogue between the three groups.

25. The Government member of Switzerland proposed that the Committee's Reporter should be elected at an earlier stage in the proceedings, so as to be able to give the best possible account of the general discussion to the Conference plenary. The Reporter was in fact elected at the beginning of the Committee's third sitting.

Representations procedure under article 24 of the Constitution

26. The Employers' members noted that the report of the Committee of Experts, as in other years, contained information on the whole range of procedures that existed within the supervisory system, and which were widely used. In particular, as reported by the representative of the Secretary-General, there had been an increase in the use of constitutional complaint and representation procedures. Where previously only two or three representations under article 24 of the Constitution had been made every year, there had been 25 since 1994.

27. The Government member of the United Kingdom expressed concern at the unprecedented increase in the number of article 24 representations in recent years. This was either because article 22 procedures were being overlooked or because some constituents were circumventing those procedures, having lost faith in them. The first recourse concerning the application of a ratified Convention should always be to reporting under article 22. Article 24 procedures were only to be used in exceptional circumstances. There should perhaps be criteria for the article 24 procedure so that it could only be used when all other channels had failed to produce a result. It should also be limited to the fundamental Conventions. The Government member of France, too, considered frequent recourse to article 24 disturbing, given that the normal procedure for the social partners to make observations functioned as always: it banalized a procedure which should remain exceptional and consumed much of the work-time of the secretariat.

28. The Workers' members did not consider that the increasing number of representations under article 24 of the Constitution justified the imposition of special conditions in order to have recourse to this procedure.

Fulfilment of reporting obligations

29. The Committee was reminded that, under the procedure approved by the Governing Body in November 1993, 1995 was a transitional year in which regular reports were requested only on five priority Conventions: the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). Other detailed reports were requested, as they would continue to be, where they were first reports or deferred ones, where procedures under articles 24 or 26 of the Constitution or in the Committee on Freedom of Association had come to a conclusion, where there were comments of employers' or workers' organizations, or when a report previously due had not been supplied. In future, except for the priority Conventions (the other five being Nos. 29, 87, 100, 122 and 129), for which reporting would otherwise be two-yearly, reporting would be in summary form every five years. The Governing Body had decided that the operation of the new reporting procedure would be reviewed after the first five years.

30. The Workers' members noted that the adjustments in the supervisory system were now fully operational. It should be recalled that they were not designed to weaken the procedure, but to make it easier for governments to discharge their obligations. However, the statistics on the number of reports requested and received did not show any decisive progress. Governments should therefore be urged to take advantage of the new facilities and encouraged fully to discharge their reporting obligations and collaborate with the supervisory bodies. The fall in the number of comments received this year from organizations of employers and workers was probably due to the earlier date for the submission of reports. It should not be interpreted as indicating a decrease in the number of problems in the application of standards. Analysis of the report of the Committee of Experts tended to show that the changes had not weakened the supervisory system. Indeed, although detailed reports had only been requested on five Conventions, the number of comments was almost identical to the previous year. Reports requested outside the reporting cycle by the Committee of Experts or the Conference Committee would appear to take on greater importance in this context. Emphasis also had to be placed on the importance of tripartite consultations in the discharge of all constitutional obligations.

31. The Employers' members noted that the Committee of Experts had examined fewer reports than the previous year, having received 1,252 as compared with 2,290 for their previous meeting, although the resulting report was as extensive as before. The supervisory bodies were still going through a period of transition in their working procedures. The changes constituted an improvement in the supervisory system. They were evolutionary rather than revolutionary, but it was as yet too early for their effectiveness to be evaluated.

32. Several members remarked that governments' communication of reports in due time was essential to the supervisory process. The Government member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) observed that first reports and reports on Conventions where there were serious or continuing discrepancies were particularly important, as they had to be examined in greater depth. The Government member of Kenya drew attention to the high number of observations sent to the Office by either employers' or workers' organizations and the useful role this played in assisting the Committee of Experts in their investigations.

33. The Government member of Spain expressed concern over the increase in reports as a consequence of the comments submitted by employers' and workers' organizations. The fact that Spain had ratified many Conventions allowed the submission of numerous comments. This was reflected in observations of the Committee of Experts, so that the Government was required to submit additional detailed reports, in many cases annually. The Conventions concerned dealt with social policy and other subjects on which it was difficult to report any new information year after year. His Government was not opposed to these comments, which were essential for a full understanding of the national application of international Conventions. But, as the Committee of Experts pointed out in its report in paragraphs 81 and 102-104, the issues raised by the social partners pertained to the application of Conventions in practice. With regard to Spain's internal standards, perhaps many of the comments submitted should be the subject of a direct request and not an observation, which implied a grave violation of the Convention.

Sanctions in national law

34. Several members referred to paragraph 114 of the Committee of Experts' report concerning the establishment of effective sanctions exerting an influence against non-observance of the obligations contained in Conventions. The Government member of Uruguay agreed that all legal instruments should envisage sanctions, so as to prevent their being considered merely moral standards. The Government member of Germany considered that the ILO Constitution included no such requirement: where Conventions specifically required financial sanctions, the Committee of Experts' demand that there be adjustment for inflation was justified, although the conclusion that all violations of all Conventions must be made subject to sanctions was unacceptable.

35. The Workers' member of Germany called for a specific statement as to how to achieve the effective application of ILO standards. The Committee of Experts was not alone in its approach to sanctions as a means for ensuring the effective implementation of international labour standards: for instance, in the implementation of labour law provisions in national law, the European Court of Justice had obliged member States to ensure that effective and dissuasive sanctions were provided for, even in cases in which the standards in question did not necessarily contain any specific sanctions.

36. The Employers' members were of the view that sanctions were possible only when provided for expressly in a Convention, which was seldom the case. The system of sanctions was typically a national matter and consequently it was handled differently by each country. Thus, the request by the Committee of Experts for an indication of measures taken to examine the need to adapt monetary penalties in the light of inflation and currency fluctuations had no legal basis. The Employers' members deplored the fact that the Experts had never responded to their well-founded arguments on this issue. Although the European Court of Justice had adopted a similar stance to that of the Committee of Experts, the Employers' members stressed that there was a big difference between ILO standards and European Union law. ILO standards consisted of international law which was only binding on member States after ratification. However, as members of the European Union had devolved part of their sovereignty to the Union, the latter's legal instruments were automatically valid within each individual State as domestic law. It was on this legal basis that the European Court of Justice had taken the above-mentioned decision.

Strengthening of the supervisory procedures

37. The Employers' members felt that it would be a mistake to introduce new procedures. For example, the special procedures pertaining to freedom of association should not be extended to other Conventions since, apart from limited financial and manpower resources, the Employers' members had substantive objections in this regard. What was especially important was the future of ILO standard-setting activities. These activities had become more detailed and innovative but it was important to concentrate on the essential. There was no need for any new standard-setting machinery. The fact that many Conventions were obsolete, because they were ratified by so few countries or were not taken into account in practice, also had the effect of overburdening the supervisory bodies.

38. The Workers' members considered that ILO supervisory procedures needed to be strengthened. The work of the Governing Body Working Party on the Revision of Standards was part of this process, in the same way as the Special Surveys of unratified basic Conventions. The Workers' members also supported the suggestion made by the Committee of Experts to establish a complaints procedure for the Conventions concerning forced labour and discrimination similar to the mechanism for freedom of association. They hoped that the Governing Body would be able to approve such a procedure in November and deplored the outright rejection by the Employers' members of this proposal. The Workers' member of Canada expressed regret that governments should reject the idea without engaging in a study of it first, with a view to discussion in the Working Party.

39. The Government member of Germany was opposed to any extension of the present freedom of association procedure to other Conventions. The Government member of the Russian Federation said that the new challenges facing the supervisory machinery and standard-setting activities of the ILO -- the end of the cold war and of the confrontation of two social and political systems, globalization of the economy, migration of the labour force and the ILO's financial crisis -- underlined the need for strong supervisory machinery, which, alongside improving standard-setting activities and the revision of Conventions, should itself be improved. The international community was already realizing that it would be necessary to adopt measures -- including possible new special procedures -- in the field of forced labour and child labour in the near future. In continuing the standard-setting activities, more thought should be given to how they could be improved because of the new challenges, and to adjusting accordingly the relevant activities undertaken in the Governing Body. This was linked to the question of technical assistance.

Ratifications

40. The Workers' members considered the number of new ratifications registered and the ratification prospects (thanks to the Director-General's campaign) encouraging. The increase over the past three years in the annual number of ratifications was a real indication of the support of member States and organizations of workers and employers for the ILO's principles and values. Nevertheless, there was still a considerable difference in the rate of ratifications in the various regions of the world.

41. The Employers' members noted that many of the new ratifications were a result of the emergence of new States, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, and particularly following the dissolution of other countries. As with all other countries, the governments of such new States were free to decide upon the Conventions that they wished to ratify.

42. The Government member of France thought there was a stagnation in the number of ratifications. However, the Government member of Kenya thought the number high and a testimony to the popularity of international labour standards.

43. The Government member of Namibia and the Workers' member of Colombia pointed out that the number of ratifications was not always followed through with due implementation of the Conventions. Without practical observance, ratification was a mockery.

Submission to the competent authorities

44. The Committee was informed that the number of cases of failure to submit the instruments adopted by the Conference to the competent authorities over a period of five years had decreased from 30 in 1995 to 20 in 1996. The Committee noted that the multidisciplinary teams, together with the International Labour Standards Department, had been actively involved in collaboration with member States in order to facilitate the fulfilment of the submission obligation.

45. As regards reporting in particular on submission to the competent authorities under article 19 of the Constitution, the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts concerning persistent problems of submission was shared by the Workers' members. Noting that many governments did not always fulfil their constitutional obligations, the Workers' members feared that the failure to submit reports to the supervisory bodies would affect the credibility of the supervisory system itself.

46. The Workers' member of Uruguay expressed his organization's concern at his country's situation in the light of paragraph 120 of the Committee of Experts' report: his country's procedure prevented the legislature from considering and possibly deciding in favour of ratifying a Convention, where the executive had transmitted it without an opinion favouring ratification or without any opinion at all, and this was unacceptable because it violated the ILO Constitution. The Government member of Uruguay stated that that procedure had operated for almost 70 years without being questioned: the executive and the legislature jealously guarded their prerogatives in a democratic system, whilst also discharging their obligations under the ILO Constitution, but they would in any event await the Committee of Experts' examination of the matter.

47. The Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran said that, as membership of parliaments changed over the years, governments should each year draw their attention to both new and older international labour standards; further, the ILO could write to parliaments every four years or so, to provide them with information on the ILO and its standards. The Government member of Kenya observed that the majority of countries with submission difficulties were developing ones in need of the Office's technical assistance.

Standard-setting policy and revision of standards

48. The Workers' members stated that the Governing Body discussions on the revision of standards had been constructive. In March 1996, the Governing Body had decided 25 Conventions would be shelved and 27 others would be examined subsequently. A draft constitutional amendment to permit the abrogation of standards was under consideration. It should be recalled that the revision or shelving of a Convention required the existence of consensus between the groups. Revision should also be based on an in-depth and practical analysis and should not be used to weaken or abolish workers' protection. The shelving, abrogation or replacement of a Convention by a new instrument should be accompanied by the ratification of revised Conventions. The Workers' members also welcomed the fact that the basic and priority Conventions had been excluded from the revision process and that their principles and objectives had therefore been confirmed. It was essential to take steps to supplement rather than revise basic instruments such as Conventions Nos. 111 and 138.

