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 of its agenda: "Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations". The Committee was composed of 183 members (101 Government members, 28 Employers' members and 54 Workers' members). It also included 14 Government deputy members, 27 Employers' deputy members and 94 Workers' deputy members.(Endnote 1) In addition, 31 non-governmental international organisations were represented by observers. (Endnote 2) The Committee elected its officers as follows:

Chairman: Mr. F.O. Williams (Government member, Nigeria);

The Committee held 21 sittings.

2. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Committee considered the following questions: information on the submission to the competent authorities of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference, supplied under article 19 of the Constitution; reports on the application of ratified Conventions, supplied under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution; and reports requested by the Governing Body under article 19 of the Constitution on the Guarding of Machinery Convention (No. 119) and Recommendation (No. 118), 1963, and on the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention (No. 148) and Recommendation (No. 156), 1977.(Endnote 3)

3. As usual, the Committee began its work with a discussion of general questions relating to the application of Conventions and Recommendations and the discharge by member States of their obligations under the ILO Constitution in regard to such instruments. The Committee then discussed the general survey made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the effect given to the instruments relating to safety in the working environment. Finally, it considered a number of individual cases in respect of which the Committee of Experts had made observations in its report, concerning the application of ratified Conventions or compliance with the obligations to supply reports and to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities. The examination of these cases took as a starting-point the observations made by the Committee of Experts, the observations of the Conference Committee in previous years and comments received from employers' and workers' organisations and, where appropriate, the reports of other ILO supervisory bodies; it involved consideration of written and oral explanations provided by the governments concerned. In view of the limited time available, the Committee followed its usual practice of selecting a limited number of cases among the observations made by the Committee of Experts. A summary of the information supplied by governments, of the discussions in the Committee and of any conclusions reached by it is set out in Part Two of this report.

B. General questions relating to international labour standards

4. This year again the Committee reaffirmed its full support for the ILO's activities related to standards, by which the ILO endeavours to promote the rights of workers and social progress. This activity remains one of the ILO's fundamental means of action and should be maintained and reinforced, with the full support of all the parties concerned and with respect for universality. International labour Conventions and Recommendations, which cover many aspects of the world of work, are a precious source of inspiration for the policies and the social legislation of member States.

5. The Employers' members, the Workers' members and a number of Government members noted with interest the measures being taken to reinforce the co-ordination between standards-related activities and technical co-operation. They stressed that these two means of action are complementary, and noted the benefits which could result from better coordination. The experience acquired in carrying out technical co-operation projects could allow the formulation of more realistic standards which correspond more closely to the needs and means of the developing countries; technical co-operation could also create the practical conditions which would allow States to ratify Conventions and to apply them better, and to meet their other standards-related obligations. Likewise, international labour standards could serve as a frame of reference and as objectives for the formulation and the execution of technical cooperation programmes. The hope was expressed that the discussion which was being held on technical cooperation in another Committee of the Conference would lead to the adoption of positive conclusions on the development within the framework of technical co-operation, of everything connected with the Organisation's work on standards. The Committee was informed that the Director-General has recently issued a general policy circular intended to implement the policy of co-ordination between technical cooperation and standards.

Ratification of Conventions

6. A number of speakers stated that the high number of ratifications of ILO Conventions which have been registered so far (5,300) is a striking sign of the vitality of the ILO's standard setting, and bears witness to the support of the member States for this activity, whatever their level of development.

7. The Employers' members, the Workers' members and a number of Government members noted, however, that the number of ratifications registered in 1986 (35) was relatively low. The Workers' members stated that they were concerned by this situation and appealed to member States to increase their ratification of newer Conventions as well as older ones, including the fundamental human rights Conventions; they mentioned in particular the Conventions on freedom of association, and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which despite its importance has been ratified by only 43 countries. The Government members of Belgium and the Netherlands also supported the ratification of Convention No. 144. The Government member of Belgium asked the Office to intensify its promotional efforts in this regard, noting the new impetus given in his country to the examination and ratification of Conventions by the ratification of Convention No. 144.

8. The Government member of Algeria noted that while only 35 ratifications were registered in 1986, unlike other years there had been no denunciations. This should be stressed in view of the world economic crisis which imposed enormous sacrifices, especially for developing countries.

9. Several speakers asked what might explain the recent tendency toward lower numbers of ratifications. The Government member of Portugal noted the serious economic situation faced by many countries. The Workers' member of France wondered whether blaming this on the economic situation was not sometimes a pretext, since some Conventions are quantitative while others are qualitative, and still others concern basic human rights. The Government members of Bulgaria and Cuba felt that the cession is not the only cause. The former felt that the trend toward fewer ratifications will continue unless a way can be found to improve the dialogue between governments and the supervisory bodies. The latter noted that some States which are not affected so much by the crisis still do not ratify Conventions, in order to avoid subjecting themselves to the supervisory machinery. The Employers' member of Czechoslovakia also wondered whether the reduced number of ratifications registered in recent years might not be linked to a loss of confidence in supervisory procedures. The spokesman for the Employers' members stated that the responsibility for the lower number of ratifications could not be attributed to the supervisory machinery.

10. The Government members of Saudi Arabia and of the Federal Republic of Germany noted that since ratification creates an international obligation, member States should examine carefully whether they are able to undertake it so that they will not expose themselves later to difficulties. The Government member of China stated that an examination of ILO Conventions which it might be possible to ratify, was being carried out in his country. The Government members of Belgium and of Uruguay describes the procedures under way in their countries with a view to the ratification of Conventions.

Working Party on International Labour Standards

11. The Committee was informed that the Governing Body had approved the final report of the Working Party on International Labour Standards, which was established in 1984 to follow up the Conference discussions on this subject. In addition to a revised classification of existing standards and of subjects for possible new standards, the report contained a summary of discussions and comments on the ILO's general policy in this regard, as well as a number of suggestions for promoting a better understanding and use of standards.

12. The Government members of Algeria, Denmark-speaking also in the names of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden-Egypt and Portugal welcomed the results achieved by this Working Party, which showed a consensus on the value and principles of standard setting. They stressed the usefulness of the revised classification of instruments and of the suggestions made by the Working Party, and noted that this kind review should take place periodically. The Government member of the Byelorussian SSR considered that the Working Party had achieved no progress since it had dealt only with the purely technical aspects of standard setting.

Adoption, contents and revision of standards

13. Several Government members emphasised the importance of adopting appropriate standards which respond to the needs of different countries, so that they can be ratified and applied. The Government member of France recalled that it is when Conventions are being drafted that full consideration should be taken of the economic and social conditions existing in different countries. The Government member of Morocco stated that account can be taken of differences in economic systems and of levels of development only by introducing special provisions into Conventions which, for example, allow the possibility of not accepting obligations under certain Articles or of deferring their application. The Government members of China and of Cameroon suggested that the pace of adoption of new standards be slowed down and that emphasis be laid on the revision of existing standards. The Government member of Cameroon suggested that one or two subjects for revision should be included on the agenda of each session of the Conference, beginning with the least-ratified Conventions and with those which posed the most problems of application. Instead of reducing the scope of standards, this would make them more universally acceptable because would be more flexible and more adapted to the possibilities of the largest number of member States, and in particular of African countries. The Government member of Hungary considered that the contents of Conventions should reflect to a greater degree the changes which have taken place in the world, and should take account of existing conditions in developing countries as well as in developed countries, and in socialist countries as well as in other countries.

