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 237 members (117 Government members, 32 Employer members and 88 Worker members). It also included 15 Government deputy members, 44 Employer deputy members and 102 Worker deputy members. (Endnote 1) In addition, 44 international non-governmental organizations were represented by observers.

2. The Committee elected its Officers as follows:

Chair: Mr. A. Callorda Salvo (Government member, Uruguay);

Vice-Chairs: Mr. A. Wisskirchen (Employer member, Germany); and Mr. W. Peirens (Worker member, Belgium);

Reporter: Ms. E.-C. Mihes (Government member, Romania).

3. The Committee held 19 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 Labour Administration Convention (No. 150) and Recommendation (No. 158), 1978. (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 General Survey made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on labour administration. 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 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.

7. The Worker members stated that they had approved the draft list of cases after much discussion. The choice of priority cases to be discussed was always a difficult exercise, in view of time constraints on the one hand and the great number of problems of application on the other. They had based their choice on a number of criteria, including the nature of the comments made by the Committee of Experts; the existence of footnotes in the report; the scope and quality of government replies reproduced in the report, or the absence of such reports; the discussion and conclusions of the Committee in previous years; the comments received from the workers' and employers' organizations; the reports of other supervisory bodies of the ILO or from other international organizations; recent developments; and the statements of the Worker members during the adoption of the list the previous year. A balance also had to be achieved between regions and Conventions, with the concern to discuss not only fundamental Conventions, but also the problems and trends in application of the so-called "technical" Conventions. In view of the great number of footnotes requesting that information be supplied to the Conference, it appeared impossible to discuss all the cases. In approving the draft list, the Worker members wished to make certain important remarks for the Committee of Experts, the ILO, the governments concerned and the present Committee. In the first place, there were cases that the Worker members would like to be raised again at the next session if no real progress was registered in the meantime. They urged the Committee of Experts to repeat its comments on the application of these Conventions in these cases: Afghanistan (Convention No. 111); Djibouti (Convention No. 87); Ecuador (Convention No. 87); Ethiopia (Convention No. 87). In another case, the Committee of Experts should monitor the implementation of compensatory measures, which should be taken by the Government preferably in consultation with organizations representing the victims (Japan, Convention No. 29). Finally, the Worker members noted that, as a representation procedure under article 24 of the Constitution was under way, the case could not be included on the list this year (Russian Federation, Convention No. 95).

8. The Employer members recalled that the Standing Orders set out the task of the Conference Committee, which was to examine reports by member States on measures taken to improve the application of ratified Conventions. However, in practice, it was impossible for the Committee to examine all such reports. A decision therefore had to be taken on which cases, due to lack of time, would not be examined by the Committee. This resulted in the establishment of a list of the cases that would be examined. Although the Employer members would have preferred to examine more cases, they were prepared to accept the proposed list. In response to the comments by the Worker members concerning the criteria for the choice of cases to be examined, the Employer members noted that these could not always be precise and it was understandable if not everyone was entirely pleased with the results of the selection procedure. There had been an especially large number of footnotes in the report of the Committee of Experts requesting reports from governments on ratified Conventions. The Conference Committee almost always took these footnotes into account when selecting the cases that it would examine. The Employer members noted in this respect that the Conference Committee, in exercise of its sovereign right, had clearly changed its practice for the selection of the cases to be examined this year.

B. General questions relating to international labour standards

Introduction: General aspects of the supervisory process

9. The Committee was pleased to welcome Sir William Douglas, who chairs the Committee of Experts. Sir William thanked the Committee, on behalf of the Committee of Experts, for renewing the invitation for him to attend as an observer. He would transmit the views expressed during the general discussion to his Committee, where they would assist in the formulation of observations on ratified Conventions. His Committee valued this arrangement, which helped ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the ILO's supervisory machinery and would continue to pursue a constructive dialogue with the Conference Committee. Topics of current concern included employment policy and the employment and social problems arising from globalization of markets and transition of some countries to a market economy; the need to preserve the stability and effectiveness of social security systems in a climate of reduced public funding; problems as to the payment of wages, involving contravention of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95); and the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), where measures could be taken by States within their respective jurisdictions to prevent particular forms of exploitation of children. His Committee had systematically referred to the views expressed by employers' and workers' organizations. The General Survey on Labour Administration noted that Convention No. 150 was of a promotional nature but had only 39 ratifications, in comparison with the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), which had 119 ratifications and represented an important element in any system of labour administration. The Committee of Experts hoped by emphasizing the flexibility of the Convention to encourage countries with both highly developed and less well-developed systems of administration to ratify and introduce innovations to respond to the demands of complex and changing economic, technological, social and political environments. Sir William looked forward with interest to the present Committee's deliberations.

10. The Committee noted the indications of the representative of the Secretary-General concerning the respective functions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and other supervisory bodies, detailed in the widely translated and distributed Handbook of procedures relating to international labour Conventions and Recommendations. The Committee of Experts examined governments' reports from a technical and legal standpoint, the present Committee attempting to find solutions through dialogue from both a legal and a political perspective. The procedure for representations under article 24 of the Constitution made for a heavy workload recently; the Governing Body's tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association had handled a total of over 1,900 cases since 1951. The Office was pursuing its efforts to ensure the supply of reports under the procedures adopted by the Governing Body in 1993, especially through the assistance provided in the regions by the multidisciplinary advisory teams (MDTs) and in cooperation with national organizations of employers and workers. It would carry out a study of this problem and its solution. The Committee was informed in particular of progress in the ratification and application of Conventions; and of recent discussions in the Governing Body especially concerning possible strengthening of the supervisory procedures, standard-setting policy and the revision of standards.

11. The Government member of France, Chair of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards of the Governing Body Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards, said that, for the policy on the revision of standards to achieve the desired success, all governments and social partners should participate in the process. He was sure that the members of the Committee would contribute to implementing the decisions of the Governing Body concerning the revision of standards in their respective countries. The present session of the Conference would in particular discuss a possible amendment to the ILO Constitution to enable abrogation of Conventions which have lost their purpose or no longer make a useful contribution to attaining the objectives of the Organization.

12. The Employer members, after welcoming the presence of the Chair of the Committee of Experts, recalled that the role of the Conference Committee remained unchanged, in accordance with article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference. However, the substance and main emphasis of its work had to change considerably in view of the major upheavals that were now occurring. Change at the current time was even greater than that experienced in 1989 and 1990. It involved innovations in the technological, economic and other fields, including social policy, which would have a greater influence on every individual than even the changes of 1989 and 1990. Although the ILO and the Conference Committee might give the impression of being only slightly affected by such far-reaching change, they could not stand still. It was encouraging that Members of the ILO were no longer willing to accept that things should always be as they always had been. It was sensible and useful to call for greater transparency and to measure activities by their results. This re-evaluation of values would have an important effect on the priorities of the Organization.

13. The Worker members thanked the Chair of the Committee of Experts for having once again accepted the invitation to observe the work of the present Committee. There were, both in the general part of the report of the Committee of Experts and in its examination of individual cases, numerous prominent references to discussions and conclusions of this Committee, and this highlighted the importance of the dialogue between the two bodies, which had become more intense in the last few years. The Workers were convinced that the complementarity between objective legal analysis on the one side and tripartite dialogue on the other explained the success of the supervisory system, and that it was on this basis that measures should be sought to strengthen it. They looked forward in the present Committee to constructive dialogue with the Employers and Governments: the report of the Committee of Experts was an excellent starting-point to ensure the quality and seriousness of the work, the value of which was measured by concrete impact on the conditions of life and work of workers throughout the world.

14. Several speakers referred to the question of credibility. The Government member of Cuba saw the Committee of Experts' principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality as the guarantee of credibility in the standard-setting and supervisory work of the ILO, and this credibility must be strengthened and broadened, especially in the light of the Director-General's new proposals. The Government member of Kenya and the Worker member of the Netherlands also emphasized the importance of these principles. Others saw the ILO's credibility tested in governments' denunciations of Conventions (the Worker member of New Zealand); in developments in export processing zones (the Government member of Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries)); and in strengthening of the observance of fundamental human rights instruments (the Government member of Portugal). The effectiveness of the supervisory system could be enhanced, for example, said the Government member of Canada, the Worker member of the Netherlands and the representative of Education International, by giving the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee greater publicity and transparency and improving their external communications value. The Worker member of Italy also noted that the Committee of Experts' report enabled legal and political pressure to be brought to bear.

15. The Government member of Saudi Arabia thought the present Committee, with its specific knowledge of standards, particularly well suited to reach positive and practical solutions in the context of the plenary discussion of the Director-General's Report on The ILO, standard setting and globalization. At the same time, the Worker member of Colombia said that globalization, deregulation and privatization made the task of the Committee of Experts harder than before. The Government member of Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) considered that the supervisory process for all Conventions should be brought closer to the mainstream of the Organization's activities.

16. The Worker member of the Netherlands remarked how helpful it was to receive the report of the Committee of Experts so early, and thought the ILO supervisory system exemplary, when compared with that of other bodies of the UN system. Other specific recommendations for improvement were made. The Government member of Belgium suggested that the report of the present Committee should be constructed in a different fashion, supplemented by a shorter, more manageable and more political document which would refer to the report of the Committee of Experts, but also give the gist of the political message of this Committee concerning the application of standards. The Worker member of the United States said that, since the Director-General suggested in his Report that this Committee might have a future role to play in the strengthening of the ILO's supervisory machinery for the fundamental human rights Conventions, this might have a further impact on the number of individual cases reviewed here each year if this idea were implemented. The Worker member of Burkina Faso noted it would be useful to ensure greater representation of women at the Conference. The Government member of Saudi Arabia regretted the departure from the Committee of Experts of its only Arab, Muslim female member: he called for a similarly qualified replacement and considered that ILO staff working in this area should also represent a geographical and cultural balance, in order to ensure objectivity and neutrality.

17. The Government member of the United States noted that a significant portion of the Conference agenda was focused on standards activities: this Committee's work; the Report of the Director-General; the Standing Orders Committee (which was considering a constitutional amendment regarding standards); and the standard-setting activities in three technical committees. Given these activities, one very important priority for the ILO was to move toward a more regular sharing of information among all its bodies dealing with standards, and to provide a thorough analysis of the outcomes of the various processes. The purpose of such a comprehensive analysis would be to guide the Governing Body and this Committee in ascertaining the most effective means, not only of setting new standards, but also of reporting, supervision and technical assistance for reaching the goal of universal ratification and application of ILO standards. Paragraph 48 of the Committee of Experts' report referred to the Director-General's initiative with regard to ratification of fundamental labour standards. The Director-General had asked member States for increased reporting on barriers to their ratification of the fundamental standards, the article 19 process had been intensified for those Conventions, and reporting on ratified fundamental standards continued to be required on the most frequent basis. Each of those reports went its own way in separate processes, some to the Governing Body, some to the Committee of Experts. The Office should produce an analysis of the said reports with a view to finding common themes in the observations of non-compliance by the Committee of Experts, the barriers to ratification identified by member States, the comments made in general discussions on the report and the General Survey in this Committee and the conclusions reached here on core labour standards cases. Such an analysis could then be discussed in the Committee of Experts, this Committee and the Governing Body. The General Surveys could include more information on common barriers to ratification and implementation with regard to the core labour standards. He fully agreed with the Worker members that analysis of the reasons why member States were not reporting was more important than a mere listing of delinquent reports.

Fulfilment of reporting obligations, and ratification and denunciation of Conventions

18. The Employer members said the work of the Conference Committee was based on the reports received from governments evaluating the measures that they had taken to give effect to their obligations under the ILO Constitution and the Conventions that they had ratified. The Committee's work was also largely based on the report of the Committee of Experts which, although it had been shorter over recent years, seemed to have increased in length once again. This was partly linked to the increased number of member States and ratifications. However, the willingness of member States to fulfil their obligations to submit reports promptly and fully did not appear to have followed suit. Although the overall number of ratifications sounded impressive, it was not so significant in practice. This stagnation in the ratification of the Conventions adopted over the past ten to 15 years showed the increasing reluctance of member States with regard to these instruments. This created a need for careful examination by the Office, as noted in the Report of the Director-General to the Conference.

19. The Employer members noted that the ratification and denunciation of Conventions were matters for member States to decide upon. However, it was necessary to examine the reasons that led member States to decide to denounce Conventions that they had ratified. The long interval of ten years between the possibilities to exercise the right to denounce Conventions in practice tended to precipitate hasty decisions to denounce them. Therefore it would be more effective to make contact between ILO officials and governments concerned in order to discuss with member States the reasons for the intended denunciation. Such long intervals also encouraged a type of internal denunciation, which consisted of overt non-compliance with the provisions of ratified Conventions. In particular, the difficulty involved in denouncing Conventions made governments more wary of ratifying them.

20. With reference to the information provided in the report on compliance with reporting obligations, the Employer members noted in particular that only 63.3 per cent of the reports requested on ratified Conventions had been received. This was a very disappointing result, particularly in view of the fact that by decision of the Governing Body in 1993 the reporting obligations had been lightened through a lengthening of reporting periods. The intention had been to allow governments to fulfil their obligations more easily and more completely. The whole supervisory structure depended on their compliance with these obligations. However, this unsatisfactory outcome was not a reason to return to the old system. Indeed, the Committee of Experts should perhaps be more restrained in requesting additional reports. When requesting additional reports outside the normal reporting cycle, the Committee of Experts should take care not to increase the reporting burden on member States unduly, which would run counter to the Governing Body's decision of 1993. Where governments experienced difficulty in complying with their reporting obligations, they should request assistance from the MDTs.

21. The Worker members said that, as changes in the supervisory procedures were already in place, a first evaluation of the results could be made. The functioning of the supervisory system largely depended on reports being sent on time. In spite of the reform, the situation was not encouraging: the proportion of reports received at the end of the Committee of Experts' session decreased in comparison with previous years, continuing a negative trend; the great majority of reports arrived late, and the improvement registered in 1996 was not repeated. Reports were often incomplete, and an increasing number of the Committee of Experts' comments were left without reply: in many cases, as it appeared from the second part of its report, the Committee could not but repeat its previous observations. These failures by governments impeded the working of the whole of the supervisory system. This evaluation called for three remarks. First, the majority of the governments supplied reports, information and replies requested: this should be noted even if all governments had to respect their obligations in this respect. Secondly, the reform of 1993 was aimed at reducing the workload on national administrations by reducing the numbers of reports requested and concentrating supervision on specific problems of application; if, then, implementation of the reform did not enable concentration on the real problems, it made no contribution at all. Thirdly, the reform involved bringing forward the date of publication of the report of the Committee of Experts, in order to improve preparations for the Conference; but, if the Committee of Experts did not have the necessary information, preparation for the Conference became even more difficult. The Governing Body and the Committee of Experts should as soon as possible analyse the causes of this deterioration. The evaluation referred to by the representative of the Secretary-General, should take into account the impact that this may have on tripartite consultations at the national level during the preparation of reports. One could also inquire whether these malfunctions were to be explained by problems of timing or the workload on administrations; or whether they were also caused by structural reasons and linked to a lack of political commitment. As the Committee of Experts pointed out in its General Survey, labour administration had an essential role to play in ensuring observance of this obligation and therefore had to have at its disposal sufficient resources. The use of multidisciplinary teams suggested by the Committee of Experts in this connection should also be supported.