49. The Employers' members considered the standard-setting activities of the ILO of fundamental importance. They believed that it was not possible to continue producing more Conventions and Recommendations every year as had been done over the past 75 years. As a result of this exercise, there were many Conventions that were obsolete for all practical purposes, due to their having been ratified by only a few countries or simply because they were not taken into account in practice. This had also led to the supervisory machinery being overburdened. Eventually, it could lead to a situation where the activities of the Organization would lose all credibility. Thus, even if current procedures could not be reversed, the flood of standards had to be stopped. Fortunately, this process had already been started due to the work done in the Governing Body. This essential development would improve the supervisory machinery by making it more streamlined.

50. The Government member of France, who has chaired the Working Party on the Revision of Standards, derived satisfaction from the adoption by the Governing Body of measures, first, excluding from revision the basic human rights Conventions (Nos. 29 and 105 on forced labour, 87 and 98 on freedom of association, and 100 and 111 on equal opportunities) and the other four priority Conventions (Nos. 81 and 129 on labour inspection, 144 on tripartite consultations and 122 on employment policy). Second, 25 Conventions had been set aside and in the future the Office would take them into account as little as possible. Third, eight Conventions had been proposed for abrogation. Fourth, the consideration of a constitutional reform to establish a mechanism to derogate obsolete Conventions was also remarkable.

51. Several members (the Government members of Finland -- speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries -- the United States and Uruguay and the Workers' member of Canada) welcomed the establishment of the Working Party on the Revision of Standards and the systematic, constructive and consensual atmosphere in which it had addressed the task of ensuring a body of modern, relevant standards. The Government member of Cuba said that developing countries could support the process of revision and consolidation, so long as the level of protection afforded to workers was not diminished, with greater participation in this process so that standards more adequately reflect the realities and possibilities of practical application in those countries. The Workers' member of Canada, as well as the Workers' members of Germany and Zaire, also emphasized that standards should not be weakened: he recalled that the work of the Working Party formed part of a process of regeneration and strengthening of standards, together with the development of new standards, the promotion of human rights and the reinforcement of the supervisory system.

52. As regards future standard setting, the Government members of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), Kenya and Uruguay stressed the need for flexibility, with a view to facilitating the widest possible ratification, including by developing countries. The last of these said that standards must be flexible but not imprecise or lacking in a minimum content which might be directly applied.

Technical assistance and the role of the International Labour Office

53. The Committee was reminded of the role of the International Labour Standards Department and multidisciplinary teams (where there were standards specialists) in assisting governments to fulfil their standards-related obligations under the Constitution, and in giving information and support to employers' and workers' organizations. Several members expressed their appreciation for the work of the International Labour Standards Department. The new version of the Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and Recommendations was particularly welcomed. Several members laid special emphasis on freedom of association standards. The Government member of Belgium welcomed the publication of a revised Digest of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Workers' members of Argentina and Zaire referred to the importance of ILO assistance in helping to overcome difficulties at the national level in the ratification and implementation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Workers' member of Zaire reiterated the request made last year for consideration of possible tripartite technical assistance, so as to encourage the ratification and application of Convention No. 87 by Zaire. The Workers' member of Argentina stressed the large number of cases before the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association: full support from the Office was essential for this work, which meant that there must be appropriate finance for the necessary technical assistance and advisory services, in order to ensure compliance with the ILO's principles on freedom of association.

54. The Government member of Germany believed that the Standards Department should be in a special position and could not be subjected to any cuts in personnel, as every new ratification meant a new set of reports and more work.

55. The Workers' members observed that technical assistance was an important instrument for the application of standards and both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee frequently proposed that it should be provided in individual cases. However, it was also necessary to guard against countries using technical assistance to prevent the normal functioning of the supervisory bodies. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, multidisciplinary advisory teams (MDTs) were an important part of the ILO's presence in the field. However, six of the teams still did not have standards specialists. MDTs should also assist workers' organizations, and not only governments. Particular emphasis should be placed on coherence between the assistance provided by the World Bank and the IMF on the one hand, and the ILO on the other.

56. The Employers' members said they had often expressed their support for the ILO's work in respect of occupational safety and health in particular. The more practical this work, the more valuable it would be. In future reports, it might be possible to go into a little more detail, with more attention given to practical experience and the MDTs. This process could even be useful in future standard-setting activities.

57. The Government members of Kenya and the Russian Federation and the Workers' member of Pakistan also drew attention to the need for all MDTs to include a standards specialist. The Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran recalled the need for MDTs to provide assistance also to employers' and workers' organizations. The Government member of the Russian Federation pointed to the need to involve standards consideration when technical assistance is given in regard to different countries' problems respecting, for example, employment policy.

58. The Government member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) advocated greater exploration of the relationship between standards and technical cooperation in order to eliminate obstacles to ratification and implementation of standards. The Government member of the Russian Federation thought there should be a stronger link between the granting of technical assistance and the observance of ILO standards, without which there was almost no point in giving technical assistance. At the same time, the Government member of Lebanon opposed any attempt to make technical assistance conditional on observance of ILO Conventions, as this would prevent States from improving working conditions and opportunities. The Government member of Kenya noted that in most developing countries infringement of standards is due to socio-economic and financial difficulties rather than deliberate intention; technical cooperation should not be conditional so long as it was consistent with ILO objectives. The Government member of China considered that the solutions to problems raised by the Committee of Experts depended not only on States' efforts but also on ILO assistance, in the form of positive, promotional measures based on States' actual needs, rather than merely criticism.

59. Several members (the Government members of Finland -- speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries -- The Gambia, Namibia and Portugal) spoke of the usefulness of technical assistance as a means of enabling governments to fulfil their standards-related obligations and promoting ratification and implementation especially of the basic human rights and other priority Conventions. The Government member of the United States observed that sometimes countries received technical assistance to draft or amend labour legislation in the light of international labour standards, but later the Committee of Experts found with regret that the laws had not been adopted; she recommended that the Committee should follow the results of technical assistance more closely.

60. Several members (the Government members of Cuba, Ghana, Kenya and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Workers' members of Pakistan and Zaire) described the positive results to be achieved from holding standards seminars and workshops, whether tripartite or for the separate groups, and they hoped that these would continue.

Ratification and promotion of the basic human rights Conventions

61. The Workers' members referred to the interesting developments with regard to international labour standards since the previous session and since the World Summit for Social Development. The renewed interest in standards had taken the form of initiatives to promote their ratification and implementation. There were nevertheless frequently considerable gulfs between the ratification of Conventions, their implementation in law and their application in practice. This was illustrated by the very high number of cases submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association and the unprecedented number of article 24 representations. At the same time, governments which ratified few or no Conventions avoided most of their constitutional obligations. Some did not even apply the constitutional principles of freedom of association and the prohibition of discrimination, as in the case of the country that was presiding over the Conference this year. Among recent measures and trends, emphasis needed to be given to the positive impact of the Copenhagen Declaration and the great importance it gave to respect for international labour standards in the achievement of social protection and the defence of human rights, as well as to the objective of full, productive and freely chosen employment. The Declaration had given rise to a commitment to promote priority Conventions covering the prohibition of forced and child labour, freedom of association and collective bargaining and the principle of non-discrimination. The Director-General's initiative of calling upon each member State to promote the ratification of the seven basic Conventions took on special importance in this context. It had resulted in 12 new ratifications, as well as 30 commitments by States to ratify Conventions. Furthermore, each of the countries which had not yet ratified all seven Conventions had been requested to indicate the reasons preventing them from doing so. The Governing Body reports on this subject provided useful information on the attitude of certain governments towards standards. Governments which sometimes criticized standards on the grounds that they were too rigid lost sight of the fact that many standards setting fundamental objectives were of a promotional nature and frequently embodied flexibility clauses. It also had to emphasize that flexibility in the application of a Convention was only possible if the Convention contained a flexibility clause relating to a precise point. The Workers' members would continue to follow the outcome of this campaign for ratification with close interest. They also emphasized that the ratification of basic Conventions was only a stage in the ratification and application of other important Conventions in fields of social policy such as social security, working conditions and occupational safety and health.

62. The Employers' members welcomed the efforts made by the Office to call upon member States which had not yet done so to ratify basic human rights Conventions. The Governing Body regularly called for reports from States which had not ratified those Conventions, for example through Special Surveys, such as the Survey on Convention No. 111, which the Committee would be examining this year. Indeed, this subject was referred to in a number of paragraphs of the report of the Committee of Experts. All these efforts to draw attention to the basic Conventions served to illustrate the difficulties in their application and how they might be overcome. Although ratification of these standards was very welcome, the most important issue was their application in practice, which was the objective of the Committee's work. What was at issue was the situation in the world of work and in industrial relations, rather than the mere collection of information for storage in libraries. In this connection, the Employers' members noted that efforts to promote the ratification and the application of Conventions would be more successful if the obligations set out in the instruments were simple and transparent. Unfortunately, this was not always the case. When engaging in standard-setting activities, it was important to start from clear and simple principles and to leave aside details of secondary importance. It therefore followed that Special and General Surveys should not be too detailed, or they would broaden and extend the obligations deriving from the standards concerned. The Employers' members cited by way of illustration the General Survey on the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which had included the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association. A number of the concepts that had been developed were no longer closely derived from the texts of the instruments concerned. This trend had been the subject of comments by the Employers' members in the past, and they would undoubtedly return to it in the future if necessary. They recommended that the issue of the interpretation of standards should be subject to thorough reconsideration, particularly in the context of promoting the further ratification of the basic Conventions.

63. Many members of the Committee praised the campaign for ratification of the basic human rights Conventions launched by the Director-General in the wake of the Copenhagen Summit. The Committee noted that the Working Party on the Revision of Standards in the Governing Body decided to exclude from its consideration the six basic human rights Conventions. It also noted the relationship to the process of democratization and the widely held view that the ILO was, because of its tripartite structure, uniquely placed to ensure that the necessary priority is given to workers' basic human rights.

64. The Government member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) thought the promotion process should be continually updated. The Government member of the United Kingdom said it might be useful to make a special General Survey on all the fundamental Conventions, so as to identify their core provisions. The Government member of the United States supported the wide range of ILO activities aimed at the promotion of human rights standards, but stated that universal application of these standards was more important than the sheer number of ratifications.

65. The Government member of Namibia pointed to the many obstacles to guaranteeing human rights, especially in developing countries, in terms of insufficient human, material and financial resources. There must be adequate cooperation in the field of labour administration and macroeconomic strategy in order to translate the human rights into real life. The Workers' member of Argentina hoped the ILO would continue to promote Convention No. 169 concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in collaboration with other international organizations.

66. The Committee noted the inclusion of the child labour issue in the discussion of basic human rights. The Government member of the United States agreed that the protection of children from exploitative and dangerous forms of labour should form part of the core standards. The Government member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) and the Workers' member of Argentina drew particular attention to the sexual abuse of children through prostitution and pornography, which should be the object of determined action in the ILO. The Workers' member of Italy raised the importance of ILO cooperation with UNICEF and mentioned the tripartite cooperation in his country, involving simultaneous donations by workers and companies as a participation in an ILO/UNICEF project in Bangladesh and Nepal. The Workers' member of Japan also admired the ILO's activities for the protection of children; and the Government member of France referred to the prospect that, in counterpoint to IPEC activities, the Conference would soon consider the adoption of a new Convention on the issue.

International labour standards and the social dimension of globalization

67. The Workers' members noted that the social dimension of the liberalization of international trade had major implications for the whole of the ILO's standard-setting system. The development of international trade and the integration of economies required a strengthening of the effectiveness of international labour law. It was essential for governments to include the issue of the application of international labour standards on the agenda of the Singapore Conference of the World Trade Organization. Respect for international labour law permitted a better distribution of the benefits of economic growth and in so doing contributed to stimulating international trade. It was in the common interest of governments, workers and employers to adopt a concerted approach to banish protectionism.