14. It was recalled that over the past few years a large proportion of items on the Conference agenda have concerned the revision of existing standards, their updating or the adoption of supplementary provisions. Of the 15 items examined during the past eight sessions with a view to the adoption of standards, no fewer than 11 were of this kind, and only four envisaged the adoption of standards on new subjects.

15. The Government member of Argentina stressed that fishermen are a category of workers often excluded from the scope of general Conventions and, more recently, from that of maritime Conventions. He hoped that the agenda of future sessions of the International Labour Conference would also include items concerning these workers.

16. The broadest possible participation of those concerned, and in particular of developing countries, in the drafting of standards was considered to be of fundamental importance by the Government members of China and of Egypt, who hoped that the Office would give more assistance to developing countries. The Government member of China advocated an increase in training courses and seminars, and the adoption of measures to promote interregional consultations and tripartite participation in standards-related activities. In this connection, the Government member of the Netherlands and the Workers' member of Japan welcomed the draft amendments to the Standing Orders of the Conference which had been proposed this year, and which would ensure increased participation of employers' and workers' organisations in the formulation of standards.

Sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Committee of Experts: Basic principles, terms of reference and methods of work of the Committee of Experts

17. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of its establishment, the Committee of Experts had held a discussion this year of its basic principles, its terms of reference and its methods of work, the conclusions of which may be found in paragraphs 9 to 52 of its general report. These paragraphs were discussed in detail in the present Committee. Many speakers welcomed the high quality of the Committee of Experts' report, which was particularly rich and voluminous this year, and thanked the Committee of Experts for the detailed explanation of its principles, terms of reference and methods of work.

18. The Committee was unanimous in recognising that a supervisory system is indispensable for ensuring that the standards adopted by the ILO are applied in practice. It also recognised that supervision should be based on the widest and most constructive dialogue possible among all the parties concerned, with a view to promoting improved mutual understanding and instilling a climate of confidence which will allow difficulties to be resolved.

19. The spokesman for the Employers' and Workers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of their members, and the Government members of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark (speaking also on behalf of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, paid homage to the Committee of Experts, an essential part of the supervisory system which was established 60 years ago. They expressed their support for the basic principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality reaffirmed by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 19 of its report, and hoped that the Committee would continue to act on the basis of these principles. The spokesman for the Workers' members, and the Workers' members of France, Japan and Liberia, expressed their entire confidence in the Committee of Experts, which they thanked for the help it had given to the workers of the whole world. The Government members of Cameroon and Mozambique also paid homage to the important work done by the Committee of Experts. Some of the above speakers considered that the large number of ratifications registered, the high proportion of reports received this year on the application of ratified Conventions and the number of cases of progress noted in the application of Conventions were indications of how effective its work had been.

20. The Government member of the USSR stated that supervision is an essential element in the ILO's work, but that it should function democratically, in conformity with international law and the ILO Constitution, and that it should take account of the degree of economic development of countries and of their political and social structures. The way the Committee of Experts functions is not in conformity with the international principle of peaceful coexistence, since the Committee of Experts persists in evaluating the application of Conventions, and in particular the Conventions on freedom of association, on the basis of the idea that only the conceptions reigning in capitalist countries are in conformity with Conventions. The Committee of Experts refuses to take account of differences in social and economic conditions, in spite of the reservations expressed by two of its own members. In addition, the Committee of Experts discriminates against those of its members from socialist countries, who are never assigned responsibility for Conventions on basic human rights. Finally, the Committee of Experts does not function in conformity with the terms of reference laid down for it by the Conference when the Committee was created, nor with the ILO Constitution. Instead of remaining a technical body responsible for assisting the Conference Committee, as had been intended when it was established, it has placed itself above the Conference Committee and taken upon itself the right to interpret Conventions, although article 37 of the Constitution provides that the responsibility for interpreting Conventions lies exclusively with the International Court of Justice. It also interprets national legislation, which is exclusively the right of national courts and other national institutions. For these reasons it is necessary to improve and democratise supervision by having the Conference adopt regulations concerning the terms of reference and methods of work of the supervisory bodies, as suggested by a draft resolution submitted to the present session of the Conference. The Government members of the Byelorussian SSR, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Ukrainian SSR, and the Workers' members of Bulgaria, Ecuador, the German Democratic Republic and the USSR supported the adoption of such regulations by the Conference, in order to establish a legal basis which would define clearly the manner in which the supervisory system should function and to re-establish the necessary confidence in it. The Government member of Czechoslovakia expressed the view that it was misleading to refer to the objectivity and impartiality of the Experts since they were not expected to pronounce final judgements. He argued that no real objectivity and impartiality were guaranteed by the present practice.

21. The spokesman for the Workers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of the Workers' members, stated that the question of the terms of reference and methods of work of the Committee of Experts had already been discussed several times by the present Committee, by the Conference and by the Governing Body and that regulations such as those proposed were not justified. The fact that the Committee of Experts was celebrating its 60th anniversary was a sufficient testimony to its effectiveness. The Committee of Experts should continue to work in full autonomy, on the basis of its present principles and methods of work, which it reexamines at regular intervals. The spokesman for the Employers' members, speaking in the name of large majority of Employers' members, considered that the proposals made would in fact mean putting an end to any supervision worthy of the name. The Government member of France recalled that an unwritten principle of the ILO is that all its supervisory bodies establish their own working methods with complete autonomy. He stressed that since its creation, the Committee of Experts has made a whole series of practical and concrete adaptations in its working methods. The supervisory system might not be perfect, but it has proved to be coherent, pragmatic and capable of adaptation. The Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that the working methods of the Committee of Experts have functioned in a satisfactory way for 60 years and have not remained static, and that there is thus no need to change them. The Government member of Algeria noted that the Committee of Experts has overcome many difficulties, due in particular to the regular adaptation of its working methods so that it could always respond to changes that took place in the world. The Government member of Morocco was of the opinion that considering the positive results achieved, an overhaul of the present supervisory system is not necessary, except for bringing the Conventions themselves up to date as is already being done.