22. The Worker members noted the importance of the tripartite consultations on standards required by the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the ILO Constitution. The Committee of Experts observed that the number of ratifications of Convention No. 144 had doubled since the General Survey of 1982, and all countries ought to ratify it to implement the constitutional principle of tripartism. Similarly, the number of comments on governments' reports received from organizations of workers and, to a lesser extent, employers had been considerably increasing in recent years. In view of the lengthening of the reporting cycle, they now had a more important role because they could provoke a request for a report outside the normal cycle - something which was in fact happening more frequently.

23. In the Worker members' view, the attitude of certain governments which contemplate denouncing a Convention instead of constructively responding to the observations of the Committee of Experts, was a matter of concern. The denunciation by Brazil of Convention No. 158, which it ratified less than two years ago, was unacceptable and, as pointed out by the Committee of Experts, motivated in a contradictory manner. It pointed to the lack of due attention to social policy; and it was doubtless inspired by the fact that observations were transmitted to the Committee of Experts by the trade union organizations and that an article 24 representation was declared receivable by the Governing Body. None the less, observations and complaints were procedures foreseen by the Constitution of the ILO. Making use of these procedures was completely normal.

24. The Government member of Djibouti recalled the effect that economic crisis had on a developing country's ability not just to send reports but to participate as it would wish in ILO activities in general. The Government members of Sri Lanka and the United Republic of Tanzania both pointed to the delays experienced in obtaining information from different government agencies as causes of reporting failure. The latter reminded the Committee that several of the countries mentioned by the Committee of Experts in respect of obligations under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution were plagued by internal strife: the Committee of Experts could in future consider referring to such problems, which go far beyond the mere financial, administrative and technical difficulties faced by other countries. The Worker member of the United Republic of Tanzania said that a tripartite approach along the lines of Convention No. 144 could help strengthen national labour ministries' capacity in regard to international labour standards. The Government member of Cuba remarked that the ILO's multidisciplinary teams could be especially effective in helping governments fulfil their reporting obligations, something which is so vital to the supervisory machinery.

25. The Government member of Kenya and the Worker member of Sweden endorsed the comments made in paragraph 94 of the Committee of Experts' report and called on all member States to ratify the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

26. The Worker members of the Netherlands and Sweden observed that, although the reporting burden on governments had been lightened, there seemed to be no improvement in performance: after the first detailed report, subsequent ones might only need to be quite brief, and the real burden involved in fulfilling these obligations was questioned. A Worker member of Germany stressed the importance of maintaining the power of the Committee of Experts to request reports outside the new five-year cycle applicable to most Conventions, although the Government member of Germany had reservations as to excessive use of that power. The Worker member of the Russian Federation said that governments' reports were often not copied to employers' and workers' organizations; and the Worker member of the United Kingdom called for governments' reports to be full and punctual, allowing the social partners time to consult and to make comments themselves.

27. Regarding ratification of the fundamental Conventions, the Government member of China thought that some promotional measures could be taken, but that the mere pursuit of numbers of ratifications gave rise to problems. Standards were of great significance to humanity and deserved universal acceptance by the international community, but cultural traditions, levels of economic development and the capacity for the observance of standards differed from country to country. The great majority of member States recognized the role of international labour standards in achieving international growth and social progress, but for developing countries the ratification and application of standards would be achieved step by step in the light of progress being made; it was not a good approach to exert pressure for uniformity, but instead to give practical assistance to developing countries in carrying out various standards-related activities, including promotional publicity, research, policy advice, formulating workplans for the ratification of Conventions, and assistance in the field of labour legislation. His Government had been making steady progress towards the ratification of standards, with assistance from the Office in recent years through lectures and seminars at both the provincial and national levels and training of officials and representatives of trade unions and employer groups. These efforts had produced notable effects as China had a greater understanding of international labour Conventions. Measures had been adopted for the revision of national laws and regulations so as to ensure the concrete implementation of ratified Conventions. Some problems remained: size and population presented serious constraints, the inspection machinery was hard to manage, and collecting statistical data was difficult. Yet broad prospects continued for cooperation between his Government and the ILO.

28. Several Worker members called for new ratifications. The Worker member of Thailand hoped his country would ratify the five unratified fundamental ILO Conventions. A Worker member of Brazil hoped the Republic of Korea would ratify 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). The Worker member of the Russian Federation hoped his country would ratify the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). The Worker member of the Netherlands, with regard to the question of the ratification of international labour standards by the European Union, noted that decisions to ratify were taken by individual member States, and those who claimed that the countries in the European Union were facing similar problems with regard to the ratification of international instruments as federal States had misunderstood the situation.

29. As regards denunciations, the Worker member of New Zealand stated as to his own country's non-compliance with the Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42), that the Committee of Experts had been patiently urging the Government for the past 23 years to take the necessary steps to ensure full compliance. All that was needed was a minor legislative or policy step to introduce a presumptive schedule for certain occupational diseases. The Government had at times indicated that compliance was imminent, although it had not given effect to this commitment in practice. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the Government was now considering denunciation of the Convention. Protracted failure to comply with the provisions of ratified Conventions raised serious questions about the adequacy of the supervisory machinery. It had to be regarded as a very serious matter by the Conference Committee when any government which had ratified a Convention later decided to denounce it, despite its continued relevance in protecting workers. This was even more serious when denunciation was decided upon to avoid compliance and to avoid apparently unwelcome requests for action by the Committee of Experts. He therefore welcomed the suggestion by the Employer members that, where denunciation was being contemplated, contact should be made with the government concerned by ILO officials. Technical advice and assistance could well result in the avoidance of the unfortunate step of denunciation.

30. The Worker member of Brazil referred to paragraph 15 of the Committee of Experts' report and regretted that the Government of his country had denounced the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158), claiming that this Convention encouraged collective disputes. The Government did not comply with the requirements of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), when it announced its decision to denounce by writing to the social partners after having taken the decision. The Government member of Brazil emphasized that the Government was dealing very seriously and correctly with the issues relating to observance of international labour standards: the denunciation of Convention No. 158 had been the result of legal and technical difficulties encountered in the course of its implementation and not because of the number of observations and criticisms formulated by workers' organizations, all of which had received an answer. He explained that prior to this denunciation, the principle of tripartite consultation had been respected, as had already been the case before the ratification of Convention No. 144.

31. The Government member of Germany said that both complaints and denunciations were perfectly legitimate. It would be preferable for States to modify legislation so as to comply with ratified Conventions; but governments would command more respect by resorting to denunciation than by aggressively contesting the findings of the supervisory bodies.

32. The Committee noted with interest information from Government members of the following countries regarding ratifications: Belgium (recent months had seen a move towards ratification of new Conventions, and ratification of the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171), would be important for Belgium and the message it would send to the European Union); China (ratification of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), had been approved and the Government was actively promoting the ratification of Convention No. 138 and certain other Conventions); the Dominican Republic (although the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), had not yet been ratified, consultations were under way with the social partners and technical assistance had been requested of the ILO so as to proceed in the very near future with a study of the Convention and its eventual ratification; the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and the Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) Convention, 1991 (No. 172), had also been approved for ratification); Egypt (ratification of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), was envisaged for when the new Labour Act comes into force); the Gambia (was seriously considering ratifying certain key Conventions); Guinea-Bissau (his Government had already submitted to the competent national authorities for ratification the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and studies were currently being carried out to examine the possibility of ratifying the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)); India (was engaged in the process of ratifying a number of other priority Conventions, including the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and the Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127); and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), would be ratified in the near future); the Republic of Korea (his country was considering ratifying the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) in the near future; ratification of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), was envisaged soon, after further consultations with the Office); Lebanon (a committee established in 1996 in the Ministry of Labour with a view to examining unratified Conventions of the ILO and the Arab Labour Organization had contemplated the possible ratification of seven ILO Conventions which would soon be submitted to the competent authorities, most of which belonged to the category identified by the Governing Body as still being of importance); the Netherlands (a number of Conventions were currently being considered with a view to ratification, including the instruments adopted by the Maritime Conference); Portugal (the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), would be ratified shortly after the approval of Parliament, following a recent decision of the Council of Ministers; the ratifications of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), and the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159), were envisaged); Syrian Arab Republic (the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), would be ratified when modifications of the legislation permitted).

International aspects of labour standards and human rights

33. The Employer members said that a traditional item in the report of the Committee of Experts was the contacts between the ILO and international and regional organizations concerning the implementation of human rights, and particularly on economic, social, cultural and political rights, the rights of children and minorities and protection against discrimination. This sharing of responsibility between the organizations of the United Nations system was to be welcomed. The ILO had to concentrate on its own instruments. The efforts of the Director-General to promote the ratification of the ILO's Conventions on basic human rights was also to be welcomed. These efforts had achieved some success.

34. The Worker members noted that, while standard setting in general and the application of standards in particular were at the heart of the debate at the Conference, they had also become the object of increased attention on the part of the Governing Body and other international organizations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its Ministerial Conference in Singapore, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The work of the Governing Body on the revision of Conventions and the promotion of ratifications was characterized by the serenity and seriousness of the debate and the search for consensus, which the Worker members always considered to be of crucial importance. It was to be hoped that this work would be pursued in the same spirit of cooperation. The importance of the campaign for the promotion of the ratification of the Conventions concerning fundamental rights should also be stressed and the ILO commended for its efforts: 39 ratifications were registered following the letter of the Director-General and others were yet to come. This campaign should be pursued by means of sending out regular questionnaires to the member States asking to explain the reasons for not ratifying or postponing ratification, as well as by means of a specific technical assistance programme.

35. In the Worker members' view, despite positive developments, one had to note an incoherent attitude on the part of certain countries, enterprises and international organizations with respect to international labour standards and the objective of social justice. The Director-General, in his Report to the Conference, made a call on all the governments and international organizations to adopt a more coherent attitude. When the ministers of trade in Singapore highlighted the importance of ILO standards and objectives, ministers of finance should not approve actions and programmes in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which contradicted those standards and objectives by increasing social exclusion and poverty and weakening systems for the administration of labour, health and education. It was the responsibility of the whole of the international community to ensure the coherence of social and economic options and to take tripartism seriously. It was disturbing to learn that certain countries tended to reject the Director-General's line of thought aimed at modernizing and strengthening standard-setting activities in conformity with the decision of the Copenhagen Summit for Social Development and with the Singapore Ministerial Declaration. On the contrary, governments should support efforts to strengthen the supervisory system and promote the fundamental Conventions. They also had to provide the ILO with the financial resources necessary for the accomplishment of its mandate in the present more complex world.

36. The Worker members considered that cooperation with other international organizations and other supervisory systems should be pursued and reinforced; it should be real and complementary and avoid any destructive competition. The ILO had the competence and the partners necessary to complete and reinforce the efforts of the international community in favour of human rights, as was demonstrated by the fact that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had recently recommended ratification of Convention No. 138.

37. The Government members of Belgium, India, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) noted that the Singapore meeting had confirmed that the ILO was the appropriate body for setting and supervising labour standards. The Government member of Belgium said that, while it was important that other international institutions took an interest in labour standards, the ILO should maintain the upper hand in this debate since it enjoyed recognized expertise in the pertinent technical and political areas. The Government members of the Netherlands and India observed that protectionism had been clearly rejected at Singapore: the former stressed also the call for greater cooperation between the WTO and the ILO, while the latter pointed out that there was no justification in the Singapore Declaration for a second round of discussion to link trade and labour standards. The Government member of Saudi Arabia warned that the ILO should retain its full autonomy.

38. The Government member of Uganda reaffirmed the need for the ILO to continue its high-level and field contacts with United Nations agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions to sensitize them to ILO standards: World Bank and IMF representatives in Kampala had started consulting the Ministry of Labour and employers' and workers' organizations on labour-related matters, which was an encouraging development that should be further promoted. The Government member of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said new policies such as those set out by the IMF and the World Bank should not be introduced without preparation, otherwise there was a risk of negative consequences on, for example, conditions of work and social security systems. The Government member of Portugal thought the ILO should intensify its collaboration with various international organizations; and the Government member of Italy thought the present Committee a suitable channel for cooperation with UN bodies on these issues. The Government member of Guinea-Bissau was fully aware of the important role employers' and workers' organizations could play in seeking solutions to the social problems particularly of globalization.

39. The Government members of Brazil and Uganda supported the campaign initiated by the Director-General in 1995 as a follow-up to the Copenhagen Social Summit to promote the ratification of the fundamental ILO Conventions. The latter said it had been successful, but should not be limited to a few Conventions, as others were equally important, such as those concerning the protection and promotion of employment and working conditions and the environment; and such classification might give the wrong signal as regards the relationship between the so-called core Conventions and others. The Government member of Cuba was pleased that the Committee of Experts did not ignore its responsibility concerning Conventions on employment policy, social security, occupational safety and health, and the protection of wages, which were sometimes set aside due to, among other reasons, flexibility and deregulation of the labour market: even though they did not appear in the list of core Conventions, the nature of the rights protected in them had a direct bearing on social development, and one should not underestimate them. For the representative of Education International, too, the section in the Committee of Experts' report highlighting the Conventions on employment, social security, safety and health and protection of wages was a compelling refutation of those who argued that the ILO should focus only on the fundamental Conventions.

40. Several individual Worker members enlarged on their group statement, especially as regards the ILO's role in respect of trade union and other basic rights (for example, Worker members of Colombia, Guatemala, Paraguay, the United Kingdom). The Worker member of Argentina recalled the important work of the ILO's tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, especially as regards complaints against Latin American countries occasioned by aggressive, neo-liberal policies. A Worker member of Germany stressed the indivisibility of civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights and the close relationship that should be maintained with UN and regional - especially European - organizations: the standards supervisory system was an important feature of international law on human rights. The Worker member of Italy called for the adaptation of international labour standards to the process of globalization, with guidelines as to how the Committee of Experts' comments could be satisfied. The Worker member of Pakistan said care had to be taken not to bow to the economic pressures brought by the World Bank and the IMF, whose programmes did not always take into account the basic rights of workers: the ILO's responsibility was to help ensure a safety net for workers affected by structural adjustment and deregulation imposed by the Bretton Woods institutions - a sentiment echoed by the Worker member of Senegal, who remarked that respect for international labour Conventions was essential also for democracy. The Worker member of Burkina Faso drew attention to the threat to women and other workers in countries where the World Bank and the IMF forced reversal of labour codes towards greater flexibility and precariousness of employment: cooperation with the WTO should be reinforced to ensure that globalization did not result in marginalization of the poorest countries. The Worker member of the Netherlands pointed out that in the follow-up to the Beijing Conference a gender perspective should be integrated into all ILO programmes and projects, so as to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers. The representative of Education International said that workers were prepared to grasp globalization with both hands as the Employer members urged, so long as they were full partners in the process and it occurred within a framework where at least the fundamental labour Conventions were respected. And a Worker member of Brazil noticed that the countries which at the Singapore ministerial meeting had insisted the most that the ILO was the competent organization to deal with standards-related questions were the ones criticized most frequently by this Committee: the Worker member of the United Kingdom said that governments which supported the ILO's role when speaking in Singapore must be consistent and give the ILO the means to do the job.

Export processing zones

41. The Employer members noted that, in view of the scarcity of available information, the comments by the Committee of Experts in previous years on this subject had been more of an informative nature, while this year's comments appeared more positive in approach. They now welcomed the establishment of a special ILO action programme under which studies would be carried out on social and labour factors and on the success of these zones. They looked forward to the results of these studies, which were due to be published later in the year.