68. The Workers' members confirmed their support for the introduction of promotional social clauses and a social clause that provided for sanctions in cases where all other means of dialogue had failed. This would not lead to protectionism but rather strengthen the ILO's supervisory machinery and encourage countries to develop a coherent social policy. In order to become operational, these social clauses would require the collaboration of all institutions with the capacity to study the impact on labour law of the liberalization of trade. Countries that respected standards and committed themselves to improving their application should be encouraged, but the World Bank, the IMF and other organizations should refuse assistance to countries which did not respect basic standards.

69. The Workers' members noted that the ILO should be provided with a level of financing that was commensurate with the recognized importance of standards in a globalized economy. The globalization of the economy made it all the more necessary to collaborate closely with other international organizations to strengthen the application of standards. The ILO had much to offer in this respect in view of its competence and tripartite structure, as it had shown in the follow-up to the Copenhagen Summit. The ILO also had an important role to play in the follow-up to the World Conference on Women held in Beijing in September 1995. Support should be provided to the ILO's efforts to strengthen its collaboration with the United Nations, particularly with a view to promoting ILO Conventions on indigenous and tribal peoples.

70. The Employers' members said that, in view of the fact that the world was becoming increasingly globalized, it was valuable to look at what was happening elsewhere, such as the conclusion of international and regional agreements and instruments. Those instruments sometimes served the objectives to which the ILO had subscribed since its foundation. It was therefore logical for the ILO to increase its exchanges and collaboration with the relevant organizations, particularly with regard to matters relating to basic human rights. However, the Employers' members had major doubts as to the usefulness of the social clause. As previously pointed out, this would be a new instrument for protectionism and free trade would consequently be greatly diminished.

71. The Government member of Egypt said that the ILO should give priority to standard-setting activities and not to international trade, which was not within its mandate. The Government member of Kenya did not support the linkage of observance of international labour standards to international trade agreements, since it would adversely affect employment opportunities.

72. The Workers' member of Zimbabwe noted the marginalization of Africa in a global economy characterized by increasing mobility of multinational investment, worldwide competition for cheap labour, and rising unemployment. There was intense competition among the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa to attract multinationals, with each offering foreign companies a number of incentives, one of which was cheap labour. This scramble for investment placed countries in a spiral, sacrificing wages, social security and the rights which workers had gained after a century of struggle. Globalization had also become a way for companies to avoid social security regulations and paying taxes, and to keep away from the keen eye of unions by setting up in export processing zones where labour laws were not permitted. Since its very beginnings, capitalism had pitted workers against each other to create pressure on wages. Perhaps globalization could produce benefits for all workers, creating jobs, increasing production and improving living and working conditions, but this could only be achieved through a social clause in international trade agreements to protect workers' rights from the consequences of the globalization of trade and the growth of multinationals, based on the ILO's core labour standards and its supervisory system.

73. The Workers' member of Uruguay said that globalization of the economy had to be accompanied by worldwide pressure for the global acceptance of international labour standards. This required the adoption of a more honest attitude to the ILO and a reaffirmation of the trust that had been placed in the Organization.

74. Several members spoke in this context of cooperation between the ILO and other international organizations. The Government member of Germany found that, while within the ILO standard-setting activities were a matter of almost ideological conflict among certain parties, outside interest in them was growing, as reflected in the social dimension of the globalization of world trade (a new term for the social clause) dealt with in other organizations. The recent study made by the OECD seemed extremely impressed by the ILO's machinery in respect of freedom of association, although, in his view, the procedures in the present Committee also merited attention. The Workers' member of the Netherlands pleaded for special efforts to be made as regards the cooperation between the ILO and UN bodies dealing with human rights, which could and should be considerably improved.

75. The Workers' member of Italy thought the ILO should contribute the social dimension to the current economic globalization, in which national powers were unable to manage the intense competition and economic and political decisions were taken transnationally. All the institutions of the United Nations system dealing with questions of union rights and fundamental human rights referred to in the Copenhagen Summit should coordinate their efforts, and the ILO should perform on the political as well as the technical level. The Workers' member of Netherlands welcomed IMF and World Bank recognition of the importance of social aspects, but their reports were often of poor quality and lacked understanding of the problems, because they were prepared by external consultants. The IMF and the World Bank should instead call on the ILO for relevant information and take into account the outspoken authority of the ILO in social matters. The Workers' member of Senegal observed that the policy and the behaviour of the international financial institutions vis-à-vis developing countries have reduced their willingness to ratify and apply international Conventions and Recommendations. By making investments conditional upon the slow down or even suppression of social progress, the World Bank and the IMF are encouraging developing countries to violate ratified international Conventions; even when ratifying important Conventions like those concerning child labour, forced labour and the freedom of association, the developing countries are faced with the competitiveness of other countries whose economic results are gained by taking advantage of systematic violation of international Conventions and fundamental freedoms.

Standards and European regional organizations

76. The Workers' members welcomed the ILO's collaboration with the Council of Europe to supervise the application of the European Social Charter. It was to be hoped that the revised Social Charter and the additional Protocol would come into force as soon as possible. With regard to the ILO's relations with the European Union, as noted by the Committee of Experts, the Economic and Social Council had in its important opinion of 17 January 1995 emphasized the importance of respecting the principle of tripartism and the need for member States to ratify Conventions. It was the responsibility of member States in cooperation with the Union's institutions to take into account their commitments to the ILO in their relations with other European Union institutions, particularly regarding the ratification of Conventions on occupational safety and health.

77. The Government member of Belgium stated that the Committee of Experts asked the Member States of the Union not to forsake their obligations vis-à-vis the ILO within Union bodies when these are called upon to decide on the ratification of a Convention. However, as several States had submitted instruments to the competent authorities of the Union today, they could expect the Union to consider procedures to encourage ratification.

78. The Government member of Romania said her country had signed an association agreement with the European Union and, with a view to membership of the Union, it was bringing its legislation into line with that of the Union. In view of the complementarity of the ILO's standards, the supervisory procedure was a very useful exercise for member States that were associated with the European Union.

79. The Workers' member of Germany was glad of the support of the International Labour Standards Department of the ILO for the revision of the European Social Charter and Protocol. The newly revised Social Charter adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe referred extensively to ILO standards and procedures. The revised Social Charter had now been signed by nine States and he hoped the revised European Social Charter and the additional Protocol providing for a complaints procedure would be ratified as soon as possible by all countries concerned.

Questions concerning the application of particular Conventions

Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

80. The Workers' members noted that the Committee of Experts had dwelt at length on the serious problems encountered in the application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and had made some very important comments in this regard. The Workers' members welcomed both the general and the individual comments of the Committee of Experts and particularly regretted that time constraints would probably preclude discussion of individual cases on Convention No. 122. It had been classified as a priority Convention which would not be revised and its fundamental importance had been further emphasized by a resolution adopted by the Fifth European Regional Conference, held in Warsaw in September 1995. The Copenhagen Declaration had also supported the objective of full, productive and freely chosen employment, which was central to the Convention. The Committee of Experts had drawn attention to the need to promote employment in a manner that was compatible with the protection of the rights of workers, such as temporary or part-time workers. Not only did deregulation as it was frequently applied for example in export processing zones fail to create employment, but it destabilized individuals and societies. Indeed, the Committee of Experts believed that it had perceived a renewal of interest among governments in the objective of full employment. Sadly, that objective was not reflected in the macroeconomic policies adopted at the national and international levels. Governments tended to rely on simple labour market policy measures which could only be effective in the broader context of a policy of full employment. The emphasis placed on labour market policy measures should not, however, weaken the important strategic objective of social protection. A high level of unemployment and underemployment threatened social security systems and brought with it the risk of social marginalization. The Workers' members did not agree with the views of the Employers' members that new forms of employment contracts (temporary, part-time) were not precarious and that they did not exclude the workers concerned from the protection offered by labour legislation. The social status and protection of part-time and casual workers should be further enhanced, so that they might make a truly free choice as to such forms of work.

81. The Employers' members believed that their observations with regard to the interpretation of ILO instruments should apply all the more to promotional Conventions, and particularly Convention No. 122. The general principles set out in the Convention should not be taken as a basis for the development of more detailed concepts. Nobody denied in this context that most countries were experiencing problems related to long-term unemployment, as stated in paragraph 50 of the report of the Committee of Experts. However, the Employers' members did not agree with all of the comments made by the Committee of Experts in this respect, particularly with regard to part-time employment and employment for a limited duration. They noted that in some major countries the demand for part-time jobs was higher than their availability. Indeed, a good number of women were having to accept full-time work even though they would prefer to work part-time. Nor did they subscribe to the comments of the Committee of Experts that the unemployment rate failed adequately to describe the changing employment market. Workers with a fixed-term contract of employment were in employment in the same way as other workers. Limitations on contracts of employment would become more common in the future and it was necessary to adapt to the situation and welcome the possibilities that it offered. Although the Experts had not, in the present report, described these new forms of employment as precarious, they did not yet seem ready to view these trends in a positive manner and incorporate the consequences into their future reflections.

82. The Employers' members noted with regret the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in paragraph 51 of its report, where it stated that the growth of the private sector had not made up for the loss of jobs in the state sector. It had to be recognized that the situation in the state sector had involved the massive over-recruitment of staff, who had been underemployed as a result. The blame could not be placed on the private sector. Furthermore, while the paragraph referred to countries with a high unemployment rate, it did not mention the case of the Czech Republic, where unemployment had recently fallen below 3 per cent. Paragraph 52 referred to the improvement in the employment situation in Latin American countries. The progress that was beginning to be made was due to the efforts in many of those countries to introduce market economy structures. However, the employment situation was still extremely difficult in Africa. A high level of unemployment resulted in social costs and other types of problems and no government would therefore miss the chance to take action to combat unemployment. It was doubtful whether the rather dramatic comments by the Committee of Experts in this connection concerning the threat to social cohesion served any real purpose. It was not surprising that employment policies gave disappointing results when they concentrated on reaffirming the right to work or to employment. This principle was not conducive to the creation of jobs. In countries with a market economy, competitive jobs had to be created and maintained in the private sector. The State, through its employment policy, could only establish conducive conditions for the generation of employment. Too much involvement by the State was counter-productive. Employers had to adapt to the wishes of their clients and those enterprises that wished to survive would be those that adapted to the new rules most rapidly. National and international legislation was not capable of such adaptation. Employment policy had to be part of an overall policy. An over-reaching or unilateral employment policy would have a worse effect than the problem it was endeavouring to resolve. In most cases, it would result in the emergence of a parallel or artificial labour market that could only be maintained through interventions and subsidies, until state funds were exhausted. It would also have a negative impact on real jobs. Unprofitable jobs would have to be paid for through taxation on sound jobs. Such a policy would therefore only lead to an increase in social contributions and taxation, with a resulting rise in the cost of labour, which would in turn have an adverse effect on investment and consumption.

83. The Government members of Belgium and Germany called for more incisive analysis of the overall economic framework and the effects of economic and budgetary policies on the labour market and employment policies: the latter observed that, without this, neither "active" nor "passive" measures as described by the Committee of Experts would be enough to solve the problems; and there was a strong need for labour ministries to ensure close collaboration with other ministries concerned in those policies. The Government member of Kenya stated that employment promotion was at the core of the ILO's mandate, with the aim of reducing poverty and advancing social development. The Government member of Portugal found the inclusion of the question of small and medium-sized enterprises on the agenda of the 1997 Session of the Conference very opportune; and she encouraged the promotion of the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), which showed an essential aspect of employment policy.

84. The Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran said that, as regards both employment policy and social security Conventions, the ILO should take due account of the economic situation, and employers should not be expected to bear all the burden of adjustment policies.