22. The way in which the application of Conventions should be evaluated in different economic and social conditions was the subject of a long discussion. Various members supported the point of view expressed by two experts in paragraph 22 of the Committee's report, which states that social realities produced as a result of the implementation of international labour Conventions may be different in capitalist and socialist countries, although in both cases these realities may be in conformity with the Conventions. The Government member of Algeria considered that the position expressed in this paragraph is an acceptable basis. The Government members of the German Democratic Republic and of the USSR, and the Workers' member of Bulgaria noted that the Committee of Experts applies the criteria of only one economic and social system to evaluate national realities which are completely different; this is contrary to the principles of non-interference and of universality. The Government member of Czechoslovakia and the Workers' member of the German Democratic Republic stressed that the socialist countries do no contest the universal character of ILO Conventions, but that taking national conditions into consideration should not be considered as being in contradiction to the principle of universality. The Government member of Czechoslovakia said that the relevance of socio-economic conditions could be evaluated only with respect to concrete provisions of individual Conventions, and that there is no general answer to the problem. While such conditions are relevant to the application of many Conventions, uniform application is called for with respect to others. The Government member of Cuba considered that the Committee of Experts is cut off from the socio-economic realities of member States, and uses as its only element of evaluation the technical-legal criteria under which the law is more important than the economic and social reality, though the law is only the reflection of this reality. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran also criticised the Committee of Experts for not taking account of realities and for maintaining the same rigid approach that it adopted 60 years ago, despite the changes which have taken place since then in all spheres of life. In his opinion, the committee of Experts cannot continue to apply only one yardstick to different cultural, socio-economic and political conditions. It should be more flexible and should try to understand the culture and the ideology which underlie the practice of many countries, in particular Moslem countries. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic expressed a similar point of view, and stressed that it is impossible to understand an internal legal text without taking account of the local reality, and without referring to the legal concepts of the country concerned. When it interprets texts the Committee of Experts does not take account of the economic and social infrastructure of the country concerned, nor of its legal principles.

23. The Government member of Cameroon considered that when evaluating how a Convention is applied, account should be taken of the socio-economic and political-juridical conditions of the country concerned, and that it should not be forgotten that some Conventions binding African countries were accepted by the colonial powers and later shown to be incompatible with local realities. She pointed out, however, that the application of fundamental human rights Conventions by all member States is non-negotiable. The Government member of Nigeria considered that the Committee of Experts should not adopt too legalistic an approach; it should recognise that local conditions can influence the application of some standards, and should take into consideration the fact that the world economic crisis has impaired the capacity of many developing countries to respect their international obligations. The Government member of Saudi Arabia hoped that the supervisory bodies would be more flexible and would try to understand the reasons for which some developing countries have difficulties in applying ratified Conventions.

24 The spokesmen for the Employers' and Workers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of their members, and the Government members of Belgium, Denmark (speaking also in the name of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States shared the point of view expressed in paragraph 20 of the report of the Committee of Experts, and agreed that the way in which the application of the standards contained in a Convention is evaluated should be uniform and should not be affected by conceptions deriving from any particular social, political or economic system. The spokesman for the Employers' members considered that the ways in which standards are applied can be different in different States, for example, as between "common-law" systems and written law systems, but the content of standards has to remain uniform. The spokesman for the Workers' members felt that while differences in the level of development and of actual conditions throughout the world have to be taken into account, in no case can account be taken of differences in regimes, because this would mean accepting that there are several kinds of standards. The Government member of Belgium recognised that in evaluating the application of Conventions account has to be taken of different socio-economic, legal and political conditions in different countries, but that this did not result in the establishment of a hierarchy of different values when it concerned the protection of basic human rights at work. The Government member of France stressed that allowances made for the administrative difficulties encountered by developing countries do not diminish the universally of Conventions, particularly those dealing with human rights. The Government member of the Federal Republic of Germany recalled that since Conventions are legal instruments, the question of their application is a legal question and should be evaluated in a uniform manner. The Government member of Morocco considered that since the Committee of Experts does not have the power to interpret Conventions, it cannot go beyond the text of the Convention to take account of particular situations arising from differences between economic systems of from the level of development, without deviating from its terms of reference. The Government member of the Netherlands stated that the principle of equality before the law requires that the same yardstick be applied to all States.

25. As concerned the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts and its relation to other ILO bodies, the Government members of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, and the Workers' members of Ecuador and of the USSR, considered that it was necessary to redefine the roles of the Office, of the Committee of Experts, of the Conference Committee and of the Conference in the supervisory machinery, making clear the supremacy of the Conference. The Government member of Czechoslovakia also hoped that the Office would assume greater responsibility for its work.

26. These members noted that the 1926 Conference resolution calling for the creation of the Committee of Experts, gave it terms of reference which were purely technical, and consisted of assisting the Director of the Office and the Conference to discharge the responsibilities provided for in article 23 of the Constitution. However, the Committee of Experts has converted itself into a kind of supra-national tribunal, interpreting national laws and Conventions, although the interpretation of national laws is the responsibility of courts and other national bodies, and the interpretation of Conventions is to be left to the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Committee of Experts has been issuing judgements concerning governments. On its own initiative, the Committee of Experts has placed itself above governments and the other bodies of the ILO by making recommendations to governments, assigning tasks to the Director-General to carry out, and ignoring the points of view of member States and of the Conference Committee. The Government member of the USSR stated that the report of the Conference Committee was not among the documents cited by the Committee of Experts as one of its working documents, and was not mentioned one single time in paragraphs 9 to 49 of the Committee of Experts' report, even though it should have binding force for that Committee. He noted that the report of the Committee of Experts which, although it contains data contested by certain governments, is offered for sale, while the report of the Conference Committee which, although reflecting the conclusions of a democratic tripartite body established in conformity with the ILO Constitution and approved by the Conference, is simply filed. The Government member of the German Democratic Republic stated that Conventions should be interpreted only by bodies competent to do so, and in such a way as to ensure a high degree of legal reliability. Only the text of a Convention is valid, and it is upon the text itself that a ratifying country must be able to rely. Otherwise, a country might feel obliged to denounce a Convention.

27. The spokesman for the Employers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of those members, rejected the argument that the Committee of Experts has gone beyond its terms of reference. The spokesman for the Workers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of those members, recalled that the Committee of Experts is not a tribunal and does not act like one. He repeated their convictions that the Committee of Experts should remain above the struggle and should retain its autonomy. The Government members of Belgium, France and the Federal Republic of Germany agreed that the Committee of Experts has a technical and not a judicial function. Its report, in which it evaluates the effect given to Conventions from a strictly legal point of view, is a basis for the dialogue which takes place in the Conference Committee. The Government members of Belgium and France recalled that it was because it was impossible for the Conference itself to examine the reports supplied by governments, that the Committee of Experts was created after the adoption of the ILO Constitution, in order to assist the Conference.

28. It was recalled that the Committee of Experts was established in 1927 by the Governing Body in response to a resolution adopted by the Conference in 1926, which echoed a warning to the Conference in 1924 by Albert Thomas, who was then Director of the Office. He had noted that the Conference was not able to examine the reports which member States were required to furnish under the Constitution.

29. Several speakers suggested changes in the procedure for appointing members of the Committee of Experts, and changes in its composition. The Government member of the Byelorussian SSR and the Workers' member of Bulgaria thought that members of the Committee of Experts should be elected by the Conference and should no longer be appointed by the Governing Body on the nomination of the Director-General, because this would be more democratic and would confirm the Conference's supremacy. The Government member of the Byelorussian SSR stressed the need for equal representation of all parts of the world in the ILO's supervisory bodies. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran considered that the Committee of Experts would combine universality and impartiality only when it was more representative of different systems and different cultures; it should in particular have a larger number of Islamic jurists. The Workers' member of Bulgaria, without calling into question the high professional calibre of the members of the Committee of Experts, thought that its composition should reflect adequately the diversity of legal and socio-economic systems, and that not only jurists but also specialists in economics or the social sciences and trade unionists should take part in its work.