42. The Worker members were very concerned by the development of export processing zones, which often became law-free zones either because the social legislation was not applied or because there was total absence both of supervision and of workers' organizations, the functioning and even existence of which were not accepted. Such zones aimed at attracting foreign investment by making more and more concessions under pressure of competition. Some multinational enterprises were exercising considerable pressure on governments so that they did not ratify or did not apply the ILO Conventions. It was to be hoped that the ILO through its special action programme on social questions in export processing zones would continue to monitor the situation in the field together with the Committee of Experts.

43. Several members expressed approval of the ILO's current activities in relation to the zones, including the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government members of Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania both described their governments' intention to respect workers' rights in the zones, the former urging employers to follow a "best practice" approach to improve conditions, as in Kenya. The Worker members of Costa Rica and Nicaragua nevertheless drew attention to violation of workers' rights - especially those of women - in export processing zones. The Government member of the Dominican Republic said that child labour did not exist in export processing zones in his country: the Labour Code was applied there, where 170,000 workers were employed. Trade unions were recognized in the zones and collective agreements had been signed. In order to resolve the problems that had been encountered in the past, the Government had helped in arriving at a tripartite agreement on basic workers' rights, the creation of a tripartite committee for the harmonization of labour relations which would have the responsibility for receiving complaints of violations of freedom of association, and a tripartite committee for the realization of social benefits. This meant that the workers in the export processing zones enjoyed the same respect for their rights as workers in any other enterprise outside the zone.

Representations procedure under article 24 of the Constitution

44. The Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts referred to the large number of representations concerning violations of ratified Conventions. The number of representations submitted had increased over recent years, as had the number of cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body. There were a number of reasons for the use of these procedures, even though the cases involved might perhaps be dealt with adequately under normal reporting procedures. They placed a great burden on the Office, but there was little evidence that they were much more effective than the regular supervisory work of the Committee of Experts. By bringing national disputes to an international body it was often hoped to obtain advantages at the national level. Suggestions that the procedures were being abused were borne out, for example, by cases in which representations were submitted even before a Convention had entered into force in the country concerned. The criteria for examining whether cases were conclusive and therefore admissible under these special procedures should be applied more strictly and therefore more restrictively.

45. The Worker members attached great importance to the procedures of complaint and representation, which were the necessary complement to the mechanism of supervision based on regular reports and guaranteed access of workers to the supervisory system. The more frequent recourse to these procedures was linked to the more active role of the workers' and employers' organizations resulting from the changes in the reporting cycle, as well as from the efforts of the ILO and its constituents to give more training in the ILO procedures to workers' organizations, in particular by the wide distribution of the Handbook of procedures. It was also the consequence of the structural reforms of the labour market brought about by the liberalization of international trade, which often had a negative incidence on the application of standards, even if the standards left a great latitude to governments and social partners as to the articulation of the social policy. To limit the use of these procedures to the fundamental or priority Conventions would be unacceptable. The particular attention which, no doubt, should be accorded to the respect of fundamental standards should not serve as a pretext to close out everything but those instruments. This reasoning applied also to the work of this Committee: the Worker members and the Employer members, supported by certain Government members, had always considered that the choice of individual cases to be discussed should include Conventions considered to be more "technical". The Worker members were in favour of the more effective use of procedures and the strengthening of their complementarity, and it was not at the present moment, when the ILO was seeking to reinforce its supervisory system and ensure greater respect for its standards and constitutional principles, that doubt should be cast on procedures which had proved their effectiveness.

46. The Worker member of the United States suggested that the increase in numbers of article 24 cases could be a reflection of a troubling pattern of non-compliance by governments with their obligations under ratified Conventions; or it could reflect that the number of individual cases reviewed by this Committee had been declining in recent years, with the result that workers looked beyond the normal machinery to other ILO mechanisms, such as the article 24 procedure, as the best way to persuade governments to meet their obligations.

Submission to the competent authorities

47. The Worker members shared the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts over the problems of submission, because it was indispensable that national parliaments be informed of the work of the ILO. The Committee of Experts usefully recalled in paragraph 134 of its report the scope of the obligation to submit the instruments adopted. From their side, the Worker members would also denounce in the plenary sitting the countries listed in paragraph 138 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts, which had not respected this obligation with respect to the instruments adopted during the last seven sessions of the Conference.

48. In response to a question from the Government member of Lebanon, the representative of the Secretary-General explained that all Conventions which had not been formally abrogated under any new procedure adopted by the Conference were still subject to the normal submission obligation, and could indeed still be ratified. The proposal before the Conference was that Recommendations accompanying Conventions should have the same treatment as regards abrogation.

49. The Government member of Portugal asked for statistics as to developments regarding the breach of submission obligations. The Worker member of Sweden pointed to many serious violations of the submission obligation and reminded governments of the need to include in the process concrete proposals whether to ratify the Conventions concerned. The Government member of Kenya recommended that countries in breach of the obligation should urgently seek the Office's technical assistance.

Sanctions in national law

50. The Employer members emphasized that sanctions were only applicable where the Convention in question expressly envisaged them. In other cases, it was for each member State to decide the manner in which it would give effect to the provisions of ratified Conventions. In spite of the Committee of Experts' statement that it did take into consideration the discussion in the present Committee, the Employer members did not find a proper answer to their concern. However, in the Committee of Experts' previous report the Experts specified that where violations of basic human rights were concerned, penal sanctions had to be contemplated, especially when sanctions were provided for by the relevant ILO Conventions. According to the Employer members, this implied that penal sanctions could not be appropriate in the case of all Conventions but only for those Conventions that provided for sanctions. This clarification did not appear in this year's report of the Experts so that sanctions to ensure observance of the provision of the Conventions were required in a general and unrestricted manner. Furthermore, they wondered why in this context, the term "basic human rights", which had been used for years, had been replaced last year by the term "basic workers' rights". This was not in conformity with the present standards system. The Committee of Experts should consider this issue thoroughly.

51. The Government member of Germany was opposed to the idea in paragraph 128 of the Committee of Experts' report that ratifying States must use sanctions, including penal sanctions, to ensure conformity with measures contained in Conventions even where such sanctions were not specifically laid down.

52. The Worker members said that the criticisms addressed to the Committee of Experts by the Employer members concerning the question of sanctions raised in paragraph 128 of the report of the Committee of Experts seemed to result from a confusion with the analysis contained in the report of the previous year because the statements in this year's report were more general and did not deal specifically with the question of penal sanctions. A Worker member of Germany supported the conclusion of the Committee of Experts concerning the adoption of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, in particular where the fundamental rights of workers were involved: he thought such sanctions authorized by article 19 of the Constitution of the ILO, even if there were no express provisions in the Convention concerned.

Technical cooperation relating to standards

53. The Employer members noted that a number of planned seminars and training activities had had to be cancelled due to budgetary constraints. However, as in the past, they welcomed the many activities that had been undertaken, and particularly those involving the multidisciplinary advisory teams (MDTs). They called for future reports of the Committee of Experts to contain more information on the feedback from such work received by headquarters.

54. The Worker members said that budgetary constraints should not slow down activities of standards promotion, which were increasingly solicited in view of the globalization of the economy, reform of labour and employment policies and the effort for democratization in certain countries. The International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), which was principally financed from extra-budgetary resources, was a good example of the practical activities accompanying the implementation of standards; it could serve as a model to promote the application of other standards as well. On the other hand, regretfully only six out of 14 multidisciplinary teams had specialists on standards, in spite of the constant requests by the Worker members in the Governing Body. This situation should be improved as soon as possible.

55. The Government members of China, Cuba, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania all spoke in praise of the technical assistance they had received in relation to international labour standards, especially through respective multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). The Government member of Kenya pointed out that now only six out of 14 MDTs included standards specialists, whereas those teams are vital to the process of formulating and executing country objectives; and he welcomed in this light the Governing Body's coming review of the Active Partnership Policy. The Government members of Lebanon and Saudi Arabia particularly called for the post of standards specialist in the Beirut MDT to be filled: the latter noted that technical assistance for standard-setting activities had been reduced due to financial constraints, but, as it was of particular importance for developing countries to benefit from all the different types of technical assistance that the ILO could offer in order to help them in complying with their obligations related to ratified Conventions, he hoped that technical assistance would be reinstated. He expressed the wish that the staff of the International Labour Standards Department would be involved in these activities to an even greater extent than at present and supported the work of the Arab States Regional Office and the Beirut MDT. The Employer member of the Islamic Republic of Iran was glad of the seminar recently held in his country on human rights standards; the Government member of Uganda looked forward to a coming seminar in his country which aimed at improving ratification and implementation of the human rights Conventions. The Government members of Djibouti (regarding labour legislation and tripartism) and Sri Lanka (regarding application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)), and the Worker member of the Russian Federation (regarding the application of fundamental Conventions) also stressed the need for further technical assistance.

Questions concerning the application of particular Conventions

Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

56. The Employer members said that the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on reports from 29 member States, although it was not clear when the reports had been submitted or the periods that they covered. Although the Employer members had never denied that Convention No. 122 was of particular importance, there was a series of other important Conventions which were not analysed in this way in the report. With regard to Convention No. 122, the comments of the Committee of Experts were critical and somewhat pessimistic. Such pessimism was an outdated pedagogical approach. A more modern approach would be based on praise. There could be no doubt that the achievement of full, productive and freely chosen employment was a fundamental ILO policy and should remain so. In view of the problems experienced concerning labour markets, it was necessary to examine all means of action in terms of their impact on employment. The Committee of Experts' analysis of labour market problems was confined to international competition, globalization and the process of the transition to a market economy in some countries. However, the Employer members pointed to other undeniable causes of labour market difficulties, including over-regulation, the inflexibility of the legal framework, the desire to defend acquired rights and, frequently, high taxation and high labour costs which were a burden to employers. The Employer members emphasized that employment policy could not be implemented in isolation and needed to be coordinated with other important social and economic policies. The various policy areas were interrelated. At this time of great change, it was therefore incomprehensible that only the social sector should remain unchanged. Moreover, the so-called problems cited by the Committee of Experts, such as higher levels of competition, globalization and the transition to a market economy, could also have a positive effect through the employment and social opportunities that they created. The success of enterprises and therefore the existence of jobs depended on the quality of the products and services produced, which in turn depended on the skill of the workers and management. The value of an enterprise was therefore determined by the manner in which its products and services were perceived by its clients in a competitive environment. The free market represented an opportunity rather than a threat and the positive effects of competition could benefit everybody. However, too many people believed in regulation, rather than establishing rules for fair competition, which included minimum social standards. In this context, the Employer members noted the emergence of new forms of employment, including part-time work and fixed-term contracts. They added that in many countries the demand for part-time work was greater than the supply. For example, for various reasons, workers, and particularly many women, preferred to work part time for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, many who wanted to work part time had to accept full-time employment, or remain unemployed. The challenge was to work towards a better balance of supply and demand.

57. The Employer members stated that labour markets were changing rapidly with the advent of new and different forms of employment, which took into account different needs, including those of workers. The situation had changed from the traditional approach of everyone working the same number of hours a week at the same time each day. The needs of industry had meant that the situation was now much more complex, but offered a broader range of employment opportunities. However, the Employer members could not accept that workers should be the only ones to have the right to change from part-time to full-time work whenever they so wished. Nor was it in line with the real situation for the Committee of Experts to say that all workers only wanted to obtain traditional full-time work. It was fully in line with the wishes of the workers for different forms of employment. Such cases did not constitute a failure to give effect to the objectives of the Convention, since the concepts involved were no longer the same as they had been at the time that the Convention was adopted. Some countries had reduced the working week, for example to 35 or 32 hours a week, which was a level that would be considered part-time work in other countries. Although the Committee of Experts had admitted that the concept of full employment might be different in developing countries, the Employer members considered that this difference applied in all countries. Nevertheless, they agreed with the Committee of Experts that the major challenge was to create a large number of jobs which provided a livelihood for all workers. Although the Committee of Experts praised the Republic of Korea and Hong Kong for the progress that they had made in achieving full employment, it did not analyse the reasons for their success. The Employer members believed that there were good grounds for praising other larger countries for their achievements in this respect. In particular, those countries which had accepted the challenges of globalization had been successful in promoting employment and had experienced fewer employment problems.

58. The Worker members said that the Committee of Experts should be commended on the coherence of its approach and the quality of its observations; it should also be encouraged to continue the dialogue with the present Committee, both with respect to general trends and on individual cases. The paragraphs of its General Report this year supplemented the previous year's and had to be examined with particular attention. One should recall that the promotion and application of this Convention was the top priority of the ILO, as attested by the conclusions of the Conference of 1996 concerning the policy of full employment in the globalized economy, the new World Employment Report, the declaration of the Copenhagen Summit, and the placing on the agenda of the present session of the Conference of the question of the contribution of small and medium-sized enterprises to employment creation. Contrary to the opinion expressed last year by the Employer members, the Committee of Experts has not gone beyond the terms of the Convention in determining the more specific notions and obligations resulting from it, nor had it shown reticence in the face of the economic globalization or the transition to the market economy; but it confined its position to objective presentation of the facts. The World Employment Report and the Director-General's Report on the standards activities also concluded that liberalization of international trade did not lead automatically to social progress and equality of opportunities and that it did not reduce social exclusion and poverty. Member States should develop an overall policy to stimulate employment and promote equal opportunities and the application of standards. The Committee of Experts underlined in this respect the need to keep the objective of full employment in mind when determining micro-economic policies, though this, regretfully, was not always done: too many governments still limited their intervention to labour market policies and flexibility. The Committee of Experts explained also that full employment remained a valid objective for all countries, even if the Convention permitted using different means and strategies to attain this goal. The Committee strove to promote better understanding of the obligations under the Convention in terms of full employment, free choice of employment, productive employment and consultation with organizations of workers and employers. It was quite right in suggesting that a link could be established between its comments on the application of the Convention in individual cases and the country employment reviews undertaken as a follow-up to the Copenhagen Summit, as well as with the studies of the impact of the liberalization of international trade. Finally, the Committee of Experts stressed the importance of resolute action in favour of employment and the institution of a legal framework in conformity with the obligations under the Convention, with reference also to Convention No. 150.

59. Several Government members expressed agreement with the Committee of Experts' comments as to full, productive and freely chosen employment. The Government member of Kenya was glad that this had remained the goal of the ILO, which should continue to play the role assigned it by the Copenhagen Summit. The Government member of Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) also welcomed the emphasis on the human aspects of employment brought out by the ILO, while the Government member of Italy noted the positive impact of human rights observance on employment possibilities. The Government member of Portugal placed the debate in the context of the current Conference's discussion of employment in small and medium-sized enterprises and the need to integrate employment and training policies and programmes. The Government member of Germany considered that the Committee of Experts' general comments concerning employment policy were unconvincing and warned especially against too severe a criticism of fixed-term contracts, which could evolve into permanent ones. The Government member of Belgium stressed the importance of examining how the supervisory machinery could be relocated at the heart of the ILO's activities in the field of employment, taking into account developments in certain labour markets: he questioned the continued relevance of certain standards concerning employment in a situation where the traditional employment relationship between employer and workers was opening up, the employer being further removed, for example through multinational groupings, and with increasing subcontracting. To this was added the precarious working situation of numerous workers in the most industrialized States; higher value should be given to individuals' desire to work, so as to take into account their creativity at all levels, without restricting the work relationship to two legal entities, and providing increased legal protection, for example, by allowing contracts to be entered into with a collective.

