87th Session
Geneva, June 1999
Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards |
Discussion in Plenary |
PART ONE
1. In accordance with article 7 of the Standing Orders, the Conference set up a Committee to consider and report on item III on the agenda: "Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations". The Committee was composed of 228 members (109 Government members, 25 Employer members and 94 Worker members). It also included 17 Government deputy members, 54 Employer deputy members and 118 Worker deputy members.(1) In addition, 44 international non-governmental organizations were represented by observers.
2. The Committee elected its Officers as follows:
Chairperson: |
Ms. R. Dimapilis-Baldoz (Government member, Philippines); |
Vice-Chairpersons: |
Mr. A. Wisskirchen (Employer member, Germany); and Mr. W. Peirens (Worker member, Belgium); |
Reporter: |
Mr. W. van de Ree (Government member, Netherlands). |
3. The Committee held 18 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 Migration for Employment Convention (Revised) (No. 97) and Recommendation (Revised) (No. 86), 1949, and the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention (No. 143), and Recommendation (No. 151), 1975.(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 standard-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 dealing with migrant workers. As usual, the Committee finally 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 are set out in Part Two of this report.
7. The Worker members stated that the approval of this list and the choice of priority cases through a tripartite discussion were always difficult exercises because, on the one hand, a very large number of problems were encountered in all the regions of the world in the application of Conventions and dealt with in the report of the Committee of Experts and, on the other hand, there was a very short time available to the Committee for the examination of individual cases. Before the duration of the Conference had been changed, the cases of more than 30 countries and the application of more than 50 Conventions had been included on the list. But these were not the only constraints; the discussions had also become more in-depth and thus more complicated. The emergence of democratic systems in many countries favoured the adoption of new legislation; but this legislation was not always in conformity with international labour standards. The growing globalization of the economy also created new problems. With regard to the choice of individual cases -- an exercise in which the Committee had entire discretion -- the Workers' group had based their decisions on a number of criteria. These included the nature of observations of the Committee of Experts; the presence of a footnote in the report of the Committee of Experts requesting the Government to provide full particulars to the Conference; the quality and the scope of the responses provided by the Government and reproduced in the report or, on the other hand, the absence of a reply by the Government; the discussions and conclusions at preceding sessions of this Committee; the comments received from international workers' organizations such as the ICFTU and WCL, or from employers' and workers' organizations at the national level; the reports of other ILO supervisory bodies and other international organizations; and recent developments in the field. The final criterion was the declarations made by the Worker members concerning the adoption of the preceding year's list. These concerned countries and cases concerning which the Worker members had requested the Committee of Experts to include comments in its report so that the Conference and this Committee would be in a position to examine them if real progress had not been achieved in the meantime. On this occasion, this concerned the cases of Costa Rica (Convention No. 98), Guatemala (Convention No. 87), the Islamic Republic of Iran (Convention No. 111) and Pakistan (Convention No. 29). The priority criterion was the substance of the cases, but the Worker members also endeavoured to ensure that there was a balance between regions and the types of Conventions. The Committee did discuss not only fundamental Conventions, but also problems of application and recent developments regarding the so-called technical Conventions, such as those concerning social security.
8. The Worker members made several comments that they considered to be important for the Committee of Experts, the ILO, the governments concerned and this Committee, concerning three cases that had not been included on the list. The first was that of Japan (Convention No. 29) concerning women detained during the Second World War in "comfort stations". The Committee of Experts had made detailed and precise observations on this matter and insisted that the Government of Japan rapidly take concrete measures. This was a matter primarily of individual compensation by the Government itself, of the implementation of the judgement of a court in favour of South Korean women and, above all, the apologies to be made by the Government of Japan, which should expressly take responsibility for the sexual abuse of women of different nationalities. As in 1997, the Worker members considered that the report of the Committee of Experts rightly emphasized the universal and fundamental principles concerned in the case. It insisted that the Government of Japan strengthen and accelerate its activities and initiatives in this regard. Many women had not accepted the apologies that had been made to them because, according to them, these apologies did not show that the Government recognized its responsibility for the acts committed during the war. Moreover, it appeared that the letter of apology was only addressed to women who had accepted the offer of compensation. The Government of Japan should take the initiative of holding meetings with the trade unions concerned, the representative organizations of the women who had been the victims of these acts and the governments of the various countries concerned, in order to find an effective solution responding to the expectations of the majority of the victims. The Worker members urged the Government of Japan to inform the Committee of Experts rapidly of the action and initiatives that it would take in this regard. The reaction of the Government would be decisive for the follow-up of this case by the Committee of Experts and this Committee.