30. The Government member of France considered that the present composition of the Committee of Exports is representative of the different parts of the world and of the different economic, social and legal systems, and that the qualifications and careers of the experts are a sufficient guarantee of their wisdom and competence. The Government member of Morocco felt that the Committee of Experts, composed of high-level personalities representing all regions of the world and the different economic and social systems, furnishes the necessary guarantees of competence and of objectivity. The Government member of Algeria paid homage to the value of the human component of the Committee of Experts.

31. Various suggestions were made concerning the organisation of the Committee of Experts' work. The Government members of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR, and the Workers' members of Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic and the USSR supported the proposal made by two members of the Committee of Experts in paragraph 50 and 51 of that Committee's report, to assign to working groups composed of representatives of the principal socio-economic systems the examination of Conventions concerning basic human rights. They stated that by assigning a higher rank to these Conventions, such a practice would avoid the evaluation of these Conventions - until now always assigned to experts who do not come from socialist countries - being carried out in a subjective manner without taking account of the different conceptions which exist in this regard, and would emphasise the collective responsibility of the experts. The Government member of Algeria also found the proposal in paragraph 50 to be acceptable. the Workers' member of Bulgaria suggested that a system of rotation be instituted among the experts for the examination of basic human rights Conventions. Together with the Government member of the Byelorussian SSR, he also recommended that decisions of the Committee of Experts should be taken by consensus. The workers' member of Japan, while recognising that it was up to the Committee of Experts to decide on its own methods of work, suggested that the Committee consider adopting a rule forbidding experts to participate in the discussion of cases concerning their own countries. The Government member of the Byelorussian SSR hoped that a more direct dialogue, such as that carried out by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, would be instituted between the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, and that members of the Committee of Experts would participate in the work of the Conference Committee. The Workers' member of the USSR also considered that the presence in the Conference Committee of the Chairman and the Reporter of the Committee of Experts would allow them to report on the work of the Committee of Experts and to reply to any questions.

32. The spokesmen for the Employers' and Workers' members, speaking in the name of the large majority of their members, supported the Committee of Experts' current methods of work and the point of view expressed by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 52 of its report. In this paragraph, the majority of the Committee of Experts considers that it should continue to apply the present arrangements under which each expert is assigned initial responsibility for a group of Conventions, before the entire Committee approves the conclusions proposed by each member. The spokesman for the Workers' members stated that the creation of working groups to examine basic human rights Conventions would not eliminate divergencies of views within the Committee of Experts, and that paragraph 52 shows clearly that all the experts have access to all the available information and that decisions are taken by the entire Committee.

Methods of work of the Conference Committee

33. The Committee decided that it would follow this year the same working methods as in previous years. However, in order to resolve the problems caused by the fact that in recent years some governments had not responded to the Committee's invitations, the Committee decided to apply the following measures for the implementation of the criterion "the Government has failed, despite repeated invitations by the Conference Committee, to take part in the discussions concerning its country". These measures were proposed by the Workers' members and supported by the Employers' members and several Government members in order to strengthen the dialogue within the Committee:

- In accordance with the usual practice, after having established the list of cases regarding which government delegates might be invited to supply information to the Committee, the Committee shall invite in writing the governments of the countries concerned, and the Daily Bulletin regularly shall mention these countries.

- Three days before the end of the discussion of individual cases, the Chairman of the Committee shall request the Clerk of the Conference to announce every day the names of the countries whose representatives have not yet responded to the Committee's invitation, urging them to do so as soon as possible.

- The last day of the discussion of individual cases, the Committee shall deal with the cases in which the governments have not responded to tie invitation. The objective is not to discuss the substance of these cases, but to bring out in the report the importance of the questions raised, and the steps to be taken to resume the dialogue. The report shall mention for each country the cases concerned.

34. The Government member of the USSR, referring to the fact that the Government group had met to try to reach a consensus on the proposal of the Workers' members, regretted that it had not been given enough time to reach such a consensus. He felt that the Committee had adopted a decision to which the majority of the Government members were opposed and expressed the reservations of his Government concerning the rules that had thus been adopted by the Committee and which, in the form in which they were approved, were too serious not to have consequences for dialogue and co-operation within the Committee. The Government members of Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Nicaragua the Ukrainian SSR associated themselves with these observations and reservations. The Government member of Bulgaria emphasised that the working methods of the Committee should only be established by consensus if the aim was to ensure progress through dialogue. The Government member of the German Democratic Republic stated that it was not correct to ignore the position of the Government group, whose majority supported a proposal to postpone the decision to next year, and that from a legal point of view as well, the decision was not correct: in accordance with article 22 of the ILO Constitution, governments were obliged to submit reports on the application of Conventions, but not to appear in the Conference Committee. It was up to the sovereign States to decide whether to participate or not in the dialogue of the Committee. In addition, the decision did not only concern the members of the Conference Committee but all ILO Members. The Government member of Cuba recalled that since it was a matter that concerned governments, more weight should be given to the Government group, whose majority had requested that the question should be postponed to next year for a more in-depth analysis in order to arrive at a consensus. The Workers' members of the Byelorussian SSR, the German Democratic Republic and the USSR regretted the atmosphere in which the decision had been taken.

35. The Government member of Portugal stated that it was not correct to assert that a majority opinion had developed during the meeting of the Government group.

Role of employers' and workers' organisations

36. The Employers' and Workers' members and a number of Government members welcomed the growing participation of employers' and workers' organisations in the functioning of the supervisory machinery, as shown by the record number of observations (155) which the Committee of Experts had received from these organisations this year. They felt that this was a sign of the attachment of these organisations to the standard-setting activities and supervisory system of the ILO. The Workers' member's felt that this also reflected the autonomy and independence of these organisations from their governments. They stressed the need for the Office to ensure that these organisations benefited from training in the Office, so that they could play their role as regards standard.

The role of the Office: Direct contacts and other forms of assistance

37. The Committee of Experts' report contains information on the activities carried out in 1986 by the International Labour Office to assist member States in discharging their obligations concerning ILO standards, and to promote a better understanding of standards and of the ILO's standard-related procedures. In this connection, direct contacts missions in relation to freedom of association took place in six countries (Argentina, Burkina Faso, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras and Tunisia). The four regional advisers on international labour standards visited 24 countries in Africa, the Americas, and Asia and the Pacific. Twenty-two officials from 18 countries carried out internships in the International Labour Standards Department in order to familiarise themselves with procedures in this connection. There were one regional seminar, two sub-regional seminars and 11 national seminars on international labour standards, some of them tripartite and the others for government officials or for employers' or workers' organisations.

38. There was wide agreement that all the activities undertaken by the International Labour Office to supply information, advice, assistance and training concerning ILO standards were of great value to member States, that they had shown positive results, and that they should be continued and reinforced. Several speakers hoped that the necessary resources would be made available to the Office. The Employers' members stated that they were impressed by the expansion of these activities, which they welcomed. The Workers' members and the Government member of Belgium pointed in particular to the usefulness and effectiveness of direct contacts, which allow the supervisory system a way of carrying on a less formal dialogue with governments and of achieving better mutual understanding between the supervisory bodies and governments. The Government members of Mozambique and Nigeria stressed the importance to the developing countries of the assistance offered by the Office. The Government member of Nigeria hoped that the Office itself would take the initiative in offering its help to countries which encountered difficulties in discharging their obligations. The usefulness of the regional advisers and of internships and seminars was pointed out by several speakers. The Government member of China hoped that more courses and seminars would be offered to allow wider participation by developing countries in the formulation of standards. The Workers' members stated that it was important that workers and their organisations benefit from these activities because it was for their benefit that standards were intended and they had a role to play in their adoption and supervision.