60. The Government member of the Dominican Republic described the positive experience in his country, where a tripartite commission on employment, alongside a free employment service, had been created: through modern technology, job trafficking had thus been eliminated. As regards security of employment, the Government member of Sri Lanka said his country was experiencing difficulties in the wake of liberalization of the economy and the process of globalization, with new investors entering the country as well as local industrialists seeking relaxed labour laws and industrial peace for smooth operation of industries and enterprises. The most disturbing legislation, in investors' opinion, was the Termination of Employment of Workmen Act (No. 45) of 1971 which concerned unjust dismissal of workers: creation of new employment, they argued, had become prohibitive, as the law restricted termination of workers at the will of the employer; employment generation would become possible with free mobility of labour which was not restricted by artificially created provisions entrenched in legislation; and they argued that rigid labour laws were counterproductive not only to employment generation but also for productivity. What should be discussed was the suitability of this line of thinking for developing economies including Sri Lanka, and how labour standards fit in. No labour standards expressly or implicitly negated productivity or employment, and perhaps no economy could thrive without industrial peace and labour standards.

61. The Government member of India said that in his country the majority of the workforce worked in the unorganized and informal sectors, where legal standards were only of distant relevance. The major problems of workers in these sectors were unemployment, underemployment and intermittent employment, as well as inadequate income and access to the basic amenities of life. There were few grounds for expecting any meaningful change in this situation in the near future, despite the commitment made by governments at the Social Summit to adopt a policy to achieve full, productive and freely chosen employment for all. Without minimizing the importance of standard-setting activities, equal or greater emphasis therefore needed to be given to operational activities in order to maximize employment opportunities. In this context, he suggested that the bleak employment situation, described in the ILO's report World Employment, should be considered by the Conference Committee so that it could obtain an overall perspective that would make its work more objective. India was nevertheless in the process of ratifying Convention No. 122.

62. The Worker member of China agreed with the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning employment policy. With the active efforts of Chinese trade unions, the Chinese Government had taken the decision to ratify Convention No. 122.

Globalization was advancing very rapidly and unemployment and property were major challenges throughout the world. Problems related to unemployment and employment were much more severe in the developing countries than the industrialized countries. The ILO therefore needed to focus its assistance on developing countries. Since the opening-up of its economy, China had created 200 million new jobs. However, the Chinese population was also growing rapidly and more employment was required. In China, the vocational training schools provided skills for the workforce and the employment agencies within the trade union movement endeavoured to find them jobs. There was a need for greater cooperation between the ILO and trade unions to promote the implementation of employment policy measures and increase employment throughout the world.

63. Other Worker members raised particular aspects of the employment question. The Worker member of the United Kingdom warned that part-time employment was not always the free choice of women workers, but often meant poverty pay in a dead-end job with no training prospects. Worker members of Colombia and Costa Rica pointed to the cost in jobs of structural adjustment policies and false restructuring. A Worker member of Germany also observed the negative effects on employment of international monetary policies, while noting the beneficial effect of partnership between labour and capital in improving competitivity and employment. Failure to apply Convention No. 122 had an important negative effect on the application of other ILO standards. He and the Worker member of Argentina wished for more detailed analysis of these issues.

64. The Worker members were glad that the Committee of Experts' analysis of employment policies had been welcomed and several Government members had recognized that the pressure of competition and the constant search for low labour costs were a threat to labour law and social protection. The Employer members were right to emphasize that employment policy should not be separated from economic and social policy as a whole.

65. The Employer members reaffirmed that they and almost everybody else believed in the effectiveness of the market economy. Rather than the absence of enforced unemployment, full employment was a level of employment where all those who were actively seeking work could find it, in line with the discussions of the Committee on Employment in the last Conference. They also emphasized that the trend towards deregulation, which was occurring at different rates in different countries, had as its root cause the development of too high a level of regulation in recent years. They believed in the fundamental objectives of the ILO. Their disagreement with some speakers in this respect concerned the means by which these objectives were to be achieved. By way of illustration, it was unsound practice to deal first with the distribution of wealth, while only addressing as a subordinate question the manner in which it was produced. Those countries which developed the best responses to employment issues would be those that faced up to the new global situation, and especially global competition. The priority objective was to create more employment. Attention should therefore be focused on the most rapid way in which the resources needed for the economy as a whole could be produced in future, as a basis for improving the social situation.

Conventions on social security

66. The Employer members thought that, in its comments on the generalization of the process of reform in social security, the Committee of Experts had painted a negative impression of rising contributions and falling benefits. The Committee of Experts had emphasized the dangers involved in the privatization of social security systems, but the comments were somewhat naive and lacked understanding of the real needs for reform. The proportion of GDP required to finance social security systems was constantly increasing. As a result the financial limits had been exceeded in many States. This was a result of many years of one-sided development in which no consideration had been given to the fact that everything could not be provided by collective welfare systems without reform measures. Moreover, the demographic developments in many countries have had a major impact on social security systems. The privatization of such systems could ensure that they were more effective. The Committee of Experts referred to the flexibility contained in recent social security standards. But the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), which was now 45 years old, was in need of such flexibility. Indeed, far from their action being premature or hasty, as suggested by the Committee of Experts, many governments had reacted too late to avoid the problems faced by social security systems. It was now time to get back on course and ensure sustainable core provisions in the social security system.

67. The Worker members stated that the Committee of Experts noted the more general, profound and accelerated character of the process of reform in social security. This Committee had already discussed the serious problems of application in this area at previous sessions. The Committee of Experts recalled that, while these standards were drafted in flexible terms, the fundamental principles of organization and administration of social security systems should be respected in all circumstances. Reform and partial or total privatization of certain branches of social security should take account of the international standards. In its conclusions the previous year on one individual case, this Committee requested the government concerned to ratify Convention No. 128 and denounce Convention No. 35; it also discussed the fundamental principles of the organization and management of social security schemes, including the participation of workers in their management and the general responsibility of the State in the provision of benefits and administration of schemes. These principles were essential in any social security system, whether private, semi-private or public. Substantial reforms should not be engaged in a hasty manner, because it was extremely difficult to correct them later.

68. The Government member of Germany, supported by the Worker members of Swaziland and the United Kingdom, said that privatization has no place in social security. The Employer member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that employers were not supposed to bear all of the social security costs: governments and the whole of society should also participate in financing social security. A Worker member of Germany expressed surprise at the comments by the Employer members that Convention No. 102 was inflexible: only three out of the Convention's nine parts had to be accepted, and the Convention required only a low level of social coverage; there was danger in increased pressure on countries, particularly developing ones, to reduce already low levels of social spending; and privatization of social security systems reduced solidarity, ultimately benefiting the few while leaving whole sectors of the population unprotected. Insured persons were at risk from inflation and bankruptcy of private institutions, which was a fairly frequent occurrence; and private systems did not necessarily reduce the overall cost of social benefits. Improved economic performance and social security could be complementary. Social benefits were a fundamental requirement for the peaceful settlement of social disputes.

69. The Government member of the United Republic of Tanzania concurred with the Committee of Experts concerning revision of social security legislation. His country was transforming its National Provident Fund into a comprehensive social security scheme along the lines of Convention No. 102 and had been spared the social confrontations experienced in other countries, mentioned in paragraph 66 of the report, though there were debates between the various stakeholders. To ensure broad participation, a round-table discussion was convened which incorporated the social partners, the ILO, the International Social Security Association (ISSA) and other countries which had successfully made such transformation. Subsequently, ratification of the relevant ILO social security Conventions would be possible.

70. The Worker members noted that the Committee of Experts' analysis of the risks of privatization of basic social security systems had been broadly supported in the Committee. The Employer members could understand why the subject of the privatization of social security provision was so emotive, particularly in countries where social security systems had been in force for many years. They emphasized that they were not suggesting the privatization of all the components of social security systems. However, there were areas in which privatization could be of great benefit in making social security more efficient and less expensive. A good example was health insurance, where private provision was already very common in many countries. The same trend was evident in pensions systems, where the private sector was taking over a greater share of the market, thereby reducing the burden on the State. Enterprise retirement schemes were a good example of how private provision could supplement public systems. Clearly, the State had to determine the framework conditions for private operation, including for contingencies such as bankruptcy. The private provision of social benefits had proven to be successful and secure. It complemented state social security schemes, rather than replacing them. The trend would undoubtedly continue.

Conventions on occupational safety and health

71. The Employer members agreed that the standards were very technical and detailed. They believed that this was the major reason for the difficulties experienced in their implementation and observance at the national level.

72. The Worker members said the Committee of Experts' comments on these Conventions had the merit of attracting attention to the problems of application in general. Firstly, the Committee of Experts highlighted the relation between regional standards, such as those adopted by the European Union, and more universal standards. The Worker members shared the opinion that the incorporation of regional standards, such as the European Directives, into national legislation was not always sufficient to give effect to ILO standards. In this respect the majority of the regional rules established minimum standards which did not prevent member States from introducing and maintaining higher levels of protection. Member States of the European Union and other regional organizations should also ratify ILO standards and not limit themselves to implementing regional standards, which should at least offer a level of protection equal to that of the international standards. The Committee of Experts also stressed the crucial importance of the practical application of standards in this area. The adoption of legal texts should be followed by a set of coordinated measures to ensure effective protection of workers. Consultation of workers' and employers' organizations during the elaboration and implementation of texts was indispensable. The proposal of the Committee of Experts for making better use of technical cooperation should be supported. It also observed that the government reports did not often contain complete information in this area, particularly statistics concerning occupational accidents and diseases.

73. The Government member of Kenya underlined the need for tripartite advisory bodies on this subject, with a programme of training and information for workers and their participation in the drafting and evaluation of legal provisions. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic referred in this context to ILO/UNDP assistance received by his country.

Wage protection

74. The Employer members emphasized that it was unacceptable that workers in Eastern Europe, Africa or Latin America should not receive their wages, or receive only partial wages, over a period of months or years. Although they agreed with the Committee of Experts that the situations in question might have their origin in economic and financial difficulties the blame for such problems could not be placed on the transition to a market economy, unless the transition had been incomplete or defective. Situations in which workers were not paid or were paid late were not typical of free labour markets. An improvement in this situation would not be achieved by the ratification of new Conventions, but rather through the adoption of practical measures to improve the performance of national economies.

75. The Worker members said the present Committee regularly discussed the application of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), in individual cases. The transition of economies, structural adjustment policies, negligence or the general climate of non-respect of law were often at the root of serious problems having disastrous social and economic consequences. The conclusions of the Committee of Experts on supervision, sanctions and remedies for loss were very pertinent and should be supported.

76. The Government members of Germany and Kenya referred to the seriousness of the wages issue: the former attributed the problem to transition to a market economy, the responsibility lying with the earlier dirigiste governments. The Worker members of Guatemala raised the question of grave violations in their country, while the Employer member of Guatemala referred to the role of tripartism in settling such issues. The Worker member of the Russian Federation agreed with the Committee of Experts in paragraphs 71-73 of its report: non-payment or late payment of wages in Central and Eastern Europe and in Africa and Latin America breached one of the fundamental rights of workers and seriously increased poverty, while reducing chances of building civil and democratic society. He said governments rarely created legal structures which aimed at applying this Convention in practice, and in the Russian Federation this had affected almost 80 per cent of the population: total unpaid wages exceeded 9 billion US dollars. He hoped that the Committee would examine this problem in an efficient manner, in view of the Committee of Experts' opinion that there should be not only appropriate sanctions to punish and prevent infringements, but also strict enforcement against those who take advantage of economic situations to commit abuses.

Child labour and forced labour

77. The Employer members supported all measures taken to combat forced labour and the exploitation of child labour, particularly in the form of child prostitution and pornography, which had become a problem of international dimensions. Concrete action needed to be taken to alleviate these evils and to identify the reasons behind them, which normally had their roots in poverty and the absence of prospects for self-improvement. Special campaigns were a more appropriate means of combating these problems than the development of new standards. In this context, they reaffirmed their support for the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).

78. The Worker members recalled the Committee of Experts' view expressed in 1994 on forced child labour and particularly the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in children. These concerns called for resolute action to fight such practices. Certain countries had taken measures to punish acts of exploitation of children committed abroad and other countries should be encouraged to follow this example. Notwithstanding the recent resolution of the Conference concerning the prohibition of child labour, the IPEC programme and the preparation of the new Convention starting from 1998, there was still a lot to be done in this area.

79. Several Government members (Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, the Netherlands) expressed their concern as to the problem of child labour and their support for ILO activities in that field. The Government members of Canada, India and the Netherlands hoped for an effective new Convention on child labour in 1999; the Government members of Egypt, Guinea-Bissau and the Netherlands also drew attention to the value of the existing Convention No. 138 and favoured its ratification and implementation. The Committee was informed of the gap in coverage of the child labour problem between the Forced Labour Convention (No. 29) and the Minimum Age Convention (No. 138), and the still relatively low number of ratifications of the latter, which, at a time of heightened international awareness of the problem, were the occasion for the possible adoption of new standards in the ILO.

80. The Government member of Egypt observed that it was often only economic and financial difficulties which prevent developing countries from ratifying Convention No. 138. The Government member of the Dominican Republic thought ILO figures might be exaggerated: in his country child labour persisted in the informal sector, but the Government was implementing programmes for its suppression on a tripartite and interministerial basis and with IPEC help. The Government member of Equatorial Guinea stressed the risk to children under 15 in particular: child slavery arose from the exploitation of poverty in many countries. The Government member of Lebanon remarked that 1996 legislation in her country absolutely prohibited the employment of children under 13.

81. The Worker members of Argentina, Italy, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Swaziland and the United Kingdom and the representative of Education International all called for intensified action at the international and national levels against child labour. International cooperation was desperately needed to stop child sex tourism and the trafficking of children for forced sex labour. The Worker member of Nicaragua pointed to the long hours sometimes worked by girls in particular. The representative of Education International detailed the need for comprehensive government strategy including legislation, enforcement, free, compulsory and good quality basic education, transition education programmes for children who had been labourers and income support and generation programmes for families. She applauded those governments which were taking action often in the most difficult economic circumstances and those governments that were supporting action particularly through the ILO's IPEC programme. The Worker members of Italy and Pakistan mentioned the role of tripartism and unions in fighting and finding funding for the campaign against child labour. The latter welcomed initiatives in his country in cooperation with the ILO, UNICEF and employers for the education of children formerly employed in the sports industry; and to establish "RUGMARK" Inspection International on a tripartite basis to help deal with the child labour problem.

82. The Government member of the United States urged the Committee of Experts, when reviewing article 19 reports due next year on the application of Convention No. 29, to take an objective look at emerging trends in privately operated prisons and increased opportunities for private employment by prison inmates. This, he said, was a growing trend in many member States which took into consideration the best interests of both the prisoners and the public and the Committee of Experts needed to consider what constituted permissible involvement of the private sector in prison labour today and an adequate level of supervision and control by the public authorities. The Worker member of the United States strongly supported this request: the use of prison labour by private employers was a growth industry in the United States, being promoted by the Justice Department as a cost-effective alternative to workforces found in Mexico, the Caribbean Basin, South-East Asia and Pacific Rim countries. He noted that by the year 2000 prison industries' sales would be some 9 billion US dollars; prisoners received 15 to 50 cents per hour for the 4.6 million hours they worked in a single year and were largely exempt from minimum wage laws and other legal protection and had no collective bargaining rights. The trade union movement was becoming increasingly concerned about this growing practice in the country and the threat it posed to labour standards. The Committee was informed that the Committee of Experts had decided to consider the matter further in its review of special article 19 reports on the forced labour Conventions at its next session.