85. The Workers' members of Argentina, Colombia, Fiji, Pakistan, Senegal, Uruguay and Zimbabwe described the consequences of the policies pursued in various countries in terms of social and economic damage suffered by the workers. For example, the Workers' member of Pakistan spoke of free market policies being used to evade labour and social security laws. The Workers' member of Colombia said that unlimited contracts of employment had virtually disappeared and there were consequential effects on workers' exercise of their right to organize. The Workers' member of Fiji referred also to the lowering of wages as the price for employment. The Workers' member of Argentina talked of the increase of precarious employment in Latin America: for example, in his country, there was now no collective bargaining or job security in the maritime sector, as the result of deregulation and free market policies. The Workers' member of Uruguay said that unemployment was rising at the same time as gross domestic product (GDP). The Workers' member of Senegal stated that the World Bank and IMF had an approach to the revision of labour legislation which was radically opposed to full employment.

Conventions on social security

86. The Workers' members found the Committee of Experts had made a good analysis of the problems relating to the application of Conventions on social security. The Conference Committee had in the past discussed several individual cases relating to reforms in some countries which were not compatible with the principles of solidarity, reliable administration and the participation of insured persons, which were essential for all social security schemes, irrespective of whether they were public, semi-public or private. The relevant international standards were the essential reference points in this respect. It should be noted that some individual cases concerned countries which had ratified Conventions dating from the 1930s, but not the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), which was nevertheless a flexible instrument. Substantial reforms should not be carried out hastily merely for reasons of immediate financial necessity. Privatization would weaken general coverage and exclude some categories of worker from the system.

87. The Employers' members believed that the comments made by the Committee of Experts in paragraphs 58 and 59 were correct, although they could have examined the causes of the crisis more thoroughly. Social security systems in many countries had reached the limits of their financing capacity. Even States which, in the 1960s and 1970s, had been perceived as models, had for some years now been adopting adjustment measures. This applied both to systems financed through contributions and those financed through taxation. Both types of system had reached historically high levels of contributions and taxation. The principle of solidarity was invoked too often, with the result that the system was economically unsustainable. Demographic developments were frequently at the root of the problem. It was essential to reduce the level of compulsory contributions for both workers and enterprises, with a view to attaining a new balance between solidarity and greater individual responsibility. Social principles had to respect the market economy more than in the past. Moreover, a number of systems could be privatized in whole or in part. The suggestion by the Experts that this type of reform should not be undertaken too rapidly was counter-productive, because it was better to take early remedial action in order to avoid serious problems requiring far-reaching measures in the future. In particular, in the case of long-term systems, such as retirement benefits, if action were not taken in time the results could be disastrous.

88. The Government member of Germany accepted that some governments had to cut back benefits in order to rationalize social security systems, whilst also accepting the Committee of Experts' reservations as to the privatization of social services. The Government member of Portugal viewed as essential the need to defend the interests of the persons protected.

89. The Workers' members of Argentina and Colombia spoke of the weakening of social security protection for many vulnerable sections of the population in their countries. The Workers' member of Pakistan feared privatization might lead to the collapse of entire social security systems.

Conventions on occupational safety and health

90. The Workers' members welcomed the attention given by the Committee of Experts to the application of instruments on occupational safety and health. A coherent and systematic prevention policy had to be given priority, and should not exclude small and medium-sized enterprises, or the subcontracting and hiring out of workers. The organizations of workers and employers should be fully associated at all levels with the process of seeking effective solutions. There was also an encouraging trend towards the adoption of a fairly multidisciplinary and integrated approach involving the workplace, the environment, workers' welfare, the organization of work and conditions of work. The ILO had taken important initiatives such as the adoption of the Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170), and the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174). Nevertheless, the outcome in terms of the ratification of the relevant Conventions was very unsatisfactory. The Committee of Experts had made valuable comments on the application of the Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115), particularly with regard to the establishment of more reliable dose limits than previously, the need to provide alternative employment for workers having accumulated doses beyond those values and the insufficient level of information provided by governments on protective measures in emergency situations. It had emphasized the necessity for international cooperation in this respect.

91. The Employers' members noted that, on the question of occupational health and safety, the report of the Committee of Experts contained general information and calls for action. They recalled that a constantly increasing number of provisions were being adopted in the field of health and accident protection and that even very well-organized States were late in applying them at the national level. Protection at work was not, however, a neglected sector. The Employers' members refuted the idea that there was a two-speed society with regard to protection against accidents, with large enterprises on one side and small enterprises on the other. Nevertheless, it was clear that smaller enterprises had far fewer financial and administrative resources. Occupational safety and health was a field in which practical cooperation was needed between employers and workers at both the national and the enterprise level. In addition to this cooperation, awareness was needed among workers with regard to their safety and health. The Employers' members had often expressed their support for the work carried out by the ILO in this respect. The more practical this work, the more valuable it would be. In future reports it might be possible to go into a little more detail, with more attention given to practical experience and the multidisciplinary advisory teams. This process could even be useful in future standard-setting activities.

92. The Government member of Portugal noted with interest the growing number of ratifications of Conventions in this field, as well as the number of comments supplied by employers' and workers' organizations. The Workers' member of Pakistan called for greater education and training in occupational safety and health, given the high number of work accidents. The Workers' member of Fiji mentioned ILO assistance received for the preparation of safety and health legislation in his country, where the matter was seen in the light of the more general environment issue in the South Pacific.

93. The Government member of China gave his own country as an example of where, with the assistance of the ILO through its Regional Office and the multidisciplinary team, great progress could be made in the application of instruments such as the Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170), which it had ratified. This included improving the legislation and establishing a forum on the safe use of chemicals with the participation of various ministries, as well as enterprise and workers' representatives. The Workers' member of China recalled the role of trade unions both at the international level in the development of the instruments on safety and health and, in his country, at the national level in ensuring the implementation of Convention No. 170 in particular. His organization was continuing to take part in the preparation of legislation on safety in mines, the protection of women workers, safety in production and the prevention of occupational diseases; with the emergence of many foreign-funded enterprises and because occupational safety and health in a developing country such as China were at a fairly low level, full use was made of the relevant international labour standards.

94. Several members of the Committee described the situation in their countries. The Government member of China also mentioned the successful cooperation between the Government and the ILO in a national seminar in Beijing on employment discrimination, women's rights and equal pay for work of equal value. During the seminar detailed information was given on the labour standards concerned, international cooperation was reviewed under the leadership of the ILO, and technical assistance was provided to the participants, which included representatives from the Government, the employers' organizations, the trade unions and women' organizations. He believed that similar cooperation would help the Government to ratify other Conventions.

95. The Government member of El Salvador indicated that his country had ended the armed conflict during which it had been criticized, sanctioned and investigated: the new Government was improving its relations with the ILO. The Government had communicated information concerning the submission of Conventions and Recommendations adopted between 1985 and 1994 to the competent authorities. He stated that in El Salvador tripartism operated in total freedom, and that collective bargaining easily occurred. Despite the work which would be required as a consequence of certain prohibitions contained in the National Constitution, every effort would be made to ratify in the near future the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

96. The Government member of The Gambia stated that since joining the ILO last year her country had been considering which Conventions to ratify, with assistance from the ILO. She declared the Government's intention to ratify the following Conventions very shortly: the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). The Gambia would soon return to civilian rule because elections were scheduled for December 1996. She hoped that the six main Conventions on human rights would then be ratified, but requested further assistance in the process of ratification and reporting. Her Government fully supported the ILO's activities, particularly in the formulation of international standards, which are essential to economic and social development.

97. The Government member of Ghana mentioned the difficulties his country had faced in the 1970s and 1980s concerning the application of ratified Conventions and Recommendations, and described the role played by the ILO in tackling these problems. The ILO Lagos Office had collaborated with the Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare to organize a tripartite seminar on the application of standards in April 1996 with the participation of the International Labour Standards Department, which was attended by the Minister for Employment and Social Welfare. He expressed gratitude for the support given by the ILO in holding this important seminar, which afforded the social partners the opportunity to broaden their knowledge on standard setting and an insight into how to apply standards in national laws and regulations.

98. The Government member of Lebanon indicated the progress made in her country in meeting obligations under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the final draft of the revised Labour Code had embodied the spirit of the Conventions ratified by Lebanon and the other Conventions hopefully would be brought before the competent authorities in the near future. Lebanon presently was launching a programme on labour market information and reviewing its teaching programmes, to meet the needs for skilled and qualified workers in the globalized economy. She noted that the revised Labour Code of Lebanon had adopted many of the provisions of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), with a view to abolishing child labour, or at least eliminating child labour in hazardous occupations.

99. The Government member of Romania said it was the constant concern of her Government to respect its international commitments and defend the ILO's values. It had commenced the procedure for the ratification of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the only one of the seven basic Conventions that it had not yet ratified. It was examining the possibility of ratifying the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), and would be able to do so once the new legislation on pensions had been adopted by Parliament. Moreover, in order to conform fully to the requirements deriving from ILO standards, important amendments would soon be made to the legislation on unemployment and employment.

100. The Government member of the Russian Federation, as regards questions raised in the Committee's report concerning the application by his Government of the Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108) and the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), underlined its preparedness to enter into direct contacts and cooperation with the supervisory bodies of the ILO. He described various measures taken to eradicate delay in the payment of wages. The possibility of ratifying the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), was now being examined by his Government, which counted also on the assistance of the ILO secretariat.

101. The Government member of Sri Lanka stated that the National Labour Committee on International Labour Standards was set up in 1994, on ratification of Convention No. 144, to examine the implementation of ILO Conventions in domestic legislation. Sri Lanka had set up a special permanent unit for labour inspection; established the Vocational Training Authority for Skill Development; adopted the National Workers' Charter concerning freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively, employment services, wages, terms and conditions of employment, labour administration, industrial relations, social security, employment of women, children and young persons, and welfare of workers; and enacted legislation to give effect to policies laid down in the Charter. Rigid provisions of certain ILO Conventions at times inhibited Sri Lanka from ratifying them: the Migration for Employment Convention, 1949 (No. 97), prohibited the government organization which undertook promotion of foreign employment from charging a fee, whereas in Sri Lanka the Bureau of Foreign Employment charged a very nominal fee for its services. Problems were experienced in applying the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), due to the existence of compulsory public service. Sri Lanka, being a developing country and a country where education is free from kindergarten to university, allocated a substantial portion of the budget for education. In turn, the Government expected youth in specialized fields to serve the country for a period stipulated by the law, as a social obligation. He hoped the Committee of Experts would apply a flexible approach to the Conventions in such situations.

102. The Committee was informed also as to the statement of the President of the Conference concerning the ratification by his country, the United Arab Emirates, of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138).

C. Reports requested under article 19 of the ILO Constitution

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)

103. The Committee had an in-depth discussion on the Special Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), reports on which are requested every four years from non-ratifying member States following a Governing Body decision taken at its 208th (November 1978) and 209th (February-March 1979) Sessions. At the time of its decision, the Governing Body specified that these reports should be submitted in addition to those normally required under article 19 on other instruments and that governments should only be asked to reply to a limited number of questions, essentially concerning the difficulties of ratification, measures envisaged to overcome them and the prospects of ratification in the near future. Given the short interval separating the two 1995 Sessions of the Committee of Experts, the Governing Body decided that the General Survey under article 19 to be considered at the November-December 1995 Session would be limited to the four-yearly special reports on Convention No. 111, scheduled for that session. The Committee of Experts therefore carried out a Special Survey entitled "Equality in employment and occupation".

Introductory statements

104. The Employers' members considered that the Convention was one of the most fundamental human rights instruments and therefore deserved special attention. Although 52 member States had not ratified this Convention, only 25 had responded to the request for reports. The basic idea behind this Convention met with wide-ranging agreement because the issue was that of not placing anyone at a disadvantage because of their race, gender, creed, political views, national extraction or social origin. No employer, worker or member State had any interest in carrying out discrimination. However, equality of opportunity and treatment on the one hand, and freedom of contractual relations on the other, were both important and necessary aspects in the world of work; a balance had to be struck between the two principles.