39. Several speakers stressed the need for publishing documentation on standards in different national languages in order to promote knowledge of, and respect for, standards. The Government member of Morocco suggested that in order to avoid delays in the submission of instruments adopted by the Conference to the competent authorities, the Office should study with regional organisations the possibility of having these instruments translated. The Committee was informed that the Office was making a significant effort to translate Conventions and Recommendations into national languages. In addition to the three working languages of the Office, there was also an official German translation, Recently, Conventions had also been translated into the national languages in Bangladesh and in Nepal. The revision of translations into Arabic had begun and it was hoped that the complete texts would be available towards the end of 1987. The translation of these instruments into Chinese had been undertaken in 1986.

Collaboration with other international organisations

40. A number of members stressed the need to pursue and to strengthen co-ordination between the ILO and other international and regional organisations in connection with standards. The Employers members considered that such co-ordination was particularly desirable in the field of human rights in order to avoid a duplication of efforts. The Workers' members referred especially to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol, as well as to questions concerning indigenous and tribal populations. The Workers' member of Pakistan hoped that the report of the new United Nations Committee of Experts established to examine reports on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would be brought to the attention of the Conference because of the links between the Covenant and ILO standards. The Government member of Morocco considered that consultation with other international organisations should be increased, in particular to resolve certain difficulties encountered at the international level such as customs barriers and the determination of terms of trade, which prevented member States from adopting policies in conformity with the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122).

Application of Conventions to offshore industrial installations and in export processing zones and enterprises

41. As concerned offshore industrial installations, the Employers' members welcomed the fact that a study was being carried out with a view to determining the principal problems to be examined in this connection. They considered that, because of the complexity of the question, it was not sufficient to ask governments to supply reports, but that research was also necessary.

42. As for export-processing zones and enterprises, the Workers' members regretted the evasive attitude of some governments which had stated that these zones and enterprises did not exist in their countries, contrary to the information available in the Office. They stated that workers' organisations should consider what they might be able to do in the future to improve the situation. The Workers' member of Pakistan stressed that there should be no discrimination against workers working in these zones with regards to their trade union and other rights. The Government member of Pakistan stated that governments had to guarantee certain conditions in order to attract foreign capital to these zones.

Application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

43. Following a practice begun in 1976, the Committee of Experts this year included, in paragraphs 91 to 100 of its report, general comments on the application of Convention No. 122, based on the examination of reports supplied by 51 countries. The Committee stated that it had found reasons for encouragement in the spirit of co-operation shown by governments, as well as in the way in which the great majority of the members of the Conference Committee had received its analysis of the Convention's application in 1986. It stated that in examining the reports, it had borne in mind the views expressed by these members, and in particular by the Employers' and Workers' groups. It noted in this regard that it was bound by the terms of the Convention and by the report form adopted by the Governing Body. The Committee stressed that, whilst Convention No. 122 is a promotional Convention, it is still a legal instrument containing concrete obligations in each of its Articles. The Committee considered it useful in a number of cases to insist on the clear formulation of an employment policy and on the need for governments to review their employment policies while pursuing the goals laid down by the Convention. One problem which again held the Committee's attention, and concerning which it was able to note developments which had taken place since last year in different forums, was the relationship between the objectives of the Convention and external debt. It considered that it was within its rights to request the information included in the report form on the relationship between overall economic policies and the aims of the Convention. This year the Committee noted that whilst the problem of unemployment remains grave in most parts of the world, many initiatives have been taken to pursue the aims of the Convention, and it was able to refer to certain examples of results which had been achieved. It again stressed the especially serious nature of the problems of youth employment. Noting the particular importance which the ILO has given to these problems in recent years, and the specific measures taken in some countries, it appealed to governments to adopt the measures necessary to promote the Convention's application in respect of young persons, on the basis of the resolutions and conclusions adopted in this regard within the ILO, and of the measures taken at the national level. The Committee reaffirmed its conviction that the tripartite approach to employment problems required by Article 3 of the Convention is a necessary condition to the success of any employment policy.

44. The Conference Committee agreed on the timeliness and the gravity of employment problems in the context of the present world-wide recession. The search for a solution to these problems should be an absolute priority for the ILO if it wishes to retain its credibility in the eyes of the workers of the world.

45. The Committee stressed that the solution to employment problems requires a concerted effort not only at the national level but also at the international and regional levels. In a world characterised by the increasing interdependence of economies, where the burden of debt and the deterioration of terms of trade weigh heavily on developing countries, and where the restructuring of the world economy is imposing profound changes on the industrialised countries, international commercial, financial and monetary policy and practices necessarily have an impact on the kind and effect of measures taken by countries in the economic sphere and as concerns employment. It was recognised that the ILO has an essential contribution to make in ensuring that the formulation of these practices and policies will take account of their social and human aspects and their effect on employment. In this connection, the Workers' members welcomed the attention of Convention No. 122, to the relationship between the problem of external debt and the employment objectives of the Convention. The fact that the High-level meeting on Employment and Structural Adjustment was to be held soon, was welcomed, and it was hoped that this meeting would yield concrete proposals which would help to improve the employment situation and avoid the undesirable social consequences of adjustment policies.

46. The Employers' members considered that questions of employment were closely linked to economic, fiscal and monetary policies and that the solution of employment problems does not depend on measures taken in only one area but will have to emerge from a combination of coherent and balanced measures taken in all areas. The Government member of Belgium found satisfactory the explanations given by the Committee of Experts, which had put to rest certain doubts he had had as to whether it was appropriate to raise questions with governments on such subjects as monetary policy, fiscal policy and international trade. He nevertheless thought that a certain prudence should be exercised in this connection, because there are limits to the capacities of the Committee of Experts and of the present Committee to evaluate the overall economic policies of States.

47. Several speakers expressed opinions on the nature of the obligations laid down in Convention No. 122. For the Government members of Algeria and Mozambique, the promotial nature of this Convention implies that the capability of governments to give effect to it depends to a large degree on existing economic conditions. Developing countries have a particular need for technical co-operation and for international solidarity to create the conditions necessary to apply the Convention. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom drew attention to paragraph 93 of the Committee of Experts' report, where that Committee points out that the Convention is a legal instrument containing concrete obligations. He noted that governments refer too often to the promotional nature of this Convention, and that unemployment is not a natural disaster against which they are powerless. The Workers' member of the German Democratic Republic pointed out that Convention No. 122 requires measures to be taken with a view to attaining full employment.

48. A number of speakers stressed the worsening in unemployment in developing countries, because of circumstances particular to these countries such as the rate of demographic growth, but also because of repercussions on them of the world economic recession. The Workers' member of Pakistan considered that although the Committee of Experts had been able to note a certain amount of progress in attaining the aims of the Convention, this was not true for the developing countries. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom, also taking note of the Committee of Experts' reference to the steps taken by some countries, hoped that these countries would share their positive experience with others. The Government member of Pakistan described the efforts being made in his country to create jobs both directly and indirectly.