9. The Worker members referred also to the case of Turkey on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). This Committee had been called upon to include this case on the list on numerous occasions (eight times over the past 11 years), because of the structural problems relating to collective bargaining in both the private and public sectors. For several years, the Government had been undertaking legislative reform, since the former legislation had essentially been adopted under the military regime in order to control and oppress trade unions and restrict collective bargaining. Unfortunately, several recent laws and draft laws were also in contravention of Convention No. 98. It was for this reason that the Worker members were requesting the Committee of Experts to examine this case once again in its report next year so that the Conference Committee could discuss it if real progress was not achieved in the meantime.
10. The Worker members stated that the final case was that of Colombia on Convention No. 87. The Worker members had proposed that this case be included on the list because it was one of the most serious of all cases. Some 2,500 trade unionists had lost their lives as a result of their trade union activities, without any indication that the authorities were taking energetic action against those responsible for their murders. The Worker members noted that the Employer members of this Committee had not denied that the application of Convention No. 87 in this case posed very significant problems, but they had referred to the discussions which had taken place in March 1999 in the Governing Body following the filing of a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution. The Worker members had also noted that the Governing Body had agreed to decide at its session in November whether or not a commission of inquiry would be set up, and had agreed that such a decision would certainly be made if progress was not achieved before then. The Worker members very much hoped that the Government of Colombia would take concrete action to implement the formal commitments that it had made last year before this Committee. On that occasion, the Government had stated that it would cooperate fully with the ILO in order to put an end to the violations of Convention No. 87. The Worker members stated that the Conference Committee could in any event return to the case, either within the context of the follow-up of the recommendations of any commission of inquiry that the Governing Body might decide to establish, or as part of its discussion of the report of the Committee of Experts. The Worker member of Germany re-emphasized that the decision to exclude the case of the application of Convention No. 87 by Colombia from the list of cases to be examined by the Committee should not be used as an argument in the Governing Body to prevent the setting up of a commission of inquiry under article 26 of the ILO Constitution.
11. The Employer members noted that for a number of years the Committee had been using the same methods for the selection of the individual cases on which Government delegates could be invited to provide it with information, and that these methods had proven their worth. It would be impossible for the Committee to examine all the individual cases referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts. However, they agreed that the list of cases set out in a document of the Committee was never entirely satisfactory and gave rise to difficult choices. No selection of cases could ever satisfy all the parties concerned and the proposed selection had been established by way of compromise by the Officers of the Committee. The Employer members regretted that at the beginning of discussions on individual cases, several Governments had not announced themselves for the discussion of their cases.
12. The Employer members referred in particular to the cases of the application of Convention No. 87 by Colombia, Convention No. 29 by Japan and Convention No. 98 by Turkey, which had not been retained in the list. With regard to the application of Convention No. 87 by Colombia, various opinions had been expressed as to whether the examination of the case might endanger the recently commenced peace process. Although the decision taken by the Governing Body in March 1999 to defer the establishment of a commission of inquiry had been interpreted in some quarters as a decision that the case would not be reviewed by any supervisory body, they confirmed that the case would be examined by the Committee next year if no commission of inquiry were to be set up. They added that the decision not to include the cases of Japan and Turkey had also been taken after much discussion.
13. The Employer members recalled that the Committee could invite any government to provide it with information. They concluded that the list of individual cases should be adopted as proposed.
B. General questions relating to international labour standards
Introduction: General aspects of the supervisory process
14. The Committee welcomed Sir William Douglas, Chair of 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 stated that, in reaffirming the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality by which it was guided, the Committee of Experts had again referred in its report to the spirit of mutual respect, cooperation and responsibility which prevailed in its relations with the Conference and with the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Conference as a whole and its Committee on Application of Standards as well as the Committee of Experts would be further inspired and encouraged by the strategic objectives outlined by the Director-General, namely to promote and realize fundamental principles and rights at work; to create greater opportunities for men and women to secure decent employment and income; to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of social protection for all; and to strengthen tripartism and social dialogue.