105. They noted that the report placed a great deal of emphasis on discrimination on the basis of sex. This was probably because most of the problems connected with this Convention had arisen in this area, due to the many old traditions, habits and deep-rooted attitudes towards working women. They formed a tough barrier against necessary change. Nevertheless, awareness that sex-based discrimination should be eliminated had increased considerably over the last few years. The ILO had itself learned something from this. In earlier years the general prohibition of night work by women had been adopted so as to protect them; it was now recognized that such a ban actually represented a disadvantage for women who wished to enter the labour market. Thus the situation changed because market elements could no longer be ignored in the areas of employment and occupation.

106. The Employers' members considered that Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention declaring the non-discriminatory nature of special measures for certain groups under ILO Conventions and Recommendations, was much too general and all-embracing. It perpetuated a typical fiction if such special measures in practice clearly disadvantaged women. Measures of protection and assistance for particular workers or groups of workers must therefore be very carefully examined to see whether they did not represent an unjustifiable advantage for some workers or groups, or at the same time a disadvantage for the very people they were supposed to help. The Committee of Experts had drawn attention to the need to look carefully at such special measures (paragraphs 134 and following of the Special Survey), noting that they should be subject to a time-limit and should be re-examined regularly in order to ascertain whether they were still justified. Regarding so-called positive or reverse discrimination and binding quotas, the Employers' members considered that these were not satisfactory solutions. This was clear from reading the Committee of Experts' paragraphs on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Justice. The Employers' members shared the reservations against such measures. For example, in recruitment or promotion, if all other conditions, such as qualifications, were equal and gender was used as the decisive factor for choice, it would be a classic case of sex-based discrimination. They considered that the situation would not change if account was taken of the long history of discrimination against one of the sexes. For the vast majority of member States, measures like quotas seemed rather unrealistic and artificial. The question was more one of the fundamental prerequisites for equality of opportunity in cases where discrimination was deeply rooted in traditional attitudes towards the different roles of men and women in society.

107. An important factor in eliminating occupational discrimination was the need for equality of opportunity in training and education. All young men and women should have the same opportunities to acquire general and occupational skills and knowledge. Old attitudes delineating typical "women's" and typical "men's" jobs should be eliminated as soon as possible. Thought processes had to be changed, particularly among the older generation, so as to help young people plan their own careers. Legislation could provide a skeleton for this process; but the goal could only be achieved if mental barriers in society were broken down.

108. Although the ILO Convention was limited in scope to employment and occupation, it could be observed that where discrimination existed in society generally, there was an effect on employment as well. The problem could not be solved just by referring to Convention No. 111 or any other ILO standard. The Employers' members stressed that satisfactory practices in conformity with the Convention could only be achieved if the spiritual and political life of a country was inspired by freedom and tolerance. This was particularly true where state ideologies, state religions or state parties existed. They therefore urgently appealed, knowing that this was going beyond the limits of the Convention, to the spirit and practice of freedom and tolerance to be developed in all countries.

109. As regards age-based discrimination, the Employers noted that this had nothing to do with the minimum age requirement for certain jobs, which was based on obvious reasons and was not discrimination by virtue of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The question of an upper age limit was, however, more difficult. At the national level, it was usually enshrined in the old-age pension system where that existed. They considered that such a limit would be satisfactory if regulations did not lay down the absolute maximum age, but allowed for a certain degree of flexibility. Demographic elements and the employment situation meant that the way this subject was handled was changing in many countries. For example, because of a very high unemployment rate, early retirement might be promoted. Generally speaking, this was a legitimate area for a State's employment policy. They endorsed the statements in the Special Survey concerning the many different practices with regard to this issue. As regards discrimination based on political views, the Employers' members noted that this frequently occurred in public employment.

110. Noting that the Special Survey pleaded for sanctions as a means of implementing the prohibition on discrimination, the Employers' members felt that this went beyond the content of the Convention, and had no legal justification. The instrument was basically a promotional one, and its main requirement was the adoption of a policy to guarantee the achievement of the objectives of the Convention, with each member State being left to decide on the means used for this end. Moreover, the characteristics of the national juridical system would have to be taken into account. Criminalization of civil and labour law would be inappropriate and, in many instances, counter-productive.

111. The Workers' members noted the quality and depth of analysis of the Special Survey, which were at least equivalent to those of a General Survey in the strict sense. The views expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the nature and scope of the provisions of the Convention would undoubtedly facilitate its ratification. Convention No. 111 enhanced the principle of equality which figured in the Constitution of the ILO and the Declaration of Philadelphia, and to which each member State should adhere without reserve. Indeed, every member State should fully respect all the fundamental Conventions, irrespective of their degree of economic and social development, political, economic or social system. Paragraph 186 of the Special Survey recalled that social and religious realities could be different among countries but could not be in contradiction with the Convention. The fundamental impact of the instrument required a general context of equality with two prerequisites: respect for the rule of law; and development of a climate of tolerance. In the opinion of the Workers' members, two important points made by the Committee of Experts should be highlighted: the promotion of equality should be actively pursued; and differences of approach, talent and viewpoint should be dealt with in a positive manner so as to increase their value. In this way not only the equality of opportunity but also the capacity of innovation would be improved.

112. The Workers' members stressed that action to promote equality was by definition never completed. The progress achieved in the promotion of equality of treatment between men and women could not be denied. Young women workers in 1996 were no longer faced with the same problems as women in 1950. However, new challenges had arisen, such as the great difficulties often experienced in reconciling working life and family life. The combination of working life and family life was a challenge for women and for men, although in practice it was particularly women who bore the greatest burden. The Workers' members drew attention to the fact that there were still very few women in positions of responsibility. As the Committee of Experts stated in paragraph 291 of the Special Survey, no country, however advanced in this respect, could boast of having achieved full equality in employment, and the subject is constantly evolving. They therefore could not but criticize those member States which stated that ratification was impossible since the Convention was not fully applied in their countries (paragraphs 150-153 and 155-158). The Workers' members pointed out that the Committee of Experts replied to such statements by noting that the instrument was partly of a promotional nature, and that it also required two concrete measures upon ratification: the establishment of a national policy and the repeal of any legislation or regulations inconsistent with that policy. Other measures required by the Convention were of a gradual and progressive nature, depending on the country concerned.

113. The Workers' members considered that the Special Survey correctly highlighted certain developments which would or could hinder equality of treatment if adequate responses were not forthcoming. These included: (1) economic restructuring in countries in transition, in countries undergoing structural adjustment programmes and in countries and sectors influenced by the globalization phenomenon; (2) the development of the service sector and subcontracting which often led to part-time and temporary work and poorly paid employment (guidance in respect of these could be gained from the Part-Time Work Convention (No. 175) and Recommendation (No. 182), 1994, and the debate to take place in 1997 on a new instrument respecting contract labour); (3) political and economic instability and growing intolerance in respect of religious and ethnic minorities, which was exacerbated when religious intolerance was combined with discrimination against women (such as was seen in paragraph 173 of the Special Survey); (4) the emergence of new viral infections and diseases, such as AIDS, and the development of new methods of examination, such as genetic tests (guidance here could be obtained from the 1988 joint ILO/WHO Statement from the Consultation on AIDS and the Workplace and the October 1996 Meeting of Experts to establish a code of practice on the protection of employees' personal data); and (5) the adoption of legislative texts was not enough to apply the Convention and States could look at developing positive action programmes related to the totality of economic and social policy.

114. They were of the opinion that workers' and employers' organizations had an important role to play in the effective realization of the policy of equality, as emphasized in Article 3 of the Convention. Collective agreements guaranteed a minimum protection to workers covered by limiting discrimination with respect to working conditions. This was the case, for example, with the Collective Agreement on Parental Leave of 14 December 1995 concluded between the European Trade Union Confederation and the European Organization of Employers, and the Common Opinion for the Prevention of Racial Discrimination approved in October 1995 by the same organizations. Depending on the judicial system involved, the workers' organizations could bring cases before labour tribunals or similar bodies in order to ensure respect of the principle of equal treatment for the workers covered. They considered that all member States should consider introducing such a system. The Workers' members supported the Committee of Experts' suggestion that the 1985 Draft Guide of Practice for Equal Opportunity and Treatment in Employment be reviewed.

115. The Workers' members noted that the scope of the Convention was very broad: all persons -- public servants, farmers, self-employed and members of the liberal professions -- were protected against direct and indirect discrimination. Moreover, Recommendation No. 111, which supplements Convention No. 111, as well as the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), also covered migrant workers. The Special Survey showed that the employment relationship was a very broad notion, which included issues such as occupational safety and health, protection of personal data and sexual harassment. Measures considered as not constituting discrimination were interpreted very strictly, as in the case of inherent requirements of a particular job or measures taken against persons accused of activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

116. They also reaffirmed their support of the proposal made by the Committee of Experts and the Director-General on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the ILO, to introduce a complaints procedure for discrimination issues similar to that of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association. They considered that the Special Survey constituted an important contribution to the campaign for the promotion of the ratification and application of the fundamental principle of equality, and called on governments of States which had not yet ratified Convention No. 111 to reconsider their position, taking account of the comments and suggestions in the Special Survey.

117. Several members of the Committee (including the Government members of Cuba, Greece and Sweden) drew attention to the Special Survey's mention of the flexibility of the Convention, its partially promotional nature, the need for a general context of equality and for continuous action. Others (the Government members of Cuba, Portugal and the United States; the Workers' member of Pakistan) drew attention to the technical assistance offered by the Office. The Government member of Cuba considered that the ILO should emphasize more the types of discrimination which affected the access to and presence of women in employment, so as to contribute to solving the inequalities facing them, as highlighted in the Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women. She considered that the equality of women had very important consequences for economic development in any country. The Government members of China and Panama also referred to their governments' intentions to continue the promotion and realization of the objectives set forth in the Convention and in the Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women. The Government member of Portugal regretted that the Survey had not also been based on observations from workers' and employers' organizations as in the case of General Surveys. The Government member of Colombia was of the opinion that ILO efforts to eliminate discrimination would be diminished if certain governments intervened to give themselves the right to impose unilateral sanctions, employment quotas or changes in economic and social policies in developing countries, an action which violated the right of peoples to self-determination.

118. The Workers' member of Germany disagreed with the Employers' members' criticisms of the Committee of Experts' comments on sanctions, because the effective implementation of international commitments required the existence of sanctions and, in the field of its competence, the European Court of Justice had advocated the need for sanctions in respect of Community law. Sanctions were therefore also indispensable if international standards were to be respected in practice. The Workers' member of New Zealand, noting that the Special Survey was rich in detail and analysis, disagreed with the Employers' statement that Convention No. 111, and the ILO as an institution, dealt only with employment and occupation and not wider social issues. She stressed that employment was at the interface of social and economic policies. Women continued to do over two-thirds of the world's unpaid work, without which no economy, industrialized or otherwise, could function. She distinguished the term "work" from "employment" so as to highlight the unfair share of the burden that work placed on women; family responsibilities in particular constituted a major barrier to women's equality in employment. Noting that family responsibilities were among the additional grounds of prohibited discrimination which might appear in an additional protocol, she observed, however, that the essence of the problem was not that women were discriminated against on the basis of family responsibilities, but that men as a group did not carry out their fair share of those duties, and were discouraged from doing so because of the way the labour market was organized. There should be further research on the effect of labour market deregulation on equality of opportunity. She noted that religion had played a critical role in the inequality of women across the world, but that religious discrimination affected both men and women as the cases before the Committee of Experts in this area showed again this year. Further work should be done on religious discrimination. She also stated that discrimination against indigenous peoples required a comprehensive and integrated approach, starting with acknowledgement of their right to their own language and customs; failure in the education systems of the dominant culture was a common feature facing indigenous peoples everywhere, which impeded their access to employment opportunities. She therefore proposed that the next Survey on Convention No. 111 should have a special section on issues affecting indigenous peoples, highlighting those measures which have been successful in providing equality of employment opportunity for them. She also hoped that, for the next Survey on Convention No. 111, the Committee of Experts would develop some key indicators which could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the various measures in place to implement the Convention. One of those indicators should be the extent to which the share of essential family responsibilities was being borne by men as well as women. She also encouraged the collection of data so as to enable the Committee of Experts to evaluate more rigorously the impact of disability on equal employment opportunities. The Workers' member of Australia also hoped that the Committee of Experts would give consideration to the implications of the Convention for ethnic minorities and migrant workers, and to discrimination based on race and nationality. While the Survey referred to social tension and unemployment, it made little mention of the global movement of labour, which merited further attention in this regard.