49. The unemployment and underemployment of young persons, to which the Committee of Experts again drew special attention this year, were recognised as priority problems. The Employers' members laid emphasis on the importance of vocational training and on the need for vigorous activity in this connection.

50. Several speakers supported the emphasis which the Committee of Experts had put on tripartism in applying an employment policy. The Workers' members of Chile, the German Democratic Republic and Pakistan stated that trade unions could suggest practical measures to fight against unemployment and that their opinions should be taken into account.

Application of the Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

51. The Employers' members noted with interest the general observation made by the Committee of Experts this year concerning the application of Convention No. 115. In this observation the Committee of Experts noted that a number of countries have revised or are in the process of revising their legislation concerning the protection of workers against ionising radiation, and called attention to the measures which should be taken in abnormal situations resulting in particular from accidents, and particularly to the recommendations made in this connection by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and by the International Labour Office. The Employers' members stated that the dramatic events of recent years showed the need for putting into place more rapid and effective protective measures which meet very high security standards and are applied strictly. They welcomed the fact that the Committee of Experts had reacted so rapidly and appropriately.

C. Reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution

Guarding of Machinery Convention (No. 119) and Recommendation (No. 118), 1963; and Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention (No. 148) and Recommendation (No. 156), 1977

52. The Committee held a discussion on the general survey undertaken by the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the above-mentioned instruments dealing with safety in the working environment, and based on reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution. In accordance with the usual practice, this survey took account of information contained in reports supplied under article 19 of the Constitution as well as of information supplied by ratifying States in their regular reports on Conventions Nos. 119 and 148 and other Conventions dealing with occupational safety and health under article 22 of the Constitution. Reports from a total of 115 countries and eight non-metropolitan territories were thus examined. The survey also took account of comments received from employers' and workers' organisations.

General observations

53. The Committee stressed the importance of the subject of occupational safety and health, which is a fundamental concern in the field of human rights and affects the life, well-being and happiness of workers all over the world. The Committee was unanimous in commending the high quality of the survey, its thoroughness and expertise. It was particularly welcomed since it was the first general survey ever carried out in the field of occupational safety and health.

54. In stressing the importance which they attach to general surveys, the Workers' members expressed their concern that a number of countries did not send in reports and therefore did not take part in the above-mentioned survey. They considered that these instruments, which figure among those to be promoted on a priority basis, should be studied and discussed in a tripartite context at the regional, national and international levels to examine ways in which they could be better implemented. The Workers' members hoped that more countries would take advantage of the opportunity offered by the general survey to examine the possibility of ratification.

55. A number of members called attention to the relatively low number of ratifications which had been recorded for Conventions Nos. 119 and 148 (36 and 18, respectively). The Employers' members and the Government member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries, pointed out that only limited use had been made of the flexibility clauses in these Conventions and suggested that those countries which had not yet ratified these Conventions might do so through wider use of such clauses. The Government member of Spain considered that these instruments were of a basically technical nature and did not pose any political obstacles preventing governments from supporting their objectives. The Government members of Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia pointed to the difficulties encountered by developing countries in ratifying these Conventions because of this technical nature. The Government member of Senegal stated that even though immediate ratification might not be possible, all the international standards on safety and health at work should be considered as fundamental.

56. A number of members explained the situation in their countries as regards the ratification of Conventions Nos. 119 and 148. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR stated that his country has ratified Convention No. 119 and is studying the possibility of ratifying Convention No. 148. The Government member of Belgium explained the reasons which have not permitted his country to ratify Conventions Nos. 119 and 148, but stated that, on the basis of the general survey of the Committee of Experts, these Conventions might be included in the next group of Conventions to be proposed for ratification. A number of other speakers also informed the Committee of the situation in their countries as concerned the protection of safety and health.

57. Both the Workers and the Employers members, referring to the general conclusions of the Committee of Experts, stressed that the main difficulties in ensuring safety in the working environment were due to the absence in the majority of countries of a body of coherent and compatible measures. The Workers' members stated that in many countries this was due to ignorance of the technical problems and, even more seriously, to a lack of will on the part of governments. They said that one should not await catastrophic events to take measures to improve the situation. As concerning the guarding of machinery, in many countries the regulations in force covered only the use of machines in factories, without any reference to the manufacture and the sale of machines. As far as Convention No. 148 was concerned, in spite of the existence of laws and regulations, there was insufficient supervision with the result that these standards are not really applied. The Employers' members referred to the gaps in the legislation of many countries which had been noted by the Committee of Experts.

58. The Employers' members noted also that it was not always possible to hold employers responsible for problems in this area, since very often they used machines without the necessary information having been made available to them by manufacturers and sellers. They also stated that often personal protective equipment was made available to workers, but experience showed that it was very difficult to convince workers to use this equipment. On the whole, the Employers' members supported the conclusions of the Committee of Experts that membeStates should devote more attention to these questions in the future.

59. The Employers' members also pointed out that a balanced and acceptable relationship between technological progress on the one hand, and protection of the working environment on the other hand, had to be sought. According to the technological development and the economic possibilities of each State, what should be promoted in the first place was a gradual implementation of standards which would lead to more effective application.

Safety in the international transfer of machinery and technology

60. The Committee noted a number of problems connected with the transfer of technology, particularly the sale of machinery to developing countries by developed countries. The Government members from the Nordic countries pointed out the increasingly international character of a large part of new technology, observing, for example, that more machines were being developed by multinational companies and technical components were being produced in different countries. The Government member of Bangladesh noted that developed countries appear to reap the benefits of improvements in machinery, while developing countries use a lower level of technology and have to accept the hazards that go with it. The Government member of Senegal stated that it was inadmissible that this resulted in workers in less-industrialised countries having a lower level of safety and health than those in other countries. The Government member of Saudi Arabia stated that unsafe equipment was often sold to developing countries, and that employers in both exporting and importing countries profited from this. The Workers' member of Pakistan pointed out that modern machinery was often exported to countries where it could not be used safely owing to the lack of a suitable educational infrastructure.

61. These observations gave rise to suggestions that safeguards were necessary concerning the export and installation of machinery. Both the Employers' and Workers' members raised this possibility, and the Government member of Saudi Arabia suggested that there should be a total ban on the manufacture and export of machinery not satisfying minimum safety levels. He suggested that a declaration to this effect might be adopted, while the Government member of the Ukrainian SSR suggested the adoption of a protocol to Convention No. 119, and the Government members of Bangladesh and Tunisia suggested that alert and inspection systems should be further developed by the ILO. The Government members of the Nordic countries considered it necessary that the developed countries ensure that the transfer of technology to the developing countries be acompanied by the transfer of safety and health standards as well.

62. The Committee agreed that the problem of exporting and importing unsafe machinery and equipment is far from being overcome and that further efforts are needed to strengthen the universal application of ILO standards in the field of occupational safety and health in order to ensure that safety and health standards are transferred along with the technologies. It considered that the ILO should increase its activities in this area.