15. Sir William drew attention to several aspects of the report of the Committee of Experts. With respect to the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, the Committee of Experts recalled that it had always welcomed any measures which strengthened the ILO's ability to promote and to protect the fundamental human rights which lay within its mandate. The Committee had underlined the fact that the follow-up of the Declaration was not intended to be a substitute for the established supervisory procedures. The Committee of Experts would therefore continue to function within its mandate in accordance with the principles and procedures which it had followed over the years. Regarding the application of particular Conventions, the Committee of Experts had drawn attention to the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), in respect of prison labour, concerning which it was asking governments to provide information on the law and practice governing the employment of prisoners in privatized prisons or by private contractors in prisons. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the application of the Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108), as to the rights and obligations consequent on the issuance of identity documents. Confusion had arisen in cases where identity documents had been treated in the same way as passports issued by the national authority. The Committee of Experts had pointed out that there was a clear distinction between an identity document under the Convention and a passport, the identity document not being governed by such considerations as security of the State or illegal emigration. The application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), continues to be the subject of extensive dialogue between the two Committees. The Job Creation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Recommendation (No. 189), adopted in 1998, recognized the role of private initiative in the creation of jobs and the need for public authorities to maintain a climate that was conducive to the development and growth of enterprises. The Committee of Experts had also dealt with the application of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), because of the far-reaching consequences which attended its application in the protection in law and practice of the right of indigenous and tribal peoples to preserve their own laws and customs. Moreover, it had noted with interest the preparatory work on the draft Convention to prohibit and eliminate the worst forms of child labour. It expected that any new standards on the subject would supplement the instruments currently in force governing the minimum age for employment or work, which continued to be of fundamental importance in the work of national labour inspectorates. In respect of the application of Conventions in export processing zones and, in particular, on the application in these zones of Convention No. 87, within the context of the globalization of the world economy, the Committee of Experts hoped to continue to receive further information from governments and further observations from employers' and workers' organizations they considered useful on the subject.
16. Sir William noted that, in reviewing the special reports on Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the Committee of Experts had been bound to note that "certain States that have been Members of the ILO for many years, including countries with large populations representing approximately half of the workers and employers of the world, still appear to be reluctant to move towards a position which would allow ratification of these two instruments".
17. More generally, the Committee of Experts regretted that only 62 per cent of reports requested from ratifying member States had been received. It was to be hoped that the assistance provided by the standards specialists in the ILO's multidisciplinary advisory teams stationed in different parts of the world would have the effect of increasing the percentage of reports received. The General Survey on migrant workers was especially timely in the light of the estimate that over 90 million people (migrant workers and their families) were currently residing, legally or illegally, in a country other than their own. Not only had the number of migrants increased, but the number of countries from which they emanated and to which they went had also increased substantially. The General Survey, which reviewed the protection and measures to ensure equality of treatment contained in the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), and the other instruments under review, noted that there had only been 41 ratifications of Convention No. 97 and 18 of the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143). Even though the context in which these instruments had been adopted was vastly different from that in which migration flows currently occurred, the principles and standards established by them remained valid, and protection from exploitation and equality of treatment were as important to the host community as they were to the migrants. There was an urgent need for further mechanisms at both the international and national levels to deal with migration for employment.
18. Sir William thanked the Conference Committee for the consideration it had expressed for the work of the Committee of Experts during its general discussions, which had been of the highest standard. He would undertake to report back to the Committee of Experts on the content of the discussion and the constructive atmosphere in which it had been held. He also invited the two Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee to pay a visit to the next session of the Committee of Experts at the end of the year.
19. The Committee noted the introduction by the representative of the Secretary-General to the various items before it and related developments in the Organization.
20. The Government member of France, speaking as the Chairperson of the Working Party on the Policy regarding the Revision of Standards of the Governing Body Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards (LILS), as in previous years, informed the Committee members of the progress of the Working Party, as reflected in the document distributed by the secretariat of the Committee. The Working Group, whose undertaking had been to review the whole body of standards, with the exception of the fundamental standards and standards dating from after 1985, had succeeded in examining all the non-maritime Conventions except three; it began to analyse the Conventions concerning seafarers and to examine the Recommendations, which will be taken up in November 1999, during which session the Working Group will deal with the question of methods of revising international labour standards. The speaker provided indications on decisions taken by the Governing Body, and invited the members of the Committee to convey the call addressed to the authorities of their countries for the early ratification of the 1997 instrument amending the Constitution.