The Report of the Director-General: The ILO, standard setting and globalization

83. The Employer members said that, although the report of the Committee of Experts contained no detailed comments on the ILO's general standard-setting policy, this subject was covered by the Director-General's Report to the Conference on The ILO, standard setting and globalization. The Employer members had been calling for such a discussion for many years. The poor response to recent standards meant that it was necessary to examine closely the ILO's standard-setting system and the causes of non-compliance with the standards that were adopted. The Conference Committee had discussed this issue two years ago. It was an important development that nobody now believed that everything was perfect in the system and that no changes were required. Moreover, no one seriously believed that the production of as many new standards as possible was the most important task of the Organization. Indeed the present stock of international labour standards needed careful review, particularly with regard to obsolete Conventions that were no longer applied. There was also an urgent need to revise many standards. Unfortunately, the Employer members had gained the impression that the pace of this work was slowing down, which would have a negative impact on the image and effectiveness of the ILO. It was essential to avoid the ILO becoming a cemetery for labour standards that were no longer of any use. It was also necessary to fill the gap in the ILO Constitution so that obsolete Conventions could be abrogated.

84. In the Employer members' view, only such new standards as were absolutely necessary should be developed. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on the more important objectives of creating jobs and combating unemployment. Where standards were adopted, they should not necessarily take the form of a Convention, but could consist of Recommendations, guidelines or codes of conduct. Where a decision was taken to elaborate a new Convention, it should always be confined to general principles. In a context in which a rapid response was required to changing circumstances, detailed provisions were an obstacle to the ratification and implementation of international labour standards. Moreover, the Employer members warned against including in Recommendations provisions upon which agreement had not been reached with regard to Conventions. Such practices discredited the value of Recommendations.

85. The Employer members noted that the Director-General's Report contained other valuable ideas concerning the development of standards, including greater involvement of member States and the social partners, better designed questionnaires and a better discussion of the substance in various bodies. With regard to the changes that were needed in the standard-setting process, governments should only support new Conventions in the plenary session of the Conference when they were actually willing to subsequently ratify them. Any other approach seriously undermined the standard-setting process. A suitable balance needed to be struck between the requirement for the coming into force of a Convention, for which only two ratifications were needed, and the very limited opportunities for denouncing Conventions. Together, the minimal conditions for the entry into force of Conventions and the difficulty of denouncing them served to make the statistics look good. However, they also made responsible governments hesitate to ratify Conventions. Indeed, although some 750 ratifications had been registered between 1992 and 1996, over 500 of these had been from the new States created from the former USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. There had not therefore been so many new ratifications.

86. The Employer members thought that some of the increasing number of problems encountered in the application of ratified Conventions were also due to the very broad interpretation made by the supervisory bodies of provisions in Conventions that were often very simple. In so doing, they created further obligations that governments had not foreseen when ratifying the Convention. One good illustration was the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), concerning which detailed and precise concepts concerning the right to strike had been developed by the supervisory bodies, whereas the Convention only contained very general provisions. However, during the process of the adoption of the Convention, the inclusion of provisions on the right to strike had been rejected.

87. A number of ideas had been proposed to improve the effect given to Conventions on human rights, said the Employer members. One proposal had been to include a social clause in trade treaties, which was no longer a viable solution. Similar objections had been raised to the concept of social labels, as proposed by the Director-General in his Report. Another suggestion was to establish a special supervisory procedure similar to the Committee on Freedom of Association. This procedure would also be applicable to member States which had not ratified the basic Conventions. This approach assumed that these basic principles, namely non-discrimination and the elimination of forced and child labour, were enshrined in the ILO Constitution. However, it was difficult to determine the extent to which such principles were indeed set out in the Constitution. The Employer members could not therefore support the establishment of new bodies to examine whether obligations deriving from the ILO Constitution were being fulfilled. The experience of the Committee on Freedom of Association illustrated the potential problems. The principle of freedom of association was set out in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, the results obtained by the Committee on Freedom of Association could not be considered strictly as the application and interpretation of the principle set out in the Constitution, if the term "principle" was to retain its meaning. Indeed, the extensive jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association extended to strike situations. In cases concerning countries that had not ratified Convention No. 87, the only legal basis for decision was the principle of freedom of association contained in the Constitution. The Committee on Freedom of Association appeared to be of the opinion that any infringement of the right to strike, which it considered to be almost unlimited, was unlawful and a violation of the ILO Constitution. This approach, and its results, did not abide by the usual principles of legal interpretation. In this context, the Employers noted that there was close collaboration between the work of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, with cross-references to their conclusions. It should be recalled that the legal interpretation of the Committee on Freedom of Association was based on the Constitution, while that of the Committee of Experts was based on the provisions of Convention No. 87. Although the Employer members supported general measures to give greater effect to ILO principles and fundamental workers' rights, they considered that the establishment of a principle of freedom of association without any limits or constraints would constitute unlimited interference in the affairs of third parties, without any solid legal basis. They believed that there was no precedent in national legal systems for this approach. Only the core aspects of the right to freedom of association could be afforded special protection. More detailed provisions needed to be established by the competent legislative body in member States. The Employer members reaffirmed the fundamental difference between obligations with respect to ratified Conventions and unratified standards. It was very dangerous when an organization did not apply its own rules, even where the objective was desirable. In legal terms, public international law survived because of the willingness to create a consensus and uphold peace. Any constraint that did not have a lawful basis could not be applied and would give rise to opposition.

88. The Employer members welcomed the success of the Director-General's campaign for the ratification of fundamental ILO standards, although they noted that this success did not extend to the standards on child labour. It was not unrealistic to hope for greater ratification of fundamental Conventions. Indeed, in recent years the ILO had had to re-examine its fundamental role. In their opinion, standard setting had lost much of its importance. Although the Organization had been affected by the signs of a crisis, it should be recalled that crises were not necessarily negative. Crises should be seen as a turning-point which offered opportunities for improvement, which should be taken up.

89. The Worker members said that in many countries there was a considerable gap between ratification of Conventions, their application through legal principles and their application in practice: the second part of the report of the Committee of Experts and the high number of representations and complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association provided sufficient evidence of that. One could not accept such an inconsistent attitude. Even the non-binding provisions which some would like to put in place of Conventions, such as Recommendations, resolutions or codes of good conduct, were not always taken seriously. It was regrettable that too many member States were, by ratifying few or no Conventions, avoiding an important part of their constitutional obligations. Happily, certain constitutional provisions and principles remained applicable to them, such as observance of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the objective of social justice and the obligation to report on unratified Conventions. The efforts of the Director-General and several constituents to make the most of the means offered by the Constitution to promote the observance of fundamental rights as a whole independently of the ratification of the corresponding Conventions and without weakening the existing supervisory system should be fully supported. These rights should be observed in all countries and all enterprises, whatever the level of economic development, because they formed the basis of a social policy which, while taking into account the national possibilities, made possible the application of other standards on, for example, safety and health at work or social security. In this context, and bearing in mind the divergent opinions on this subject, the Worker members would like to recall their proposal as to a social clause in a multilateral and non-protectionist framework, not as a goal in itself, but as an instrument to reinforce the system of supervision serving the objective of social justice.

90. The Worker members noted that, while having declined in comparison with the previous year, the number of new ratifications registered remained encouraging and was a concrete demonstration of support by the member States for the principles and values of the ILO. These numbers should be seen in the context of the campaign to promote the ratification of Conventions on the basic rights. The prospects for ratification of these Conventions were very real, including Convention No. 138, which 12 governments had already indicated their intention to ratify and ten others stated they were examining. This campaign should therefore be continued and supported and the resolute attitude of the Office in encouraging these ratifications, particularly through technical cooperation, should be commended. The work of the Governing Body on the revision of certain Conventions and the promotion of others also had a role to play. Tripartite consultations at the national level could contribute to promoting the ratification of fundamental Conventions by showing that obstacles to ratification invoked previously were no longer relevant. In spite of progress, the pace of new ratifications was still very slow. The industrialized countries in particular had to adopt a more dynamic attitude: it was unacceptable that some of them still had not ratified the fundamental Conventions.

91. The Worker members said that the 2,132 cases of progress registered since 1964 proved that the supervisory system based on dialogue, cooperation and technical assistance had a real impact on workers and their families. This year, 25 cases concerned fundamental rights and important Conventions. Frequently it was firm action and campaigns led by the workers' organizations at the national and international level which had led to such progress. The strengthening of the supervisory system retained its essential role, and the credibility of standards required the elimination of attitudes rejecting cooperation and dialogue with the ILO and its supervisory bodies. The proposals of the Director-General concerning the global social label and the introduction of a complementary procedure for discussing cases of non-observance of fundamental rights stood in this line of reasoning. It was indispensable for the ILO to have the necessary financial means to fulfil its mandate.

92. The Government member of Kenya supported the continuation of the Director-General's campaign for universal ratification of the basic human rights Conventions. The Government member of Germany thought some link between labour standards and trade indisputable - as demonstrated by the export processing zones; initiatives of producers, business people and consumers in the area of social labelling could not be ignored; and it was important that the standards supervisory system should be improved, although Government delegates at the Conference should not - as had been suggested - be compelled to vote for the adoption only of Conventions which their governments were sure to be able to ratify. The Government member of Saudi Arabia suggested the replacement of Recommendations by a system of guidance on the adaptation of national systems to international labour standards. The Government member of Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) supported the Governing Body's work for modernization of the standard-setting system and was also interested in the establishment of a portfolio of proposals for standards to enhance medium-term planning. The Government member of the Netherlands supported the campaign for ratification of the basic human rights Conventions, which had already been fruitful, as well as the proposal for a Declaration involving also a procedure to monitor compliance; the choice of subjects for new standards should be strategic and take account of what would be durable and legally verifiable; details could be included in appendices, for easier amendment, and autonomous Recommendations should be reintroduced; obsolete Conventions and Recommendations should be abrogated, but he was sceptical as to the practical use of an updated version of the International Labour Code. The Government member of Canada said the Director-General's Report contained important initiatives to be discussed in the Governing Body: opportunities should be acted on with vision. The Government member of India supported the Governing Body's work for the revision of existing Conventions; new Conventions should take account of widespread unemployment in the world, the predominance of the unorganized sector and prohibitive cost of sophisticated social security systems in developing countries, and the ineffectiveness of labour inspection systems, and the pressures of international competitiveness; future Conferences should address these problems without unnecessarily burdening state enforcement machinery or harassing employers and without allowing the unscrupulous exploitation of workers. The Government member of Uganda said that improvements in the supervisory machinery envisaged by the Director-General should remain within the terms of the Constitution, and existing mechanisms already caused government difficulties in reporting. The Government member of the Republic of Korea endorsed the revision process, a selective approach to new standard setting and flexibility in application according to national conditions.

93. Worker members of Burkina Faso, Germany, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Swaziland and the United Kingdom all spoke in favour of the ILO having more power to enforce the application of labour standards, particularly through a trade link. A Worker member of Germany was surprised at the Employer members' objection to social labelling, which would not be regulatory, but voluntary, merely informing consumers that goods had been produced in a way that respected human rights; at the same time, he welcomed the Director-General's proposal for new supervisory procedures relating to forced labour and child prostitution in particular.

94. The Worker members considered that a positive attitude towards standard-setting activities and the role of the ILO and its supervisory system clearly emerged from the interventions of the Employer members, as well as from the large majority of governments. Thus, a more constructive approach than at previous sessions had characterized nearly all of the interventions on the part of governments, who had stressed the importance of ILO standards in a context of economic and social change and called for social justice and progress as guarantees of sustainable economic development. The Worker members noted that the Employer members and the majority of Government members, though in sometimes very general terms, had come out in favour of reinforcing the supervisory system and a better application of standards in practice by means of the wider use of technical cooperation and the multidisciplinary advisory teams. They noted that several Government members had supported the efforts of the ILO to promote the ratification and application of standards. Some of them had insisted that concrete actions should be undertaken and made suggestions to improve the efficiency of the ILO in this respect. They recalled that the Government member of China, in particular, had stated that his country would adopt a more constructive attitude towards ILO standards.

95. The Worker members considered, however, that the concrete scope of these general remarks and suggestions was not fully clear: what was meant precisely when it was stated that the ILO should take into account economic and social realities for the application of fundamental standards? Which realities were meant when it was stated that standards should take account of the changes in the world and that no new standards should be adopted unless they were absolutely necessary? The Worker members endorsed the position of the Director-General to the effect that the idea of any break in standard setting was unacceptable. In contrast, globalization, increased international competition and new technologies made it necessary to adopt new standards and update existing standards. In this respect, the Worker members had no objection to a more rigorous selection and a more thorough preparation of subjects for new standards.

96. The Worker members wondered what was the exact meaning of the statement by the Government member of India to the effect that no links should be established between standards and international trade. While the comparative advantage resulting from the low wages was undoubtedly acceptable, it was so only to the extent that the level of wages and conditions of work corresponded to the level of economic and social development of the country concerned and on condition that the right of workers to organize freely to negotiate the level of their wages was guaranteed. But the situation was completely different and unacceptable where an artificially low level of wages and conditions of work resulted from a disregard of fundamental international standards and from the absence of any social policy.

97. The Worker members noted that the Employer members had said that the supervisory system should be strengthened, while at the same time insisting on limiting the possibilities of resort to complaints and representations and asking the Committee of Experts to be more restrained in requesting reports. They noted that the Employer members also called for more technical assistance and information on standards, while seeming, unless such interpretation was mistaken, to reject the proposals of the Director-General for systematic collection of information on social policies and the application of fundamental standards through a global social label. For the Workers, many positions advocated by the Employer members were a cause for concern, because they raised questions as to whether all the constituents really wanted to reinforce the supervisory system. This was particularly so when they rejected the adoption of new standards, the search for effective sanctions or the introduction of new procedures to monitor non-ratified fundamental Conventions. These examples illustrated the lack of consistency in certain positions and served to clarify the terms of the debate. Innovative proposals should not be put aside purely on the basis of legal arguments.

98. The Worker members thought the discussion had shown broad support for the initiative of the Director-General for the development of standard setting in the context of globalization. Several governments had stated their intention to proceed with ratifications following the Director-General's campaign, while others had voiced their concerns at reinforcing the practical application of Conventions.

99. The Worker members, referring to the statement of the Employer members reflected in paragraphs 86 and 87 above, noted that many governments had supplied useful and encouraging information as to the application of particular Conventions. To the Workers, the position of the Employer members concerning the right to strike was well known, as was also that of the Worker members, who fully endorsed the interpretation of the Committee of Experts, which was itself in line with the practice followed for many years by the Committee on Freedom of Association. It appeared that the Employer members were now openly criticizing the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association in their statement that its approach to the right to strike was not in conformity with rules of legal interpretation. The Worker members would inform the Worker members of the Governing Body and its Committee on Freedom of Association of the position taken by the Employer spokesman, to seek clarification. Unless this was a misinterpretation, the position of the Employer members concerning the proposals discussed in the Governing Body and the Conference with a view to improving observance of fundamental rights, irrespective of the ratification of the corresponding Conventions, was also surprising. Their reluctance to accept a procedure analogous to that of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of the protection of other fundamental rights could be understood, but it did not justify the criticisms of the Committee of Experts. The discussion of these subjects needed to be pursued in a constructive manner that respected the positions of all the various parties.