119. The Workers' members of Cuba and Zimbabwe noted the external factors which were creating social exclusion in certain countries and leading to inequalities: economic changes; the debt burden in Africa; and structural adjustment programmes, which most often hit working women. The Workers' member of Pakistan, recalling the ILO's tripartite commitment to eliminating discrimination on the ground of race and its fight against apartheid, stressed the discrimination facing women in the rural sector. In many developing countries these women did not have enough access to gainful employment. Governments had an important role to play through social and economic input, with a view to improving the condition of rural women so that they could participate effectively in the development of society and gain in self-confidence. The State must also play a more positive role to provide meaningful education and training for children and women. The State must redouble its efforts to ensure training for the more deprived children, so as to overcome inequality and discrimination in access to training and education. He also mentioned the discriminatory nature of part-time and contract work where workers were denied social security and other labour law benefits.

Practical experiences

120. A large number of members of the Committee described the situation of employment equality in their countries. A number of Government members (Argentina, China, Cuba, India, Lebanon, Panama, Portugal, Spain, the Syrian Arab Republic) described the constitutional and statutory texts, as well as jurisprudence or labour market programmes, adopted to give effect to the Convention. The Workers' member of Poland pointed to a possible translation error in the Special Survey's reference to the Polish Act on Radio and TV, a provision of which concerning the need to respect the public's religious sensitivities had been examined in 1994 by the Constitutional Court and found not to establish in any way a right to censor programmes. It was therefore not legally possible to discriminate against journalists on grounds of religious belief; but he appreciated the fact that the Committee of Experts had drawn attention to a potential problem.

121. On the other hand, a number of Workers' members decried the persistence of discriminatory practices at the national level. The Workers' member of Australia stated that the Special Survey frequently mentioned Australia as an example of best practice with regard to equal employment opportunities, yet almost all the measures referred to had been rejected in recent months. He stated that Australia was no longer a good model; for example, the Racial Hatred Bill which had been introduced in Parliament at the end of 1995 had been withdrawn, and the Industrial Relations Commission -- an integral part of the equality policy -- was now under sustained attack. While Convention No. 111 had been annexed to important pieces of industrial relations legislation, the new legislation table in Parliament would no longer make any reference to ILO Conventions, let alone that instrument. Moreover, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would suffer major budget and staff cuts; the National Labour Advisory Committee on Equality in Employment would be disbanded; and the future of the National Training Authority -- which played an important role in enhancing access to training -- was in doubt. The Workers' member of Japan, regretting that his country had not ratified this Convention, noted that there were problems in the country in terms of equality in employment for women and non-Japanese residents. Regarding protection of minorities, he considered that the legal system had to be reviewed, as sizeable minority communities, mostly those of Korean or Chinese origin, although born and residing in Japan, could not enjoy the benefits accorded to Japanese nationals under the employment system. Disputes had arisen recently over whether non-Japanese residents could be admitted to the public services where at present only Japanese nationals were eligible; he was of the opinion that only certain sensitive areas in the public service should be reserved for Japanese nationals. The Workers' member of Korea, noting from the Special Survey that his country was studying ratification of Convention No. 111, expressed reservations as to how much equality in employment was actually practised in compliance with the provisions of the Convention, particularly as regards sex discrimination, although progress had been made after the introduction of positive discrimination in favour of recruiting women into the civil service. The Workers' member of New Zealand was disappointed that the Special Survey merely mentioned a large amount of recent legislation in her country; the economic and industrial relations experiment there which included maximum deregulation and reliance on the free market, characterized by the Employment Contracts Act, had made effective collective bargaining extremely difficult and had led to a widening of the gender gap in hourly wage rates for the first time in 20 years. She noted that women were heavily concentrated in a handful of occupations and in part-time work. In the Maori and Pacific Island communities unemployment rates were at least three times those in European-origin communities, and the wage differentials were very great as well. She urged the Committee of Experts next time to examine the impact of these laws. The Workers' member of Spain noted that the Spanish Constitutional Court had endorsed the concept of the reversal of the burden of proof in unequal treatment cases, but discrimination still continued. He pointed out that, while all persons were different in some aspect, they were equal; and yet in Europe discrimination persisted on the bases of sex, race and national origin particularly against foreign workers. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom, pointing out that Convention No. 111 had not been ratified by her country, explained that the UK Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) had undertaken research which demonstrated the disastrous effects on women of the policy of compulsory competitive tendering. This policy required a local government to take the lowest bid when awarding work contracts, regardless of the employment standards provided by the competing contractors, and had led to huge job losses for women workers in the public sector, wage cuts and generally deteriorating conditions of employment. EOC research had also shown how deregulation and casualization were hitting women in the private sector, pushing them further into poverty pay, and vulnerable and insecure forms of employment. In the UK, according to official figures, there were 2.5 million women working part-time, who earned so little that they were not eligible for the most basic rights: statutory sick and maternity pay, and social security benefits which were linked to national insurance contributions. Yet the Government had not ratified Convention No. 175 on part-time work despite the commitment it made at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, when it signed the Global Platform for Action. She stated that the Trades Union Congress strongly opposed the Asylum and Immigration Bill currently proceeding through Parliament, which would pass responsibility for checking the immigration status of workers onto employers and would thus increase their administrative burden and undermine their commitment to implementing equal opportunities policies; employers' organizations had also objected to the proposals in the legislation.

Prospects of ratification

122. Many members, stressing the fundamental nature of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, called for non-ratifying States to consider ratifying Convention No. 111 in the near future. The Government members of South Africa and the United States announced progress towards ratification. The former indicated that the National Economic Development and Labour Council had endorsed the Convention with the full support of business and labour; Parliament had approved ratification last month, leaving only the formal procedures to be completed. The latter recalled that her country was committed to improving its ratification record but had also undertaken to ensure that it was in full compliance with Conventions before they were ratified. Although the provisions of Convention No. 111 were flexible and general, it had been necessary to determine that the Government met what the Committee of Experts would consider to be the minimum obligations upon ratification. On 31 May 1996 the Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labour Standards had concluded, following its three-year review, that there were no legal obstacles to ratification, and that indeed the national policy went beyond the requirements by including extensive legal and practical measures to eliminate discrimination based on age and disability. A recommendation would shortly be made to the President to seek advice and consent for ratification from the Senate.

123. The Employers' members considered that the Special Survey contained ambivalent statements on ratification prospects. On the one hand, the Committee of Experts described the scope of the prohibition on discrimination as a very wide one, and on the other hand the exceptions that were considered as not being discrimination by virtue of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention were interpreted in a very restrictive manner. The Committee of Experts also stated that the Convention was extremely flexible and easy to apply, but at the same time stated that no State could boast of having achieved full equality in employment. One therefore had to be quite sceptical about the statements concerning future ratifications.

124. The Workers' members pointed out that Convention No. 111 had received one of the highest number of ratifications (120 as at 1 November 1995), and in response to the Director-General's letter to member States aimed at promoting the ratification and application of the seven fundamental Conventions, including Convention No. 111, nine countries had announced that they envisaged ratification, one was studying it and two others considered that there were no obstacles to ratification.

125. The Government member of Germany would have liked to have had more detail on the Committee of Experts' views concerning the reasons put forward by some governments for not ratifying Convention No. 111 in paragraphs 150 to 154 of the Special Survey. He considered that the Committee of Experts' conclusion in paragraph 155, that the Convention was sufficiently flexible, was only half correct, since the wording was supplemented by subsequent interpretations by the Experts and the present Committee, which had been rather stringent over the years.

Proposed additional protocol to extend prohibited grounds of discrimination

126. The Employers' members expressed reservations on this proposal. They doubted that it was the task of the Committee of Experts or this Committee to put forward such proposals for standard setting. There had not been any positive results from the repeated use of additional protocols, and the content of any additional list of prohibited grounds would be contested. They believed that the prerequisite for attaining the objective of the Convention was respect for a constitutional State and, above all, observance of tolerance. There was another reason that argued against the adoption of an additional protocol. Member States had already had 38 years in which to have recourse to the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 1(b) and determine additional grounds of discrimination to be prohibited under Convention No. 111. If they had not done so, it was because they had not felt the need. The adoption of an additional protocol would be another example of standard-setting action ignoring the real wishes of member States, and such action was only effective when it was based on broadly accepted principles. Furthermore, such an instrument would be an invitation to constant modification and would give rise to a fluidity in standards that was not in accordance with the requirements of practice.

127. The Workers' members supported the suggestion to include new criteria of prohibited discrimination in an additional protocol. They recalled that the principle of non-discrimination appeared in other ILO instruments, such as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156) and the Conventions on migrant workers. They also welcomed the tendency at the national and international levels to widen the grounds of prohibited discrimination so as to include age, nationality, disability, state of health, family responsibilities, trade union affiliation, sexual orientation or others. The Workers' members stressed that the Committee of Experts did not suggest in the Special Survey that Convention No. 111 should be revised, since it was considered as one of the fundamental ILO Conventions that should not be revised. The Committee of Experts' proposal to supplement, in the form of an additional protocol, the criteria of prohibited discrimination enumerated in Convention No. 111 in no way meant its revision. The technique of an additional protocol had already been used by the Conference to extend the scope of a Convention.

128. A number of Government members (Finland, Guatemala, South Africa, Spain and Sweden) supported the proposal to begin elaboration of an additional protocol, pointing out that the addition of new grounds would reflect the changes which have taken place in this field over the years. The Government member of South Africa stated that there appeared to be no end to the classes of the vulnerable that were subject to discrimination. The Government member of Sweden hoped that this could start with a first discussion in 1998 and if the Conference agenda was feared to be overloaded, the decision to devote two sessions to the topic of small and medium-sized enterprises could be revised, as it was better suited to a general discussion at one single session. The Government member of Spain indicated that he preferred the first option set out in paragraph 297 of the Special Survey because it was more flexible, allowing a ratifying State to choose one or more additional grounds as it thought fit; given the diversity of national situations throughout the world, the idea of a "hard core" of additional criteria might make acceptance more difficult. While he thought the criteria proposed were generally acceptable, he pointed out that "civil status" was preferable to "matrimonial status"; age should refer to the limits set by national legislation; invalidity should refer to the person's aptitude for doing a specific job; and nationality should be left to national legislation, perhaps on the basis of reciprocity, or to the national labour market.