21. The Employer members recalled that, under its mandate, the Conference Committee was called on to examine the information submitted orally or in written communications by member States on the measures which they had taken to fulfil their obligations deriving from the ILO Constitution. The full dimensions of this task were illustrated by the size of the report prepared by the Committee of Experts, which was the largest ever submitted to the Conference Committee. Although the report of the Committee of Experts was not the only basis for the work of the Conference Committee, it was of particular importance. One reason for this importance was the fact that the report not only provided information on the activities of the Committee of Experts, but also much information on the work of the ILO in many fields, including the deliberations of the Governing Body and its subsidiary forums.
22. The Employer members welcomed the increased collaboration between the two independent bodies within the ILO's supervisory machinery, namely the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. The mutual understanding between the two bodies was proven by the invitation extended to the Chairperson of the Committee of Experts, Sir William Douglas, to attend the general discussion of the Conference Committee. Although the Committee of Experts had in return invited the Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee to be present at its session in December 1998, unfortunately the Employer Vice-Chairperson had been prevented from attending for reasons beyond his control. In general terms, the Employer members noted clear indications of progress in the collaboration between the two most important bodies in the ILO supervisory system. However, such collaboration should not be confined to symbolic gestures. It should be recalled that, in the final analysis, the two Committees dealt with the same issues under the terms of the same ILO standards. The Conference Committee always took due note of the findings of the Committee of Experts. Moreover, for a number of years, the Committee of Experts had stated that it took fully into consideration the discussions of the Conference Committee, not just on general issues, but also on specific matters. In this respect, the detailed records of the discussions of the Conference Committee were the best means of following its work. The Employer members accordingly welcomed the increasing number of references made by the Committee of Experts in individual cases to the discussions and conclusions of the Conference Committee. They emphasized that an accurate and precise knowledge of the positions adopted by each body, as well as issues which were controversial, was a prerequisite for improved mutual understanding. The common objective was to ascertain whether and to what extent member States were fulfilling their obligations under the ILO Constitution and ratified Conventions. While neither of the Committees fulfilled the functions of a tribunal, they had to consider legal questions in order to ascertain whether the obligations deriving from the respective international treaties were being respected. They agreed with the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the success of the ILO's supervisory procedures. This success was shown, not only by the figures for cases of progress, but also by the positive results derived from dialogue with governments, particularly where the two supervisory bodies were in full agreement on a subject.
23. The Employer members noted that the new structure of the Office was designed to improve the operation of the Organization in various areas. They emphasized that the new and integrated thinking which the new structure was designed to promote needed to take into account the function of the Conference Committee, which played an important role in promoting basic principles and rights at work, as set out in the seven fundamental Conventions. It also addressed appropriate social protection. A prerequisite for such protection was the promotion of full, productive and freely chosen employment, which would in turn promote the fundamental objectives of economic growth and social justice. The issues involved had to be solved through social dialogue. The Employer members were therefore of the view that the four strategic objectives would find their natural meeting point in the Conference Committee, particularly in view of the emphasis that it placed on social dialogue.
24. The Worker members thanked the Chairman of the Committee of Experts for having accepted again this year to take part in the general discussion of the Committee, and expressed satisfaction at the dialogue between the two Committees. Moreover, the report of the Committee of Experts reflected pertinently on numerous points under discussion in the Conference Committee. This was particularly clear when treating certain important themes such as the application of Conventions to export processing zones or on prison labour where this activity was under the management of private enterprises. Last November, for the first time, the Committee of Experts had invited the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee to visit the Committee. The Committee of Experts had thus been able to acquaint itself with the priorities and concerns of the Worker members. The second part of the Committee of Experts' report also bore on major elements of the Committee's discussion and conclusions regarding individual cases. These references were very useful, especially regarding follow-up of engagements which governments had undertaken before the Committee on certain specific points. Among other things, the report again dealt with observations regarding individual cases that the Worker members had stated the previous year were of sufficient importance to be covered again this year; namely the Islamic Republic of Iran, regarding the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), Guatemala for the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), Costa Rica for the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and Pakistan for the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). The principles and working methods of the Committee of Experts were briefly recorded in paragraph 8 of its report. The Conference Committee added analysis, points of view and the personal experience of people close to the realities of the field. The Committee of Experts studied this contribution in a context of impartial technical and legal analysis. The complementary nature of the two supervisory bodies constituted an essential element in the strengthening of the supervisory system and was one of the reasons for the system's success.