100. The Employer members recalled that they had been commenting on the issue of the right to strike for many years. They acknowledged that the principle of industrial action, including the right to strike and lockouts, formed part of the principles of freedom of association as set out in Convention No. 87. Their criticisms were aimed at all the detailed jurisprudence developed over a number of years on the basis of these principles. Such detailed provisions were not to be found in either Convention No. 87 or the ILO Constitution. Moreover, the comments of the Employer members concerning the interpretation of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association contained no new elements and did not constitute a general criticism of the overall work of the two bodies.

101. The Employer members believed that there had been some misunderstanding during the general discussion on their comments concerning social labelling. They wished to reaffirm their support for the objective of greater universal respect for fundamental human rights Conventions. However, there was no easy means of achieving this objective. Some proposals had been made. These included the social clause, which had failed. The Employer members' concerns regarding social labelling were similar, although not exactly the same, to those they had expressed in respect of the social clause. A number of these concerns had been explained in the Report of the Director-General, even though he had ultimately come out in favour of social labelling. Although the idea of social labelling may be appealing to some, its effectiveness was doubtful. The details of such a scheme had not yet been fully worked out, but it was difficult to imagine how it could be applied in practice. One problem was that injustices might occur, for example where States were not granted the label or the label was withheld. In such a case, all the producers, and therefore the workers and their families in the country would suffer, even where they had observed the necessary standards. The system would therefore involve group liability. In addition, it was uncertain that such a system would achieve the desired effects in terms of consumer reaction. Although general opinion might be influenced relatively easily on such issues as the exploitation of child labour, even such important problems as forced labour represented more abstract concepts for the general public. It was uncertain that they would prevail over the immediate concerns of price and quality. The Employer members therefore believed that the viability of the proposed system had been overestimated and the dangers underestimated.

102. On the issue of standard setting, the Employer members pointed out that many of the points made in the Report of the Director-General were in line with the proposals put forward by the Employers' group over recent years. If these proposals were implemented, a new form of standard setting would be set in motion which would involve the adoption of fewer standards. They emphasized that this did not mean the adoption of no standards at all. However, any new standards adopted should focus on basic principles, rather than detailed provisions. If this approach had been adopted earlier, there would not be so many Conventions with very few ratifications. Many older standards which did not comply with the new approach would need to be revised or abrogated. It was a significant development that proposals of the nature contained in the Report of the Director-General now commanded agreement from all sides.

C. Reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution

Labour Administration Convention (No. 150) and Recommendation (No. 158), 1978

103. The Committee held a discussion on the General Survey made by the Committee of Experts on the basis of reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution on Convention No. 150 and Recommendation No. 158, 1978, concerning labour administration. The survey also took into account reports on the Convention communicated under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution, as well as comments received from employers' and workers' organizations with the governments' reports in accordance with article 23(2) of the Constitution.

Introductory statements

104. The Worker members stated that they had examined with great interest the first General Survey on the instruments adopted in 1978. This Committee had already emphasized that these surveys could also fulfil the function of evaluating standards, a view that had been endorsed by the Director-General in his Report. The task of the Committee of Experts consisted of identifying problems of interpretation or application and making suggestions for their solution; bringing to light the strong points, as well as the weak points of the Convention with a view to facilitating its ratification and application; and describing the national practices which exemplified the best manner of implementing the provisions of the Convention. In its final remarks, the Committee of Experts outlined in balanced terms the advantages of ratifying the Convention. Like the Committee of Experts, they regretted that a number of States have not supplied all the necessary information on the budgetary or institutional difficulties facing labour administration or on the reasons which were delaying or preventing the ratification of the Convention.

105. The Worker members noted that this Convention, which had been well prepared and adopted unanimously, was closely linked with Conventions Nos. 81 and 144. It was also based on article 11 of the Constitution, which provided for the direct communication of labour administrations with the ILO. Moreover, its application facilitated access to technical cooperation. These instruments had the advantage of promoting a coordinated and, as emphasized in the General Survey, a dynamic approach by the various competent authorities engaged in ensuring effective labour inspection. However, the administrations and ministries concerned did not currently benefit from any priority treatment in terms of budgetary resources and only rarely received any significant political support. This situation was not tenable at a time when the economic and social changes resulting from globalization and structural adjustment should be making labour administration even more indispensable.

106. The Worker members pointed out that, in spite of its relevance, the Convention had been ratified by only 39 member States. It was surprising, as pointed out by the Chair of the Committee of Experts, that a related Convention which contained more stringent requirements, such as Convention No. 81, had received wider ratification than this Convention, which was of a more promotional nature. These instruments sought principally to establish a coordinated and efficient system of labour administration ensuring good collaboration with employers' and workers' organizations. As recalled by the Committee of Experts, they were originally intended to protect the nascent administrations against the risk of marginalization. However, 20 years later, labour administrations in many countries still occupied secondary places in the hierarchy of priorities, even if it was generally recognized that the proper functioning of the labour market was a decisive factor in economic success. This could be interpreted, as had been done by the Committee of Experts, as a consequence of the concept promoted, particularly by the IMF, according to which employment was facilitated by deregulation and the weakening or suppression of the institutions of dialogue between the social partners. The idea that this dialogue was necessary to ensure economic growth was once again gaining prominence, although much remained to be done for it to be shared by political decision-makers and received budgetary support.

107. According to the Worker members, the chapter on the various functions of labour administration systems recalled that these included promoting the practical application of international labour standards by facilitating their incorporation into national law and practice. Another essential function concerned the establishment of the dynamic partnership between public or semi-public bodies and workers' and employers' organizations in the application of national labour and employment policies. The third essential function of labour administration, related to the previous ones, consisted of guaranteeing protection of freedom of association and efficient collective bargaining. While democratic progress supported collective bargaining and tripartite cooperation, their institutional framework was being weakened by economic difficulties. The Committee of Experts was right to refer to the conclusions adopted by the Conference the previous year concerning tripartite consultations in relation to economic and social policies, which had noted the same trends. The survey had the merit of dispelling misunderstandings concerning the obligations resulting from Article 7 of the Convention, which appeared to be at the origin of a reticence by some countries to ratify it. By providing for the possibility to extend the functions of labour administration to other categories of workers, such as self-employed workers, farmers or workers in the informal sector, the Convention did not oblige the State Party to apply its legislation to these categories of workers.

108. The Worker members shared the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts with regard to the major difficulties facing labour administration, one of the consequences of which was late reporting or failure to report. These conclusions should be borne in mind when the Committee of Experts noted the relatively low level of resources allocated to labour administrations in the industrialized countries, or when it observed that this was one of the lowest budgetary priorities in the developing countries, because under-financing had a direct consequence on the services provided, and therefore on living and working conditions. The examination of difficulties relating to ratification showed that they were not insurmountable, irrespective of whether they were related to the scope of Article 7 or to the provisions of Article 2, which made it possible to delegate certain activities to employers' and workers' organizations. The Committee of Experts had made a useful contribution in dissipating possible misunderstandings in this respect. Governments should be called upon to re-examine their position in this respect in consultation with the social partners. Its ratification should be promoted because the Convention provided an institutional framework to improve the functioning of the labour market and the employment situation and to stimulate economic growth, as emphasized in the final remarks of the survey.

109. The Employer members commended the General Survey of the Committee of Experts. Employment laws and regulations would be worthless if there were no system of labour administration to assess and enforce compliance. In this respect, it was disappointing that some 52 per cent of member States had not provided the reports due under article 19 of the Constitution for the purposes of this survey. This was a serious problem which compromised the ability of the Committee of Experts to provide an accurate and complete assessment of the situation as regards labour administration throughout the world. The development of an effective system of labour administration was a difficult proposition which varied widely due to the broad diversity of national conditions, including their historical and economic development, culture, government structures, country size and financial resources. Convention No. 150 and Recommendation No. 158 therefore provided general guidelines for the general institutional framework of labour administration. They were notable instruments because they were not the product of the process of extensive amendment, subamendment and voting that was normally involved in the development of international labour standards. In view of the broad differences among countries, the texts of the two instruments had largely been formulated by the Drafting Committee. Because the Convention was drafted in general terms and because of the limited legislative history of labour administration, there was no basis under the Vienna Convention to establish more precise requirements. Under Article 1 of the Convention, the systems of labour administration and national labour policy were to be approached in a broad manner which gave ratifying States a great deal of discretion. In accordance with national conditions, Article 4 required the organization and effective operation of a coordinated system of labour administration with, under the terms of Article 5, input from organizations of employers and workers.

110. The Employer members noted that the functions of the system of labour administration related to the principal fields of national labour policy, which was still evolving and which included labour protection, employment, research and labour relations. The fact that several other aspects of national labour policy not covered by the Convention were described in the General Survey bore witness to the rapid changes taking place at the workplace, as well as to the adaptability and flexibility of the Convention. Indeed, the General Survey amounted to a compendium of change at the workplace and in labour administration. In view of the fact that social security retirement systems were experiencing a period of far-reaching financial crisis throughout the world, and also in view of the flexibility of the Convention and recent discussions concerning the need to revise certain of the ILO's social security Conventions, it was surprising that the Committee of Experts had adopted an unreceptive approach to privatization alternatives that could make publicly financed systems of labour administration more solvent. This position by the Committee of Experts showed a failure to acknowledge that publicly financed schemes could no longer be funded in traditional ways without absorbing a disproportionate share of national economic output. The fact that fewer than 25 member States had ratified recent ILO social security Conventions was further proof of the outmoded nature of this attitude.

111. The Employers stated that, in its comments on employment and human resources development, the Committee of Experts had overstated the functions of the system of labour administration when they observed that almost all countries had endowed their system with a fundamental role in formulating and implementing national employment policy. The conclusions of the Conference's discussions in 1996 on employment policies in a global economy had emphasized that the essential requirements of employment policy were a stable economic, political, legal and social environment; low inflation; low interest rates; coherent macroeconomic policies; stable exchange rates; enforceable contracts; open markets; stable commodity prices; low taxes; currency liberalization; and debt reduction. With the exception of guarantees concerning human rights, these were matters which lay well outside the scope and competence of labour administration systems. In view of the lack of legislative history on what was meant by the technical committee which drafted the Convention on this point, it was incorrect to convert the instrument into an employment policy administration Convention. The Employer members pointed out that when Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention required labour administration systems to take into account relevant international labour standards, this did not mean that the Conventions embodying those standards needed to be ratified or applied. Commenting on the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention, which provided for an extension of the functions of labour administration to non-wage workers, the Employer members believed that it would be difficult to cover persons working voluntarily for themselves, especially when they operated outside the regular labour market in the informal sector and engaged no outside help. Such persons would even fall outside the scope of the discussion on contract labour which, if they were adopted, would result in instruments covering slightly less than 1 per cent of the workforce.

112. The Employer members noted that since the adoption of the instruments on labour administration, there had been a number of important changes to the economic and social context in which such systems operated. These included globalization, the development of regional trading blocs, a tightening of government budgets, increased privatization, the restructuring of companies and the worldwide recognition of the pre-eminence of market economies. The fact that the Convention continued to be relevant was a testament to a degree of flexibility that should have been included in many other standards to ensure their durability. In particular, the Convention needed to be particularly flexible and adaptable in a situation of falling trade barriers, instant communications, relatively rapid and inexpensive international transport and the rapidly changing technologies that were shaping labour markets and the rules of the game, which differed substantially from those pertaining when the standards had been adopted. Although there were no simple strategies for labour administration, approaches adopting management techniques and treating users as customers who needed information and advice were yielding better results than the traditional and more expensive adversarial enforcement systems. Other approaches, including mediation and arbitration were providing swifter and more effective labour administration. In this respect, the Committee of Experts had placed too much emphasis on the importance of material means and human and financial resources as a measure of the effectiveness of labour administration systems and the quality of the services that they provided. In at least one large country, the number of workplace injuries was declining at a time when workplace inspections were being reduced.

113. The Employer members pointed out that, even with its inherent flexibility, the Convention had only been ratified by 39 countries since it had come into force in 1980. Moreover, 70 per cent of the ratifications had been registered up to 1985. Convention No. 150 had model character because of its very flexible provisions. It was therefore surprising that other Conventions imposing more detailed obligations on member States had been ratified at higher levels. The General Survey clearly indicated that many member States misunderstood the requirements of the Convention and its basic flexibility. The survey would therefore contribute significantly to clarifying the requirements of the Convention which did not, for the most part, impose an obligation to produce specific results, but rather encouraged ratifying States to use their best efforts to improve their labour administration systems. More ILO technical assistance, outreach and promotion of the Convention was required. In view of the much higher ratification levels for far more prescriptive Conventions, it was ironic that a primarily procedural and goals-oriented instrument, on a subject that was essential to the implementation of employment law, had received so few ratifications.

114. The discussion that followed after the presentation from the spokespersons for the Employers and Workers centred around several subjects essentially concerning the continuing relevance and flexibility of the instruments in the context of challenges which have resulted from economic globalization and increased competition; the importance of tripartism; functions of labour administration; available resources and ILO assistance; prospects for ratification.

Relevance and flexibility of the instruments

115. A large number of Committee members underlined the importance, relevance and continuing usefulness of the instruments because of their flexibility, in the context of economic globalization, liberalization and structural adjustment.

116. The Government member of Belgium considered that it was appropriate to study the instruments on labour administration at a time when the ILO was examining the consequences of globalization, since observance of the ILO's objectives and the application of international labour Conventions depended on the proper functioning of labour administration. The instruments covered by the survey provided the institutional framework for the fulfilment of the responsibilities that derived from membership of the ILO. Not in the least obsolete, they also offered all the desirable flexibility. The Government member of Greece also underlined the relevance of these instruments which help improve systems of labour administration. The Government member of Haiti noted that Convention No. 150 is a constant point of reference and model for the concept of labour administration. The Government member of Morocco, noting the prime objective of the Convention as being to ensure a coordinated labour administration, underlined the importance of the Convention in the current context of open markets. Even if it is not one of the fundamental Conventions, this Convention deserves special attention as it permits the enforcement of other Conventions and principles promoted by the ILO. The Government of Tunisia noted that the discussion concerning the Convention was of great topical relevance in view of the important changes that numerous States were faced with in the context of the globalization of the economy and the impact of structural adjustment programmes. While labour administrations were witnessing an increase of their functions, their resources were being reduced. Labour administrations had, at present to assume a series of functions not within their traditional competence. In order to limit the negative impact of the economic upheavals caused by globalization, States should ensure social progress and permit labour administrations to promote employment and job security, to assist self-employed workers and to support medium and small enterprises. Competitiveness should not be maintained artificially by having recourse to simplistic solutions, such as massive lay-offs, a reduction of social coverage or a deterioration of working conditions.