Labour inspection and supervision

63. A number of members called attention to the need for effective labour inspection and other enforcement measures to ensure implementation of these instruments. The Government member of Saudi Arabia called upon governments to exercise strict supervision of the existing safety and health regulations. The Workers' member of China and the Government member of Czechoslovakia indicated that in their countries trade unions played an important role in inspection, in conjunction with inspections carried out by the administration. The Government member of Venezuela stated that in times of austerity when the administrative costs of labour inspection are a heavy burden, imagination was needed to ensure that joint supervision by workers and employers was more efficient; the responsibility of employers in the workplace and the training of trade unionists should go hand in hand.

64. The Government members of Bangladesh and of Côte d'Ivoire pointed out that inspection services in developing countries often lack the technical devices and testing equipment necessary for effective inspection. The Workers' members, in particular the Workers' members of Pakistan and Senegal, pointed to the need for increased capacity for inspections. A number of members suggested that the ILO provide increased technical co-operation in this respect.

Information and training

65. The Employers' and Workers' members and the Government member of Saudi Arabia emphasised the need for increased information and training to be made available to workers. The Workers' member of France stated that investment in occupational training is indispensable for avoiding accidents; it is by teaching workers to work well, and not necessarily by having labour inspectors, that protection at the workplace can be achieved.

The contribution of employers' and workers' organisations

66. A large number of speakers referred to the need for increased collaboration of employers' and workers' organisations in ensuring safety and health at the workplace. The Workers' members stated that these instruments were very important and should be studied and discussed in a tripartite context at the regional, national and international levels, and both they and the Employers' members referred to the importance of collaboration between employers and workers in their application. The role that joint safety and health committees at the workplace could play was pointed out by the Government member of Venezuela and the Workers' member of Senegal. The Government member of India called for the fullest use of tripartism to resolve the problems encountered in this area, while the Workers' member of Pakistan called for an increased role for workers' organisations in this regard. He referred also to the particular problems encountered with regard to safety in agriculture, and called for the increased ratification of the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141) to contribute to solving this problem.

The role of international co-operation

67. Several speakers referred to the role that international co-operation could play. The Government members of the Nordic countries stated that this could contribute, with ILO assistance, to removing the obstacle to complying with these instruments, which is caused by the lack of technical knowledge in many developing countries. The Government members of Czechoslovakia and of the Ukrainian SSR said that their countries would be glad to share their technical expertise with others in an effort to improve the safety and health of workers.

68. Another aspect of the same question was brought out by the Government member of Spain, who stated that the very technical nature of these instruments required inter-State co-operation, which had become institutional for Spain since it joined the EEC. The Workers' member of the Netherlands, on the other hand, considered that the involvement of the European Commission led to considerable and unnecessary delays in the ratification of ILO Conventions in areas of so-called EEC competence, which included safety and health. The Committee was informed in this connection that it is the responsibility of governments and not of the EEC to ratify Conventions.

ILO standards and technical co-operation

69. A number of members referred to the technical assistance in the forms of multidisciplinary missions, seminars, provision of information, etc. that they had received from the ILO, and stressed that the ILO had a fundamental role in this regard. It was recalled by the Workers' member of Pakistan that the ILO's Industrial Committees have been stressing safety and health questions in recent years. The Government member of Saudi Arabia stated that his country had relied on ILO experience in the area of occupational safety and health and that the ILO should provide more seminars, study courses and workshops. Reference was also made by the Government members of Côte d'Ivoire, India, Senegal and Venezuela to the need for increased technical cooperation.

70. Several Government members from developing countries stressed that technical assistance from the ILO should be geared to strengthening the training of safety specialists and labour inspectors, and to the acquisition of the necessary equipment for supervision and for testing the working environment. Such assistance would help to remove the main obstacles in the implementation of ILO standards, which lay, not in bringing national legislation into conformity with these standards, but in applying and supervising the national legislation.

71. The Workers' members suggested that ILO standards in this area should be collected and published in an accessible form in order to make them more widely known and used. The Workers' member of Pakistan hoped that the ILO could function more as a clearing-house for the exchange of information, and that more ILO publications and training for trade unionists would be made available in local languages.

72. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR stated that the report of the Committee of Experts provided an overall picture of the situation concerning occupational safety and health and could be used as a basis for strengthening technical cooperation activities of the ILO in this field. He pointed out that in the field of the protection of the working environment the link between standards and technical co-operation was still a very weak one, and hoped that the present survey would be a point of departure.

Conclusions

73. The Committee agreed that the present survey had been extremely useful, and hoped that it should stimulate further action by member States to take the measures called for to the implement these instruments. While it was regrettable that so little of a coordinated nature had been done by many countries, much could be done to correct these problems. It was noted in this connection that the Governing Body would shortly be discussing the possible inclusion on the agenda of the Conference was already engaged in revising the Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 (No. 62). It was noted on several occasions that safety and health at work concerned not only workers, but the entire world, as had been shown by recent disasters in several countries. The Workers' members called on workers not to neglect their safety and health merely for higher pay, while the Employers' members recalled that safety in the working environment was also an economic problem and not only a technical one. The Committee hoped that both the ILO and the member States, with the collaboration of employers and of workers, would be able to move forward in order to provide increased safety and health in the working environment, thus contributing also to the protection of the general environment.

D. Compliance with specific obligations

74. 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 follow the same working methods and apply the same criteria as last year, and that in applying the criterion, "The Government has failed, despite repeated invitations by the Conference Committee, to take part in the discussions concerning its country", it would apply the measures described in paragraph 33 above.

75. 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 months, or exceptionally 18 months, from 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.

76. The Committee noted from the report of the Committee of Experts that considerable efforts had been made in a number of countries in the fulfilment of their obligations in regard to submission, namely Afghanistan, Bolivia, Botswana, Chad, Ireland and Yemen. In the course of its session, 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 which had been achieved, and expressed the hope that improvements would occur in States that still experience difficulties in complying with their obligations.

77. The Committee noted, however, that problems remain, due in particular to the fact that the scope of the obligation to submit newly-adopted instruments to the competent authorities is not always fully understood. It hopes that the Office will be able to take the necessary steps to provide information and training to promote improved understanding in this regard.

78. The Committee noted with regret there was no indication that steps had been taken to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted during the 65th to 71st Sessions of the Conference (1980 to 1985), to the competent authorities, in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution, by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sierra Leone and Tunisia.

79. The Workers' and Employers' members and a number of Government members expressed concern at difficulties still being encountered by governments in complying with their obligation to report on the application of ratified Conventions. Only 11.8 per cent of the reports due had been received by the date set by the Governing Body. By the date of the meeting of the Committee of Experts, however, this percentage had risen to 79.2 (which represents an improvement over 1985 and 1986, for which the figures were 77 and 78.7 per cent, respectively). Since then, additional reports have been received, bringing the figure to 87.1 per cent (as compared to 88.2 in 1986).

80. Several speakers welcomed the fact that this year, 53 per cent of the reports for which information on practical application was requested contained such information, which represents a considerable improvement in comparison with previous years. The Committee hopes that this trend will continue in the future.

81. It was recognised that shortcomings in complying with the reporting obligations were generally due to a shortage of staff having the requisite knowledge and experience, particularly in developing countries. This underlines the importance of measures of training and assistance by the ILO, to which reference has been made earlier in this report.