25. The Government member of Switzerland, recalling that the standard-setting system of the ILO did not apply sanctions in cases of violations, stressed that the ILO had an even better tool available, namely technical cooperation, to assist States which encountered difficulties of application. The Government member of Romania noted that if international law, including labour law, was based on the sovereign will of States to assume international commitments, the question of using sanctions did not arise, but good examples could be put to good use. At a time when emphasis was being placed on the low number of ratifications of the fundamental Conventions and the growing number of complaints about the application of Conventions, the efforts made by governments to bring their legislation into compliance should be highlighted to a greater extent in the report. The Government member of the United Kingdom considered that the Committee of Experts could play a role in identification and promotion of best practice in the application of Conventions from the reports submitted by member States, in addition to the cases of improvement mentioned in its report. In this context dissemination of best practice would be of particular use to governments which encountered problems in the application of ILO standards.
26. Several Government members expressed support for the work of the Committee of Experts and praised the quality of its report (Belgium, China, Cuba, France, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland, United Kingdom). The Government member of Belgium stated that the report of the Committee of Experts constituted the best basis for a discussion on the development of international social standards. The Government member of China considered that the report makes possible the comprehensive examination and review of standards activities. The Government member of Cuba appreciated the balanced manner in which information had been presented in the general part of the report, and recalled the importance of the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality. According to the Government member of Spain, the report was an essential document for finding out about the activities of the ILO and the situation of international labour standards. The Government member of Portugal considered the report to be a valuable source of information not only on problems related to standards but also on the positive influence of such standards. The Government member of the United Kingdom stated that the report provided a detailed overview of the application of labour standards worldwide, and the Government members of India and Swaziland noted its comprehensive nature. The Government member of France regretted that the report was not better known outside the ILO.
27. Several Worker members including those of Brazil, France and the Netherlands praised the quality and clarity of the report and the essential role played by the Committee of Experts. The Worker member of Pakistan pointed out the objectivity and impartiality of the work of the Committee of Experts, which was considered by the Worker member of Italy to be a good basis for analysis and reflection. The Worker member of France considered that the supervision of the application of standards inevitably implied their interpretation and the need to take into account the diversity of national situations and practices. This meant that methods adapted to such situations and practices could be used without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the results. The strength of the supervisory procedures used by the ILO was their tripartite and non-coercive nature. Recourse to general international law as contained in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was solely inter-Statal would weaken the ILO's supervisory procedures and resorting to an interpretation by the International Court of Justice would mean rejecting the constructive dialogue within the supervisory bodies. ILO Conventions were international treaties, but they were drafted and followed up in a tripartite manner and in this respect had always been in advance of the purely inter-Statal general international law.
28. The Worker members considered that the general discussion had been rich and interesting. They hoped that the dialogue with the Employer members would continue in a constructive vein, and that the support of governments for standards and the supervisory machinery would lead to an increasing number of ratifications, a wider application of standards, and the submission of reports of good quality within the stipulated time limits.
29. Several Government members (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), United States) proposed that the general discussion be shortened, leaving more time for discussion of individual cases. The Worker members supported this suggestion. The Office should study this proposal in greater detail to be able to clarify possibilities and constraints in this respect.
30. The representative of the Secretary-General mentioned the time constraints under which the work of the Committee was being carried out, and praised the value of the general discussions and those on the General Survey. He said the Standards Department would nevertheless examine the question further.
Policy regarding ILO standards
31. The Employer members stated that, without wishing to be too optimistic, they believed that the rule of law was being extended in many parts of the world. However, this did not mean that laws were standardized. Unlike medicine or mathematics, law was imbued with national characteristics. While they had many similarities, the legal systems of member States varied in important areas. This fact, and the differences in social and economic development and traditions, meant that it was not possible for the ILO to adopt standards which were too detailed. Indeed, it was important that these standards be limited to fundamental principles and general rules which could be applied worldwide. It was necessary for the Conference Committee to be aware of this, particularly when interpreting and considering the implementation of specific standards. Nor could whole national legal structures and doctrines be transferred to international standards or used for the interpretation of Conventions. Instead, it was necessary to apply the basic rule of in dubio mitius, or in other words, that in cases of doubt the least far-reaching interpretation should be applied.