117. The Worker member of Spain was pleased that labour administration was the subject of this General Survey as it was important not only to set out rights but also to ensure their respect. Convention No. 150 aimed at guaranteeing the application of the provisions of the fundamental Conventions of the ILO. The ILO should not, in his opinion, limit its supervisory activities to the fundamental Conventions and should not ignore other instruments like Convention No. 150. The Worker member of India noted that Convention No. 150 permitted the enforcement of the other Conventions as well as flexibility as regards its own implementation. A Worker member of Germany and Zimbabwe also referred to the flexibility of the provisions of the Convention as well as to the general guidelines that it provides. The former noted that the Convention contained very basic provisions, including only few special provisions in the implementation of which account could be taken of the various national legal systems. The latter recalled that Convention No. 150 provided general guidelines for a coordinated and effective national labour administration, without making specific requirements. It defined the role, functions and organization of national systems of labour administration in order to help and encourage member States to adopt cohesive and efficient structures which were relevant to technological developments, globalization and changes in world trade. The instrument could apply to all member States regardless of their level of development. Its greatest strength lay in allowing flexibility to achieve its aims and permitting a variety of approaches adapted to different and changing national circumstances. The Convention therefore made a very important contribution to the establishment of a coherent national social and economic policy. The Worker member of Japan highlighted the importance of labour administration in protecting the rights and interests of workers in the current context of fierce competition between enterprises and governmental policies which favoured deregulation of the market. The Worker member of Pakistan considered the role of labour administration to be very important, not only for the formulation of the labour policy in conformity with international labour standards, but also for its implementation at the national level.

Relevance of tripartism

118. Basing themselves on Article 5 of Convention No. 150 which deals with consultation, cooperation and negotiation between the public authorities and the most representative organizations of employers and workers, or - where appropriate - employers' and workers' representatives, a great number of speakers emphasized the importance of tripartite cooperation by showing the need to have constructive consultation with the social partners and their organizations at all stages of the preparation, administration and review of labour standards and employment policy.

119. The Government member of Trinidad and Tobago considered the General Survey provided a good basis for tripartite deliberation on the subject. The Government member of Argentina stressed the importance of tripartism in this domain. To comply with its obligations under the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), her Government was seeking to ensure consultations on the process of determining penalties under the labour legislation. Several Governments referred to their national practice. The Government members of Equatorial Guinea, India and Romania provided particulars concerning their national practice on labour administration. The Government member of Equatorial Guinea stated that his country had a law which regulated labour policy and labour administration which attributed essential functions to employers' and workers' organizations in the fulfilment of the aims of economic, social and cultural progress. It provided that these organizations should take part in the conciliation and arbitration procedures in labour disputes. The Government member of India indicated that in his country there were two national level tripartite consultative bodies where consultations regularly took place on the development, adoption and review of labour standards and their application. The services of the administration machinery were made available to workers' and employers' organizations for regulating the terms and conditions of employment through conciliation machinery or by registration of bipartite settlements. The Government member of Romania indicated that advisory committees had been created under the auspices of the Reform Council, ministries and local administrations. She was convinced that high quality tripartite dialogue was a prerequisite for this success of economic and social reform.

120. Many Worker members also underlined the importance of tripartism. The Worker member of Germany stated that to ensure an effective system of labour administration, employers, workers and their organizations, should participate alongside the public authorities in the design and implementation of national labour policy. This active partnership ensured the success and practical effectiveness of the system. In his view Germany was a good example of a country where the social partners had played a historical role in the development of labour administration and were continuing to do so. The Worker member of the Republic of Korea insisted on the importance of systems of labour administration comprising a tripartite structure. There was often an imbalance in the tripartite composition of labour administration which led to the under-participation of social partners in the process of consulting and reviewing national employment policy. Throughout 1996, the revision of Korean labour legislation had been discussed by a commission, but workers had been insufficiently represented and the result was that their rights and interests were not fully taken into account. For the stability of industrial relations, labour administration had to reflect genuine tripartism. The Worker member of Spain stressed the importance of Article 5 of the Convention concerning consultation, cooperation and negotiations between public authorities and the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The non-application of this Article was generally explained by a lack of confidence in the social partners. Thus, in his country, the signing of various agreements bore witness to the confidence that was placed in the social partners. It was incumbent on the ILO to help governments to implement Article 5 of the Convention. The Worker member of Singapore stated that she also supported the call in paragraph 259 of the General Survey for tripartite collaboration in the development of strategies to respond to the challenges in a planned and organized manner. Although Convention No. 150 had not been identified as one of the ILO's fundamental Conventions, it reflected the major themes and values promoted by the ILO and in particular the paramount importance of machinery or collective agreements. The Worker member of Uruguay stated the workers' organizations were calling for a broadening of trade union rights in Uruguay, in dialogue with the Government and the employers. The Worker member of Zimbabwe stated that Convention No. 150 promoted the paramount principle of tripartite consultation in labour administration systems. Tripartite consultation was vital to the success of structural adjustment programmes, which were being undertaken by most African governments. This included consultation with organizations of employers and workers at the design and implementation stages of economic development processes.

Functions of labour administration

121. Many members of the Committee referred to one or various main functions and tasks of the competent bodies of labour administration as mentioned in the instruments or carried out in national practice. They specifically referred to national employment policy, human resource development, some protective aspects of national labour policy such as social security, occupational safety and health and the role of labour inspection.

122. Worker members of Germany and Pakistan referred to the role of labour administration in the preparation and administration of national employment policy. The first stated that he considered that employment policy was one of the essential functions of labour administration and that industry-targeted policy was not enough to promote employment. What was also needed was a comprehensive public infrastructure. Although the Convention did not contain special provisions concerning human resources, it was indisputably an employment policy issue. Recommendation No. 158 also linked occupational guidance and vocational training policies to employment policy, as had the conclusions of the 1996 Conference Committee on Employment Policies. The second stated that the employment situation everywhere was critical and one of the major roles of labour administration was to prepare the young labour force, through training and retraining opportunities and facilities, so that they could meet the requirements of new labour markets. Even where there were jobs, unskilled manpower could not meet the requirements of the labour market and still did not have access to gainful employment.

123. The Government members of Morocco and Tunisia referred to activities of their labour administration especially concerning the preparation of laws, the promotion of collective bargaining, and settlement of collective labour disputes. The latter referred to assistance to disabled and older workers and the improvement of social cover. Placement agencies had been set up throughout the country on the national and local levels and training and retraining centres created. The social progress in his country was due to political will and the active participation of employers and workers but also to a well developed labour administration.

124. The Government member of Argentina underlined the efforts of the central labour authorities to promote skills, capacity-building and career prospects of the members of their staff.

125. With respect to the role of labour administration in social security matters, a Worker member of Germany considered that with regard to privatized systems, it was workers who bore the highest risk and who could least sustain it. Comparing the social protection in Germany and the United States, he stated that the level of social protection in the United States was surely not better than in Germany. With regard to privatized systems, workers who bore the highest risk were those who could least sustain it. Therefore, it was not possible to conclude that a private system would be cheaper and more efficient.

126. Regarding worker protection the Worker member of China emphasized that the protection provided to workers by labour legislation could only be made effective through labour administration systems, which covered such important areas as labour force management, the control of wages, effective labour inspection. The relevant rules were not enforced and workers' rights were not protected. Noting that workers' organizations should play an active role in labour administration, she described the role played by Chinese trade unions in the implementation of the relevant laws.

127. The Worker member of the United States responded to the Employer members' statement concerning possible reasons for declining workplace inspections, in particular in the field of occupational safety and health. He stated that according to the Employer members voluntary compliance and cooperation had significantly reduced the problem and need for such intervention. He strongly challenged the Employer members on this. One part of their premise was certainly true - there were unquestionably fewer workplace inspection and enforcement measures regarding occupational safety and health in the United States. As for the rest of the Employer members' premise, he questioned if the fall in inspections and enforcement measures was due to a significant diminution of occupational safety and health threats to United States workers. Official OSHA statistics again proved the Employer members wrong: there were approximately 7.9 million workers in the United States who were not within federal and state OSHA jurisdiction. The economic costs of workplace safety and health did not indicate more voluntary compliance and a lesser problem since over 70 billion US dollars per year were spent on workers' compensation, not to mention the millions of dollars of lost productivity due to workplace-caused sickness and injury. He stressed that the devastating drop in governmental inspection and enforcement in workplaces was not due to a diminution of the problem - it was due to an anti-worker political assault which took many forms, such as budget cuts, hiring freezes and cut-backs and neo-liberal reductions in vital federal and state occupational safety and health agencies. The United States had not reduced its workplace safety and health capability because it was a workers' safety and health paradise; on the contrary, that country had become, regrettably, an increasingly dangerous place to work.

128. A Worker member of Germany referred to the importance of strong social institutions in the context of economic restructuring. For instance, without its strong labour inspection system, Germany could not have undergone its reunification with such a low level of conflict.

129. The Worker member of Pakistan considered that the workplace was becoming more hazardous and that it was the responsibility of governments to change their inspection systems and to train workers and employers in coping with industrial accidents and occupational diseases. He stated that Pakistan had a large rural workforce where labour laws did not apply and facilities were lacking. Some minimum guarantees against accidents and minimum wage protection had to be provided to these members of the labour force. Women and children were subjected to even more intolerable forms of discrimination which could only be tackled by an effective labour administration.

130. The Worker member of the Republic of Korea mentioned that his country had ratified the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), but none of the seven fundamental human rights Conventions. Korean workers had staged demonstrations over the labour law reforms earlier this year and these were issues closely related to labour administration, since they involved employment policy, safety and health and vocational training. The revision of the labour legislation had not fully taken into account their rights and interests.

131. The Worker member of India stated that in his country, structural adjustment had resulted in a substantial increase of the level of unemployment. National circulars were weakening labour inspection with a resulting deterioration of working conditions in factories. It was of utmost importance to reduce the impact of such structural adjustment measures because labour inspection could play a major role in the area of child labour, in the informal sector as well as in export processing zones. Labour administration should remain impartial and report objectively on the application of labour laws.

132. The Government member of Uganda referred to difficulties faced in the implementation of Convention No. 81 and in the decentralization of labour administration. With reference to cooperation with the ILO, he noted the recent measures taken in this domain. Labour administration had been included in the country objectives for Uganda and that the draft employment policy had been debated earlier in the year by the social partners and other stakeholders. A tripartite Minimum Wages Advisory Board had been appointed and its report was being considered by the Government. Moreover, negotiating machinery for the public service had been developed. He also informed the Committee that his Government was working very closely with ILO/International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) to develop a project for the elimination of the most intolerable forms of child labour. In addition, his country had hosted a conference on the harmonization of labour legislation and the promotion of tripartism in East Africa.

Organization, human and financial resources and technical assistance

133. Many Government members brought up the precarious state of labour administration and the lack of means at their disposal. The Government member of Trinidad and Tobago stated that his Government supported the recommendation in the General Survey that national budgets should be increased for labour administration and that governments should be encouraged to recognize the great importance of labour ministries and the need for effective and efficient labour administration systems. He stated that in his country, only 0.22 per cent of the national budget was allocated to labour matters. With reference to the quality of the staffing of labour administration departments, he welcomed the assistance provided to his country by the ILO in this respect. The Government members of Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Morocco and Tunisia emphasized the importance of putting adequate means at the disposal of labour administration for their proper operation. In this context they underlined the need to strengthen ILO technical assistance. The Government member of Equatorial Guinea referred to the lack of human resources and material means to respond to the needs throughout the country. He stressed that the ILO should support national efforts in this regard. The Government member of Haiti recalled the importance for Haiti of the technical assistance which it had requested from the Office on this matter. The Government member of Morocco stressed that the ILO should support national efforts in this regard and that the regional activities of the Organization should be expanded, in particular for African and Arab countries. The Government member of Tunisia stated that the Office should provide technical assistance for the close monitoring of Convention No. 150, especially to developing countries. Cooperation at the international level, comparable to that of the Arab Regional Centre for Labour Administration (RAPLA), should be supported by the ILO.

Difficulties and prospects of ratification

134. With respect to prospects of ratification the Government member of Germany stated that this survey was more detailed than some previous surveys, particularly with regard to the question of obstacles to ratification. It was a good example of how better use could be made of the possibilities offered by reports on non-ratified Conventions, along the lines suggested by the Director-General in his Report this year. It would also be useful for such General Surveys also to cover the difficulties encountered by ratifying States.

135. The Government member of Belgium considered that the broad ratification of these instruments would have the triple advantage of: improving the impact of the technical assistance of the ILO by decreasing the dependence of both member States and of the Office on competing international expertise and help; facilitating the implementation of national policies responding to the ILO's major concerns in the area of fundamental standards, employment and occupational safety and health; and increasing involvement in the ILO's activities through a continuous dialogue between the social partners and government authorities.

136. The Government member of Trinidad and Tobago informed the Committee that at the 13th meeting of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Standing Committee of Ministers with responsibility for labour, CARICOM member countries had been requested to give priority to the strengthening of their respective labour administration systems and the ratification of Convention No. 150. To date only two of the 13 CARICOM countries had ratified the Convention, despite the fact that the principles set out in the Convention and Recommendation were generally adhered to in the region.

137. The Worker member of Japan indicated that labour administration should constitute a basis for an equitable development and, consequently, labour administrations should not be weakened. The ratification of Convention No. 150 and the implementation of legislation ensuring respect of its provisions at the national level were indispensable in this regard. The Worker member of Pakistan called for more ratifications of the Convention.

138. The Government member of Haiti stated that his Government was considering the revision of the Labour Code in order to render it more efficient and better adapted to the current needs and to the ongoing administrative reforms, as well as more in line with international standards. An effort was being made to vitalize and restructure the labour inspection system. The Government member of India described various arrangements which demonstrated that his country respected the spirit of Convention No. 150 but his Government considered it not possible to ratify this Convention because of Articles 2 and 7. The structure and character of the employers' and workers' organizations made Article 2's requirements impractical. In the context of the globalization of the economy and the need for public expenditure cut-backs, it could not be envisaged at this stage of development to request labour administration to cover all workers as envisaged under Article 7.

Final remarks

139. In their conclusions on the discussion of the General Survey, the Employer members regretted that of the 24 speakers in the debate, only four represented countries which had ratified Convention No. 150, the rest participating to explain the obstacles to its ratification. It would have been useful to have heard more about its implementation from countries which had ratified it because shared experiences were very valuable, especially in improving the effectiveness of labour administration systems. He was also disappointed in the low rate of reports sent under article 19 in respect of this General Survey. In spite of this, the Committee of Experts had been able to prepare what all speakers had agreed was a useful General Survey, stressing the flexibility and range of Convention No. 150. There was general agreement on the continued validity of the Convention and the need for its ratification. It provided a structure, general guidelines and an institutional framework. It allowed a great deal of national discretion as regards implementation, as long as it was coordinated and effective, as long as the country provided labour protection, unemployment insurance or conducted research, the activity had to be organized and effective. Likewise, this meant that if a country did not have a particular labour law or employment protection, the Convention did not require this, as long as the functions listed in Article 6 - such as research - were fulfilled. The difficulty was that, notwithstanding the generality of the Convention, it had received few ratifications. This was puzzling because labour inspection was the basis for enforcing all labour matters. Perhaps governments hesitated because there was a tendency to put too much in this Convention; there had to be a distinction between flexibility and vagueness. The ideal Convention was one which was short and was composed of clear general principles. Articles 1 to 6 of the Convention came close to this. The Employer members generally supported the aims of the Convention and, while not necessarily agreeing with all the comments in the survey, wished to point out that sometimes the language used could create the impression that the Convention was wider than it was in reality.