129. Another group of Government members had reservations about the proposal (Australia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Germany and the Netherlands). The Government member of Australia believed that there was ample scope within the provisions of the Convention for member States to enlarge the range of discriminatory acts covered by the instrument. The Government member of Denmark, speaking also for the Government of the Netherlands, stated that an additional protocol with a list of new criteria would risk Convention No. 111 losing its status as a core Convention, and it could thereby be weakened. Her Government considered that discrimination on the grounds of language or age was not the same as discrimination on grounds of race or sex; in Denmark, for example, it was acceptable to take special measures for young unemployed people even if this was at the cost of older unemployed people, and to take language skills into consideration. Such grounds were therefore better left to the labour market and to social policy, where it must be ensured that everyone was offered proper and satisfactory working conditions taking into account the individual qualifications. The Government member of Germany was of the opinion that, as noted in paragraph 243 of the Special Survey, the additional bases were already covered by a number of already existing ILO instruments and that it would therefore be superfluous to include them under Convention No. 111; furthermore, he stressed that although Article 1, paragraph 1(b), of Convention No. 111 permitted States to determine additional grounds, during the 37 years of existence of the Convention, not one ratifying State had made use of this. This indicated that an additional protocol would be unlikely to succeed in being ratified by any appreciable number of States.

130. Certain Government members (Argentina, Lebanon, Portugal and the United States) stated that further examination of the advisability of developing an additional protocol to extend the protection provided by the Convention was necessary. The Government member of Lebanon wondered whether these new criteria would be applied in practice, and felt that it might be more appropriate to promote the application of the present Convention. The Government member of Portugal stated that the idea should not be rejected a priori and should be the subject of an in-depth study. She wondered whether such a protocol might not be in contradiction with the objective of universal ratification and application of the existing instrument. The Government member of the United States indicated that, although in her country the policy on employment discrimination already covered age and disability, some of the other additional criteria suggested by the Committee of Experts might not yet be appropriate for incorporation into such an ILO standard.

Reversal of the burden of proof

131. The Employers' members considered that national judicial procedures had to be taken into account. A reversal of the burden of proof would mean that upon a simple claim of discrimination on the part of an employee, the employer would have to prove that there had been no discrimination (i.e. to provide so-called negative proof), which was logically impossible to do and would not serve the purposes of justice. With reference to the issue of the burden of proof, the Employers' members stated that that was a matter for internal judicial procedures. Under most systems, it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to provide proof of allegations. The systematic placing of the burden of proof on employers would unjustifiably discredit them. Most legal systems undoubtedly envisaged exceptions to the rule with regard to the burden of proof when certain prerequisites were fulfilled. However, it was not appropriate to envisage reversing the burden of proof as a general measure. This proposal by the Committee of Experts would also not, in the Employers' opinion, lead to an increased number of ratifications of Convention No. 111.

132. The Workers' members declared their support, in principle, for one or several mechanisms for the reversal of the burden of proof.

133. The Government member of Spain supported the proposal to include in an additional protocol a reversal of the burden of proof because that would be in line with the national legislation already in force in Spain for many years. The Government member of Guatemala stated that in addition to the reversal of the burden of proof, a future protocol should look at the implications of statutes of limitations; in certain cases too much time had elapsed when a woman brought an equality case before the administrative or appeal tribunals and her claim would not be accepted. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic considered that the proposal should be approved, since it was not possible to apply the general rule of proof while there existed an individual labour relationship between unequal parties.

134. Certain Government members were not in favour of this suggestion (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and South Africa). The Government member of Denmark explained that the reversal of the burden of proof should, for reasons of both legal security and legal policy, be applied very selectively, and only when the aim could not be reached by other means; it was linked to the question of the assessment of evidence in which courts judge whether each party had met the burden of proof incumbent upon it, whereupon it shifted to the other party . She noted that the concept of a "shared" burden of proof had been used with some success, for instance, by the European Union in the area of equal pay. The Government member of South Africa considered that, given the substantial difficulty of proving discrimination in practice, a protocol should direct its attention to the question of the difficulty of proving discrimination and to measures to combat discrimination; shifting the burden of proof and criminalizing discrimination might raise difficulties with regard to other fundamental rights, such as the presumption of innocence. The Government member of the United States indicated that her Government had no firm position on the advisability of an additional protocol, but noted that provisions to reverse the burden of proof in discrimination cases might raise problems for many countries. Her Government would welcome discussion on this in the Governing Body. The Government member of Portugal considered that the proposal to place the burden of proof on the employer should be the subject of an in-depth examination with reference to the varying situations in each State.

Final remarks

135. The Workers' members acknowledged the breadth and depth of the Committee's discussion, which was in no small part due to the quality of the rich and challenging Special Survey. A number of key points had emerged from the discussion, including widespread endorsement of the Governing Body's decision that Convention No. 111 did not require revision, and universal acknowledgement of the fundamental nature and central importance of the Convention to the mission of the ILO.

136. Much had been said about the continuing relevance and practicality of the Convention, and its flexibility in requiring "methods appropriate to national conditions and practice" for the elimination of discrimination. However, the Workers' members cautioned those who described the Convention as being primarily promotional: it was promotional only in part, and contained very clear and concrete requirements for governments, including the adoption and pursuance of a national policy and the enactment of legislation to secure acceptance and observance of the policy and remove impediments to equality of opportunity. The Convention therefore required action, and not merely good intentions.

137. The very high number of ratifications of Convention No. 111 served to emphasize both its importance and its practicality, and they were pleased with the probable ratification by the United States. However, it was disappointing that more than 50 States had not yet ratified it. The Workers' members were not impressed by some of the reasons advanced for non-ratification and urged these governments in the strongest possible terms to take the necessary steps for ratification. The Committee as a whole should express the strongest possible support for the sustained efforts of the ILO to encourage member States to ratify the Convention, including in the context of the Director-General's campaign to secure ratification of the basic human rights Conventions.

138. The Workers' members shared the concerns of the Committee of Experts on general developments which were having a negative impact on the attainment of equality in employment, and which were resulting in ground being lost in this respect and the emergence of new forms of inequality. They emphasized the fragility of progress towards equality in employment in cases where the adoption of free market policies resulted in the rejection of an active policy to promote the objectives of the Convention. They challenged those who insisted that labour market deregulation was the way of the future to demonstrate how equality of opportunity could be fully and effectively promoted in this context, and to provide empirical evidence proving that positive results were being achieved. They called upon the Committee of Experts and the International Labour Standards Department to focus on labour market deregulation and the promotion of individual rather than collective contracts as they affected the attainment of equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination in employment.

139. They suggested a number of areas upon which future work, including the next survey, might focus: the issue of family responsibilities; the situation of women in poor rural communities; the impact of religion; indigenous peoples; migrant workers and the growth of a mobile global workforce; and the critical role of education and training in achieving equality in employment. Future work could also concentrate on the issue of disability, to which very little reference had been made during the discussion.

140. With reference to the issue of sanctions to ensure the implementation of measures to promote equality of opportunity and treatment, the Workers' members believed that sanctions were only one of a number of valid measures which could be used to achieve the objectives of the Convention. They also noted that in a number of cases very little had been achieved without the establishment of legal sanctions, which made employers take their responsibilities with regard to equality more seriously. They supported the proposal that the burden of proof should be reversed in discrimination cases, believing that a number of the speakers who had opposed this recommendation had been reading the comments of the Committee of Experts in a superficial manner. The recommendation was confined to instances in which a prima facie case had already been established. The issue was clearly complex and should be examined further in order to take into account the concerns that had been expressed and the measures that had been adopted at the national level, and to identify means of overcoming the problems involved.

141. The Workers' members expressed strong support for the extension of the grounds of discrimination through a protocol, which would not constitute a revision of the Convention. All the proposed additional grounds of discrimination were covered by other Conventions or had found their place in national legislation in various countries. By way of illustration, it would be beneficial to examine the provisions adopted in various countries to prevent discrimination on the grounds of age, particularly in view of the ageing of the population. More work was necessary in order to give clear guidance combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference, HIV/AIDS and trade union membership.

142. The Workers' members also supported the proposal being examined in the Governing Body for the establishment of a special procedure, similar to that covering freedom of association, to deal with discrimination issues. In view of the increasing complexity of the issue of discrimination, a serious examination needed to be made of the remedies available. They noted in this respect that the supervisory machinery in the field of freedom of association had been widely praised by all speakers. As far as discrimination was concerned, the job was never done. New and better ways were needed of showing that the ratification of Convention No. 111 produced practical results for those workers affected by discrimination.

143. The Employers' members considered that the discussion as a whole showed that nobody contested the principle of prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation, which was in itself a positive, if unsurprising, result. As always, the real problems arose in everyday practice and in the detail. The world of work was not yet in all cases as it should be under the terms of the Convention. Did that in itself make it necessary to adopt new provisions? Existing standards and the generally recognized principle of non-discrimination were not fully applied everywhere, and the adoption of new provisions would probably not change the situation much. In the field of discrimination, the problem often lay in unchanging traditional attitudes. Information, explanations and models of behaviour were therefore more valuable in this respect than the adoption of new provisions. The Convention's aim of preventing discrimination in employment and occupation did not mean that all people were equal; people had to be equal before the law and be given equal opportunities, but it was accepted that results would differ.

144. With regard to the proposal to undertake comparative surveys on this subject, the Employers' members considered that there were grounds for doubting the value of such an exercise in view of the great complexity and diversity of legal systems.

145. In their comments, the Workers' members had criticized deregulation and its supposed links with unemployment. However, the Employers' members, along with many Government members, were convinced that the dismantling of superfluous regulations was beneficial to the whole of the economy, and therefore also to workers. Moreover, no one had established a link between this question and the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination. As for the comment by the Workers' member of Spain that all human beings were equal, they agreed that this concept appeared in the principle of equality before the law. However, at the end of the last century, this praiseworthy principle had been perverted under the influence of a simplistic and inopportune ideology. The important issue was for everyone to enjoy equality of opportunity to pursue their own aspirations, irrespective of their race, sex or religion, while recognizing that their achievements would depend on their own aptitudes and talents.

D. Compliance with specific obligations

146. The Committee decided that, in examining individual cases relating to compliance by States with their obligations under or relating to international labour standards, it would apply the same working methods and criteria as last year, as amended or clarified in 1980 and 1987.

147. In applying those methods, the Committee decided, on the proposal of the Workers' members supported by the Employers' members, to invite all governments concerned by the comments in paragraphs 89 (compliance with reporting obligations), 95 (supply of first reports), 99 (lack of reply to comments of the supervisory bodies) and 124 (special problems relating to submission) of the Committee of Experts' report to supply information to the Committee in one half-day sitting to be devoted to those cases. The Committee considered that this approach should in no sense be understood by governments as dispensing them from the need to take part in the Committee's discussions.

OBLIGATION_A Submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities

148. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee considered the manner in which effect is given to article 19, paragraphs 5 to 7, of the ILO Constitution. These provisions require member States within 12, or exceptionally 18, months of the closing of each session of the Conference to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted at that session to the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action, and to inform the Director-General of the ILO of the measures taken to that end, with particulars of the authority or authorities regarded as competent.

149. The Committee noted from the report of the Committee of Experts (paragraph 117) that considerable efforts to fulfil the submission obligation had been made in certain States, namely: Bangladesh, Italy, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malawi, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

150. The Committee was informed by various other States of measures taken to bring Conventions and Recommendations before the competent national authorities. It welcomed the progress achieved and expressed the hope that there would be further improvements in States that still experience difficulties in complying with their obligations.

OBLIGATION_B Failure to submit

151. The Committee noted with regret from paragraph 124 of the Committee of Experts' report that no indication was available that steps had been taken in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted between 1987 and 1993 by the 74th to 80th Sessions of the Conference to the competent authorities, in the cases of Antigua and Barbuda, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Guinea, Jamaica, Madagascar, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, United Republic of Tanzania, Zaire.