82. This year the Committee did not have to apply the criterion "During the past two years none of the reports on ratified Conventions had been supplied".

83. The Committee noted with regret that first reports on ratified Conventions had not been supplied since 1984 by Dominica (Conventions Nos. 100, 111 and 138), Saint Lucia (Conventions Nos. 100 and 111) and United Republic of Tanzania (Conventions Nos. 134, 137, 140, 142, 144, 149 and 152).

84. In this year's report the Committee of Experts had noted that 30 governments had not replied to most or all of the observations and direct request relating to Conventions on which reports were due for examination this year, involving a total of 185 cases (compared with 127 cases last year and 154 the previous year.) The Committee was informed that, since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, 14 of the governments concerned had sent replies which would be examined by the Committee of Experts next year. This constituted a decrease in comparison to previous years.

85. The Committee noted with regret, however, that no information had yet been received regarding all or most of the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts to which replies were requested for the period ending 30 June 1986 from Afghanistan, Barbados, Brazil, Chad, Dominican Republic, Fiji, France (St. Pierre and Miquelon), Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Islamic Republic of Iran, New Zealand (Niue Island), Pakistan, Saint Lucia and Sao Tomé and Principe.

86. 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 organisations 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".

87. The Committee noted the explanations provided by the following countries concerning difficulties encountered in discharging their obligations: Barbados (personnel changes following elections); France (St. Pierre and Miquelon) (adoption of a new status for the territory); Grenada (staffing problems); Guinea-Bissau (staffing problems due to the recent creation of a Ministry of Labour, Public Service and Social Security); Islamic Republic of Iran (translation and analysis of instruments); Sierra Leone (difficulties in obtaining copies of ILO instruments); United Republic of Tanzania (administrative difficulties); and Yemen (administrative difficulties). (Details of these explanations appear in the reports of the discussions of these cases, in Part Two of this report.)

88. The Committee noted with particular interest the steps that had been taken by a number of governments to ensure compliance with ratified Conventions. This year the Committee of Experts had been able to list in its report 40 cases from 28 States and one non-metropolitan territory, in which governments had made changes in their law and practice following comments made by the Committee. These cases related to countries from all regions, with different social and economic systems. Over 1,670 such cases of progress have been recorded since the Committee of Experts began listing these cases in its report in 1964. These results are a tangible proof of the effectiveness of the supervisory system.

89. In the course of the present session the Conference Committee was informed of a number of other instances in which measures had recently been taken or were about to be adopted by governments with a view to ensuring the implementation of ratified Conventions. While it was left to the Committee of Experts to examine these measures, the Conference Committee welcomed these renewed indications of the efforts made by governments to comply with their international obligations and to act upon the comments of the supervisory bodies.

90. The Committee thought it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to a number of important cases which it had considered.

91. The Committee noted with satisfaction that in the following cases in particular, the governments concerned have made changes in their legislation and practice in order to eliminate divergencies previously discussed by the Committee: Guatemala (Convention No. 87), Panama (Convention No. 68) and Uruguay (Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 105).

92. The Committee considered it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to the discussions which it had regarding the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs, the full record of which will be found in Part Two of this report.

93. The Committee took note of the information and explanations provided by the Government representative of Bangladesh on the application of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107). It reiterates its concern regarding the situation of indigenous and tribal populations in Bangladesh. It urges the Government to adopt concrete measures along the lines of the comments made by the Committee of Experts, with a view to ensuring that the Convention is fully applied. It suggests that the Government should reconsider the possibility that a representative of the Director-General make a further visit to the country with a view to examining on the spot all the questions raised by the Committee of Experts. It urges the Government to supply information on all the questions raised.

94. As concerns the application by the Dominican Republic of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Committee expressed its regret that the Government had not provided a reply which could be examined by the Committee of Experts to the numerous questions raised in its comments with regard to the protection of wages, including important aspects of the recommendations which had been formulated by the Commission of Inquiry established under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to examine the application of certain Conventions, including Conventions Nos. 95 and 105. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to take the necessary measures, and that in its next report it will provide information on the progress achieved. As concerns the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Committee took note of the explanations provided by the Government representative. It observes with regret that no information has been provided to the Committee of Experts. It hopes that the necessary action will be taken soon and that the progress achieved will be reported.

95. The Committee took note of the detailed discussions which took place on the application by Ecuador of 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), and, in particular, of the information furnished by the representatives of the Government. The Committee regrets that no measures have yet been taken to give effect to these Conventions with regard to several points raised by the Committee of Experts. It draws attention once more to the comments of the Committee of Experts and to the detailed proposals which were formulated during the direct contacts mission in December 1985. It requests the Government to consider taking the necessary measures to revise the legislation. The Committee hopes that the Government will take action rapidly on the basis of the observations and proposals mentioned above, and that it will be able to indicate next year that substantial progress has been achieved towards bringing the legislation into conformity with the Conventions. As concerns the application of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Committee took note of the information communicated by the Government as well as the supplementary information supplied by the Government representatives in the discussion concerning Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee regrets that the Government did not indicate its intention to take any measures with regard to the points raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee requests the Government to take the measures necessary to modify the relevant provisions in the national legislation so as to ensure their conformity with the Convention, and hopes that the Government will communicate information on progress in this regard.

96. The Committee remarked that the application by Pakistan of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 96), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), caused it great concern, owing to the absence of written replies and information, the lack of legislative change and the fact that for many year there has been hardly any progress. The Committee hopes that the lifting of martial law, the creation of a tripartite commission and consultations with the Office, will soon bring about the progress which has been requested for so long.

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

98. During its examination of the application of certain Conventions, the Committee noted with grave concern that there had been continued failure over several years to eliminate serious discrepancies in the application by the Islamic Republic of Iran of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

100. As already indicated, reports had been requested in 1986, under article 19 of the Constitution, on the Guarding of Machinery Convention (No. 119) and Recommendation (No. 118), 1963, and on the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention (No. 148) and Recommendation (No. 156), 1977. The Committee noted that, of the 544 reports requested, only 356 (or 65.4 per cent) had been received.

101. The Committee noted with regret that, during 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 Fiji, Saint Lucia, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, and Yemen.

102. The Committee welcomed the fact that more governments accepted the Committee's invitation to participate in its work this year. It expressed its appreciation of the collaboration that it had received from 45 governments which provided information on the situation in their countries and participated in the discussions of individual cases concerning them.

103. On the other hand, the Committee regretted that, despite repeated invitations, the Governments of Sao Tomé and Principe (supply of reports and information on ratified Conventions) and Trinidad and Tobago (reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations) had failed to take part in the discussions concerning their countries.

104. The Committee noted with regret that certain countries which were not represented at the Conference (Chad, Dominica, Fiji, Paraguay, Saint Lucia and Seychelles) had consequently been unable to participate in the Committee's examination of the cases relating to them. It agreed that any mention of cases concerning those countries should be made in the appropriate paragraphs of this report and should be made known to the countries concerned in accordance with the usual practice.

Geneva, 19 June 1987

(Signed) F. O. WILLIAMS

M.C. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

Endnotes

Endnote 2

Endnote 3