140. As for the privatization of social security, the Employer members pointed out that the debate had reached a point where reactions were becoming automatic, yet this was not a black or white issue. Some members of the Committee had suggested that governments be the guarantor of everything: retirement benefits, health care, and so on. Governments could no longer afford to do this, so other strategies had to be explored. It did not have to be a choice between completely private or completely public financing, but could be a blend of systems.

141. Regarding the role of labour administration in employment policy, the Employer members also pointed out that the words "national employment policy" were mentioned only once in the Convention, in Article 6(2)(a). If a country handled certain employment policy issues, then the requirements of coordination, checking and review applied. But the Convention was not all-encompassing and the Committee of Experts was over-reading it if they perceived that the system of labour administration had a central role to play in employment policies. The Employer members considered that the Committee of Experts placed too much emphasis on the amount of material resources, both human and financial, that member States required for an effective system of labour administration. All governments were under severe budget restrictions and governments, like the private sector, had to look at a variety of new and different approaches to obtain their objectives. For example, there were more cost-effective ways to undertake the education and training of employers, workers and their organizations in basic worker protection, and private audit agencies might be used to perform the same functions as government inspection teams. The Convention was a constructive one which deserved serious consideration by the Committee.

142. The Worker members noted that all the interventions made had confirmed the importance of Convention No. 150 and Recommendation No. 158, in an era when countries and regions all over the world were confronted with major political changes. This confirmed, more than ever before, the value of the general directions contained in these two instruments adopted in 1978. Several speakers, in particular from industrialized governments, had voiced the specific and substantial problems that their national labour administrations were facing. Further, although the efficiency of labour administration systems did not depend only on budgetary means and qualified personnel, a certain minimum level was still required to ensure that they functioned properly. At the same time, however, the level of resources allocated gave an indication of the political importance attributed to different ministries in any particular country. The Worker members subscribed to the plea for an active support of the ILO in order to convince politicians in charge as well as other international organizations that proper labour administration systems were of importance.

143. They underscored that one of the major thrusts of the two instruments on labour administration under examination was the coordinated approach to be given to labour and employment policies. The elaboration, implementation and evaluation of employment policies went beyond the competence of either one of a labour ministry or a labour administration system. In this context it was therefore of essence to adopt, as already had been underscored by the Employer members, a global approach encompassing the economic, social, monetary, legal as well as institutional levels. In this context, labour administrations had a mission to fulfil, as they should take part in the preparation, implementation, coordination, supervision and evaluation of national employment policies as provided for in Convention No. 150. Labour administrations could thereby engage the social partners in the elaboration of such a policy.

144. With respect to social security, the Worker members stressed that the Committee of Experts, in paragraph 83 of the report, only restated their previous observations according to which the new ways to administer social security systems, notably by way of privatization, were a cause of serious concern. The interest of the protected persons should be fully taken into account and the representatives of these persons should continue to be involved in any reform programme. At issue was, in fact, fundamental principles of any democracy and of any sound administration which the public authorities were bound to respect.

145. Finally, the interventions made had also underscored the importance of the General Survey conducted to promote the ratification of these instruments. The Committee of Experts had emphasized that the obligation contained in Article 7 of the Convention is an obligation of means and not of result and that it therefore was not useful to invoke this Article as a cause for non-ratification of Convention No. 150.

146. The Committee commended the quality of the first General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the labour administration instruments. It welcomed the description of national practices which exemplified the best manner of implementing the provisions of the Convention and the advantages of ratifying outlined by the Committee of Experts in its final remarks. Noting the flexible, dynamic and adaptable nature of the provisions of the Convention, the Committee found that the survey was timely and appropriate in view of the important changes that have taken place in the economic and social context in which labour administration operated. It noted that the survey clarified the requirements and contents of the Convention with a view to facilitating its ratification and application.

D. Compliance with specific obligations

147. 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.

148. In applying those methods, the Committee decided, on the proposal of the Worker members supported by the Employer members, to invite all governments concerned by the comments in paragraphs 102 (compliance with reporting obligations), 109 (supply of first reports), 113 (lack of reply to comments of the supervisory bodies), 138 (special problems relating to submission) and 142 (lack of reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations) 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

149. 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.

150. The Committee noted from the report of the Committee of Experts (paragraph 131) that considerable efforts to fulfil the submission obligation had been made in certain States, namely: Chad, Guyana, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritius, Mongolia and Suriname.

151. 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

152. The Committee noted with regret from paragraph 138 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 1988 and 1994 by the 75th to 81st Sessions of the Conference to the competent authorities, in the cases of Cameroon, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Syrian Arab Republic, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.

OBLIGATION_C Supply of reports on ratified Conventions

153. 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 1996 meeting of the Committee of Experts, the percentage of reports received was 63.3, compared with 65.8 per cent for the November-December 1995 meeting. Since then, further reports have been received, bringing the figure to 78.2 per cent (as compared with 78.9 per cent in June 1996, 82.0 per cent in June 1995 and 77.2 per cent in June 1994). In November-December 1996, the Committee of Experts noted that 70.4 per cent of the reports on Conventions for which information on practical application was requested contained such information, compared with 73.4 per cent in November-December 1995 and 62.5 per cent in February-March 1995. 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

154. The Committee noted with regret that no reports on ratified Conventions had been supplied for two years or more by the following States: Armenia, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Liberia, the Netherlands (Aruba), Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone and Somalia.

155. The Committee also noted with regret that no first reports due since 1992 on the ratified Conventions had been supplied by the following countries: Liberia (Convention No. 133); or since 1993, by Yemen (Convention No. 159); or since 1994 by Latvia (Conventions Nos. 111, 122, 135 and 151); and since 1995 by Armenia (Convention No. 111); Burundi (Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111), Kyrgyzstan (Conventions Nos. 133 and 160), the Republic of Moldova (Convention No. 105), Nigeria (Convention No. 144), Seychelles (Convention No. 149). It stressed the special importance of first reports, on which the Committee of Experts bases its first evaluation of compliance with ratified Conventions.

156. In this year's report, the Committee of Experts noted that 28 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 323 cases (compared with 337 cases in March 1995 and 354 the previous year). The Committee was informed that, since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, 11 of the governments concerned had sent replies, which would be examined by the Committee of Experts at its next session.

157. 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 1996 from the following countries: Barbados, Bolivia, Burundi, Czech Republic, Denmark (Greenland), Djibouti, Estonia, France (French Polynesia), Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mozambique, Myanmar, the Netherlands (Aruba), Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.

158. The Committee noted the explanations provided by the Governments of the following countries concerning difficulties encountered in discharging their obligations: Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Denmark (Greenland), Djibouti, France (French Polynesia), Guatemala, Jamaica, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Myanmar, the Netherlands (Aruba), Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Seychelles, Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago.

159. 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 that the multidisciplinary teams would give all due attention in their work in the field to standards-related issues and in particular 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 1995.

OBLIGATION_E Application of ratified Conventions

160. 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 119 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 25 such cases, relating to 21 countries; 2,132 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.

161. 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.

162. 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

163. 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.

164. The Committee noted with satisfaction that in the following case the Government has introduced changes in law or practice in order to eliminate one of the divergencies (the right to organize of GCHQ staff) previously discussed by the Committee: the United Kingdom (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)).

OBLIGATION_G Special cases

165. 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.

166. As regards the application by the Islamic Republic of Iran of Convention No. 111, the Committee took note of the observations that the Committee of Experts had been formulating for several years, the oral information presented by the Government representative as well as the detailed discussion in the Committee. It also took note of the explanations provided by the Government for not heeding the offer of a direct contacts mission, as well as on technical assistance which had been provided in accordance with the priority given by the Government. The Committee noted with concern that in spite of concrete initiatives and time which had elapsed, violations of the provisions of this as well as other Conventions subsisted, and required additional information. The Committee therefore expressed the firm hope that it would be informed of the measures that would be adopted in order to eliminate any form of discrimination in job offers as well as in the criteria applied by the competent authorities to declare certain groups illegal. The Committee notes the statistical information on the employment of religious minorities and women, the information on the constitutional provision according to which it is forbidden to question people about their beliefs and the amendment permitting women to hold certain functions in the judiciary. The Committee expressed the wish that the Government would continue to provide information on progress made until such time as the national legislation and practice were in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee strongly urged the Government to accept the direct contacts mission evoked last year, in order to be able to register rapid and noticeable progress.

167. As regards the application by Morocco of Convention No. 98, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed. The Committee recalled that it had discussed this case on several occasions in 1987, 1988 and 1994. The Committee noted that both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had criticized the divergencies between law and practice in relation to the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. Despite the fact that the Government had undertaken to submit a draft Labour Code to Parliament to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, the Committee was bound to regret with deep concern the numerous complaints concerning measures of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee urged the Government to supply the above text so that the Committee of Experts could examine whether its provisions guaranteed adequate protection to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and to workers' organizations against acts of interference, and whether they promoted to voluntary negotiation of collective agreements for the determination of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee once again urged the Government to indicate in its next report whether the draft Labour Code and the draft Law on the Settlement of Collective Disputes, to which it had referred, had been adopted. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note substantial progress in this respect in the very near future. The Committee regretted that the Government had not accepted the proposal to invite a direct contacts mission, as the Committee had requested the Government to do three years ago.

168. As regards the application by Myanmar of Convention No. 87, the Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and of the wide discussion which took place. It recalled that this case has been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions, in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. In 1995, the Committee put its conclusions in a special paragraph of its General Report, and in 1996 it also mentioned this case in a section of its General Report highlighting the continued failure to implement, taking into account that, for many years and in spite of various appeals, serious discrepancies with the Convention continued to exist in legislation and practice. The Committee could not but deplore the fact that no government report was received by the Committee of Experts and expressed its profound regret that serious divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention continued to exist. It also deplored the fact that the Government failed to cooperate. Being greatly concerned with the total absence of progress in the application of the Convention, the Committee once again urged the Government to adopt, as a priority, the measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in legislation and practice, to all workers and employers, without any distinction or any previous authorization, the right to join organizations of their own choosing to protect their interests. The Committee insisted also on the need for those organizations to have the right to affiliate with federations and confederations and with the international organizations, without any interference from the public authorities. The Committee expressed a firm hope that substantial progress in the application of the Convention might be noted in the very near future and urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts.

169. As regards the application by Nigeria of Convention No. 87, the Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and of the debate which followed. The Committee set out its great concern that, although this case had been the subject of a special paragraph in 1995 and 1996, no concrete progress had been made to date in relation to the very grave trade union situation in the country. Both the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had profoundly deplored the gravity of the situation of trade unions in Nigeria. The Committee once again urged the Government to urgently derogate not only Decrees Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994, concerning dissolution of the executive councils of trade unions persecuted by the public authorities, but also to nullify the Decree of January 1996, which fixed the number of trade unions for each category of profession, and which reinforced the current trade union monopoly. The Committee lamented that notwithstanding the guarantees given by the Government, it had not replied to the request of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body to accept an ILO mission to the country with the object of examining the questions raised in this case. The Committee called on the Government to accept without delay this mission in order to examine the trade union situation in Nigeria, including the situation of the imprisoned union leaders. The Committee urged the Government to ensure full respect of civil liberties, essential for the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to count important progress in the very near future and asked the Government to send a detailed report to examine anew next year the situation.

170. As regards the application by Sudan of Convention No. 29, the Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representatives and of the discussion which ensued. For many years the Committee of Experts had been making references to the accusations that forced labour was frequently being imposed with the complicity or indifference of the Government. The same allegations had been made in the various reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan and in the comments made by the World Confederation of Labour. The Committee took note of the detailed information supplied by the Government representatives on the different questions raised, regretted that they had not been submitted earlier and considered that this information, especially that relating to the activities of the committee created by the Government, should be examined by the Committee of Experts. It also took note of the historical background and of the situation of armed conflict prevailing in Sudan, to which one of the Government representatives made reference, as well as his opinion that the allegations were politically motivated. The Committee observed that the Government could not prove the commitment which it declared it had, to spare no efforts so as to bring forced labour to an end. In view of the contradictory information received and the continuing denunciations concerning violations of the Convention, the Committee urged the Government to increase its efforts to give full application to this Convention and request the technical assistance of the Office.

171. As regards the application by Swaziland of Convention No. 87, the Committee took note of the written and oral information supplied by the Government representative, as well as the discussion which ensued. The Committee noted the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association that, despite a direct contacts mission in October 1996 and specific progress concerning the education sector, the Industrial Relations Act, 1996, contained provisions which further violated the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee expressed its deep concern for the numerous and major discrepancies between the national law and practice on the one hand, and the provisions of the Convention on the other. The Committee urged the Government fully to respect the civil liberties essential to the implementation of the Convention and to apply very rapidly the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, particularly those which the social partners had already agreed upon. The Committee also urged the Government to take all the measures necessary to eliminate the restrictions on the right of workers to constitute organizations of their free choice, to hold meetings and to demonstrate peacefully, to formulate their programmes of action and to bargain collectively. The Committee trusted that the next report would indicate detailed measures adopted by the Government, with the assistance of the Office, to secure the full application of the Convention.

172. 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

173. 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 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); by Nigeria of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); and by Sudan of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

174. The Governments of the countries to which reference is made in paragraphs 166 to 171 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

175. The Committee notes that 168 of the 307 article 19 reports requested on Convention No. 150 and Recommendation No. 158 were received at the time of the Committee of Experts' meeting, and a further two since, making 55.37 per cent in all.

176. The Committee noted with regret that over the past five years none of the reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations requested under article 19 of the Constitution had been supplied by Afghanistan, Djibouti, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Yemen.

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

177. 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

178. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to the 66 governments which collaborated by providing information on the situation in their countries and participating in the discussions of their individual cases.

179. 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: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Ecuador, Estonia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Syrian Arab Republic, 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.

180. The Committee notes with regret that the Governments of the States which were not represented at the Conference, namely Armenia, Grenada, Latvia, Liberia, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, 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.

181. The Committee has been delighted, in a year when the Conference has so many items on its agenda relating to international labour standards, by the sustained interest which has been shown in the Organization's work for the supervision of those standards and the consistently high level and quality of participation in that work. The role of "moral conscience" of the Conference is a worthy one, to which the Committee may legitimately aspire: for conscience is that objective and impartial control - or at least monitor - of conscious action to which all humanity is subject, and which provides some inkling of the deepest truths and justices. It is after all the desire for social peace and social justice which lies at the heart of this noble Organization.

182. The strength and the test of the ILO's supervisory processes, though, are those of its whole oeuvre: the ability to translate universal principle and standard in the labour and social sphere into deed. About this there is no mystery. The reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the present Committee abound with the evidence. It consists, in concrete terms, in agreed objectives as to basic human rights and other labour and employment conditions; respect for democratic and legal procedures and commitments freely entered into; dogged devotion to constructive dialogue among governments and independent workers' and employers' organizations at the national and international levels; plus determination to identify and propagate the best possible technical and practical means of achieving those rights and conditions. And, in all of the above, an inexhaustible stock of good faith and hard work.

Geneva, 17 June 1997. (Signed) A. Callorda Salvo,

E.-C. Mihes,

Endnotes

Endnote 2