OBLIGATION_C Supply of reports on ratified Conventions

152. In Part B of this report (General questions relating to international labour standards) the Committee has considered amongst other things the fulfilment by States of their obligation to report on the application of ratified Conventions. By the date of the November-December 1995 meeting of the Committee of Experts, the percentage of reports received was 65.8, compared with 68.7 per cent for the February-March meeting. Since then, further reports have been received, bringing the figure to 78.9 per cent (as compared with 82.0 per cent in June 1995, 77.2 per cent in June 1994 and 75.8 per cent in June 1993). In November-December 1995, the Committee of Experts noted that 73.4 per cent of the reports on Conventions for which information on practical application was requested contained such information, compared with 62.5 per cent in February-March 1995 and 67 per cent in 1994. The Committee emphasizes the importance of sending practical information, without which it is impossible to know if a Convention is actually being applied. The Committee joins the Committee of Experts in appealing to governments to make every effort to include the necessary information in future reports.

OBLIGATION_D Failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions

153. The Committee noted with regret that no reports on ratified Conventions had been supplied for two years or more by the following States: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Lithuania, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Yemen.

154. The Committee also noted with regret that no first reports due since 1992 on the following ratified Conventions had been supplied by Liberia (Convention No. 133), Nigeria (Convention No. 133); or since 1993 by Yemen (Convention No. 159); or since 1994 by Latvia (Conventions Nos. 111, 122, 135, 151), Sao Tome and Principe (Conventions Nos. 87, 106, 159). It stressed the special importance of first reports, on which the Committee of Experts bases its first evaluation of compliance with ratified Conventions.

155. In this year's report, the Committee of Experts noted that 25 governments had not communicated replies to most or any of the observations and direct requests relating to Conventions on which reports were due for examination this year, involving a total of 181 cases (compared with 337 cases last year and 354 two years ago). The Committee was informed that, since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, nine of the governments concerned had sent replies, which would be examined by the Committee of Experts at its next session.

156. The Committee noted with regret that no information had yet been received regarding any or most of the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts to which replies were requested for the period ending 1995 from the following countries: Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Netherlands (Aruba), Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.

157. The Committee noted the explanations provided by the Governments of the following countries concerning difficulties encountered in discharging their obligations: Cameroon, Lithuania, Madagascar, Netherlands (Aruba), Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, United Republic of Tanzania.

158. The Committee stressed that the obligation to transmit reports is the basis of the supervisory system. It requests the Director-General to adopt all possible measures to improve the situation and solve the problems referred to above as quickly as possible. It expressed the hope in particular that the multidisciplinary teams would give top priority in their work in the field to the fulfilment of standards-related obligations. The Committee also bore in mind the new reporting arrangements approved by the Governing Body in November 1993, which came into operation from last year.

OBLIGATION_E Application of ratified Conventions

159. The Committee noted with particular interest the steps taken by a number of governments to ensure compliance with ratified Conventions. The Committee of Experts listed in paragraph 105 of its report new cases in which governments had made changes to their law and practice following comments it had made as to the degree of conformity of national legislation or practice with the provisions of a ratified Convention. There were 37 such cases, relating to 26 States; 2,107 cases of progress have been recorded since the Committee of Experts began listing them in 1964. These results are tangible proof of the effectiveness of the supervisory system.

160. At its present session, the Committee was informed of other instances in which measures had recently been or were about to be taken by governments with a view to ensuring the implementation of ratified Conventions. While it is for the Committee of Experts to examine these measures, the present Committee welcomes them as fresh evidence of the efforts made by governments to comply with their international obligations and to act upon the comments of the supervisory bodies.

161. The Committee thought it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to various important cases which it had to consider.

OBLIGATION_F Cases of progress

162. The Committee noted with satisfaction that in a number of cases -- including many involving basic human rights -- governments have introduced changes in their law and practice in order to eliminate divergencies previously discussed by the Committee. It considers highlighting these cases, a positive approach towards influencing governments to respond to comments of the supervisory bodies. In this respect, it refers to the report of the Committee of Experts and the discussion of individual cases which appears in Part Two of this report.

OBLIGATION_G Special cases

163. The Committee considered it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to its discussions of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs, a full record of which appears in Part Two of this report.

164. As regards the application by the Islamic Republic of Iran of Convention No. 111, the Committee took note of the report of the Committee of Experts and also of the detailed oral and written information provided by the Government representative. The Committee would await with interest the assessment which the Committee of Experts would make of this information. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would provide additional and complete information to the Committee of Experts, to make it possible to assess whether the members of the Baha'i community and the members of other religious communities did enjoy equality of treatment in practice. The Committee also urged the Government to provide complete and comprehensive information concerning the adoption of a national policy to promote equality without discrimination based on religion, particularly with regard to posts within the judiciary system, election to Islamic Labour Councils and access to university education. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the results in practice of such a policy. The Committee noted with interest the elimination of restrictions concerning women's access to university studies and requested the Government to provide the Committee with additional information concerning the practical implications of this measure. Generally speaking, the Committee once again expressed its concern with regard to the lack of equality for women in society and at work. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government in the very near future would provide its comments on the observations made by the World Confederation of Labour on 4 December 1995, and that substantial and specific progress would be noted in the very near future. The Committee noted that the Government was ready to accept technical assistance from the International Labour Office. Since the Committee had been discussing the situation in this country for many years now, the Committee had proposed that the Government invite a direct contacts mission to visit the country. The Committee was obliged to note that the Government was not in a position to commit itself in this regard.

165. As regards the application by Myanmar of Convention No. 29, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the subsequent discussion. The Committee was deeply concerned by the serious situation prevailing in Myanmar over many years where systematically recourse was had to forced labour. The Committee once again firmly required the Government formally to abolish and urgently to cancel the legal provisions and to abandon all practices that were contrary to the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to prescribe truly dissuasive sanctions against all those having recourse to forced labour. The Committee hoped that the Government would, without further delay, take all necessary measures to abolish recourse to forced labour and that it would provide next year all necessary detailed information on concrete measures taken or envisaged to abolish in law and in practice the possibility of imposing compulsory labour.

166. As regards the application by Myanmar of Convention No. 87 the Committee took note with great concern of the statement made by the Government representative which only repeated, as in previous years, the Government's intention to apply the Convention without giving an account of any positive development in law and in practice. The Committee deplored that the Government had not yet adopted any specific measure to give effect to the observations which the Committee of Experts had been formulating for many years. The Committee deeply regretted the fact that very serious and persistent violations of the fundamental principles of the Convention were continuing in Myanmar. The Committee could only observe that there were no trade unions in the country whose objective was the defence and the promotion of the interests of the workers in the sense of the Convention. The Committee urgently requested the Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee the workers and the employers the right to set up the organizations of their choice, without previous authorization, as well as the right of the organizations to become affiliated to international workers' and employers' organizations. The Committee regretted that the ILO mission which was scheduled by common agreement for May 1996, could not finally be received in Myanmar. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would now cooperate more intensively with the ILO so that the very serious discrepancies between the law and practice on the one hand, and the Convention, on the other hand, will be eliminated in the very near future.

167. As regards the application by Nigeria of Convention No. 87, the Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee had to note once again that it had not been able to discern any progress despite the observations made over a long period of time by the Committee of Experts and the many discussions that had taken place in the Conference Committee on the important discrepancies between the law and practice and the Convention. It also noted with deep concern that the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association continued to refer to very serious violations of human rights against trade unionists, as well as against the fundamental principles contained in the Convention. In particular, it regretted that the legislative provisions that provided for a single trade union system and allowed government interference in the organization and activities of trade unions remained unchanged. It noted with deep regret that some trade union organizations were still run by a single administrator appointed by the Government and that the Decrees adopted in 1994 to dissolve the executive councils of certain trade unions had still not been repealed. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures with all urgency to remedy in both law and practice the very serious violations of the Convention and in particular to repeal the above Decrees and to re-establish the right of trade union organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, without interference by the public authorities. It insisted that the Government take immediate measures with a view to the absolute respect of the civic liberties essential to trade union rights. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would communicate in its next report decisive and concrete progress in this regard.

168. The Committee trusts that the governments concerned will take all measures necessary to correct the deficiencies noted and invites them to consider appropriate forms of ILO assistance, including direct contacts, to ensure that real progress is achieved by next year in the observance of their obligations under the ILO Constitution and the Conventions in question.

OBLIGATION_H Continued failure to implement

169. The Committee recalls that its working methods provide for the listing of cases of continued failure over several years to eliminate serious deficiencies, previously discussed, in the application of ratified Conventions. This year the Committee noted with great concern that there had been continued failure over several years to eliminate serious discrepancies in the application by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

170. The Governments of the countries to which reference is made in paragraphs 164 to 167 are invited to supply the relevant reports and information to enable the Committee to follow up the above-mentioned matters at the next general session of the Conference.

OBLIGATION_I Supply of reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations

171. The Committee notes that 24 of the 52 article 19 reports requested on Convention No. 111 were received at the time of the Committee of Experts' meeting, and a further three since, making 51.9 per cent in all.

172. The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had undertaken a Special Survey on Convention No. 111 instead of a General Survey under article 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, it noted that this year it did not have to consider applying the criterion "Over the past five years none of the reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations requested under article 19 of the Constitution has been supplied."

OBLIGATION_J Communication of copies of reports to workers' and employers' organizations

173. Once again this year, the Committee did not have to apply the criterion "The government has failed during the past three years to indicate the representative organizations of employers and workers to which, in accordance with article 23(2) of the Constitution, copies of reports and information supplied to the ILO under articles 19 and 22 have been communicated."

OBLIGATION_K Participation in the work of the Committee

174. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to the 52 governments which collaborated by providing information on the situation in their countries and participating in the discussions of their individual cases.

175. The Committee regrets that, despite the invitations, the Governments of the following States failed to take part in the discussions concerning their countries' fulfilment of their constitutional obligations to report: Bolivia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Jamaica, Latvia, Liberia, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Yemen. It decided to mention the cases of these States in the appropriate paragraphs of its report and to inform them in accordance with the usual practice.

176. The Committee notes with regret that the Governments of the States which were not represented at the Conference, namely Antigua and Barbuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands and Somalia were unable to participate in the Committee's examination of the cases relating to them. It decided to mention these countries in the appropriate paragraphs of this report and to inform the Governments, in accordance with the usual practice.

177. At a time when the need for adaptability to changing circumstances is so evident in the world of work, the Committee wishes to draw the Conference's attention to the remarkable capacity which international labour standards have shown over the decades to survive changes of the world's social, political and economic climate. The International Labour Organization's standard-setting activities are its longest-lived feature and one of the longest-lived and most extraordinary phenomena of any international organization. The Committee's discussions this year clearly exemplify how this Organization's principles and standards, born as they are of tripartism and social dialogue and nurtured by tried and tested supervisory procedures, continue to thrive in the prevailing national and international environments. Any unprejudiced examination of the sections of this report relating to, for example, basic human rights, the social dimension of globalization, standard-setting policy or numerous individual cases cannot but reinforce faith in the ILO, its standards and their supervision. The conclusion must be that they have prospered.

178. This assertion brings an important consequence and holds out a major challenge for all ILO constituents and the International Labour Office. The living body of international labour standards which gives flesh to the principles and beliefs of a mature International Labour Organization should receive the full measure of respect and consideration which it deserves in the whole range of activities in the social and economic sphere both at the international level and within the member States: policy formulation, adoption of legal instruments, identification of priorities and establishment of programmes for their implementation -- and execution of all this. The challenge is to ensure the happy and enduring marriage of, on the one hand, the genuine desire of delegates to the Conference and their declarations of intent to improve social and working conditions especially in terms of international labour standards and, on the other, real acts which will lead to the consummation of that desire.

Geneva, 18 June 1996. (Signed) J.-J. Elmiger,

M. Daal-Vogelland,

Endnotes

Endnote 2