32. The Employer members noted that the Director-General had stated recently at the General Assembly of the International Organization of Employers that the problems of today were interlinked, but that the solutions sought were often only sectoral. This statement contained an implicit plea for integrated thinking and action, which was supported by the Employer members. Integrated action was more important than ever in a globalized world in order to achieve effective and appropriate solutions. In this respect it was necessary, in all ILO action, whether in the field of standards or other areas, to take into account the fact that the ILO addressed the full range of industrialized societies, developing societies and countries in transition. The common objective was to create a balance between the economically feasible and the socially desirable. For solutions to be found through common standards, the standards needed to be general, basic, simple and clear. Common principles could be more easily agreed to than detailed provisions, which were rarely ratified or applied. Care was also required at the national and international levels to foresee the consequences of putting measures into practice. Draft national legislation frequently did not take into account the costs of its implementation, since it often implied no costs for the State, the treasury or the administration. Only on rare occasions were the advantages and burdens on the addressees of the various provisions given due weight. There was a need to change the approach adopted in this respect. This also applied to the standards formulated by the ILO. In this respect, the Employer members recalled that questions such as whether an ever-increasing number of new standards were needed, how detailed new standards should be and the approach to be adopted for the revision or denunciation of obsolete standards, had been discussed for several years and their views on these matters were well known. In general terms, they were in favour of a more restrictive interpretation of the existing standards.
33. The Worker members noted a series of major developments in respect of the acceptance, spread and application of international labour standards. They recalled the harshness of the criticisms made shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 by those who preached a liberal economy. This doctrine which was, to the Worker members' regret, initially widely followed within the Bretton Woods institutions, held that the free market in itself could ensure social, economic and political efficacy and stability. In the view of the same doctrine, national and international labour standards were by definition harmful to economic development and an impediment to the globalization of the economy. This vision was less dominant today, in particular as a result of experience gained and developments observed in the field and also due to initiatives such as those instigated by the ILO and by the World Summit for Social Development. The work of the Committee had also contributed to this change. Indeed, long discussions had been devoted to such subjects as the application and knowledge of fundamental and priority labour standards, the strengthening of the supervisory system and the revision of standards. Little by little, consensus on a series of important aspects of international labour standards had become firmer. The search for the widest possible agreement among the three groups was essential if concrete form was to be given to this new movement which had sprung up regarding labour standards. Experience in the field had demonstrated that international labour standards and social policy were indispensable in ensuring economic development and political, financial, economic and social stability. The Worker members agreed with the proposals of the Director-General contained in his Report to the Conference, Decent work, that the world economy would lack stability and political credibility in the absence of a solid social basis.
34. The Worker members stated that the profound crisis in Asia and in other parts of the world had shown that it was important that the whole economy and the political system should be based on a generalized and universally accepted framework of standards, applied at national and international levels and within enterprises, no matter what their size. The reports of the ILO and various recent Governing Body documents on the Asian crisis, and studies by countries on the social impact of globalization, showed to what point a clearly thought out policy, supported by a good social dialogue between workers' and employers' organizations, was fundamental to economic progress, stability and social peace. The ILO study on the social impact of globalization advocated action by governments and the social partners in the fields of education and training, social protection, labour legislation and industrial relations as well as on fundamental labour standards.
35. The Worker members further noted that certain international institutions such as the World Bank had finally decided to include promotion and integration of international labour standards and social policy in their programmes and activities. Thus, the World Bank had drawn up a sort of code of principles of good social policy for its own programmes and activities. World Bank action came within the framework of execution of the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development. Its aim was to develop an integrated approach taking account of financial, economic and social considerations. The truth was that traditional ideas had failed to provide an answer to the grave social and economic crises in Asia and in the Russian Federation and to their consequences in Latin America and other regions. The World Bank seemed to wish to play a role in following up engagements made at the World Summit for Social Development at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly to be held in June 2000 in Geneva.
36. The Worker members noted that in the code of principles and of good practice, as discussed within the Joint Ministerial Development Committee of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), there were four major fields which directly or indirectly concerned labour standards: universal access to fundamental social services such as basic education and health care; a durable income and decent working conditions for all men and all women; in this context the World Bank recognized the need for full employment and the protection of fundamental labour standards; and the promotion of systems of social protection and encouragement of social integration. The Worker members expressed the hope that this code would be fully adopted and applied in the field, including in the activities of the IMF. This was a new direction confirmed by the declaration of the G8 Labour Ministers in February 1999. The ILO must continue to follow these developments closely and be involved in the implementation of the code of principles. However, it was not certain that those responsible for the activities of the IMF and the World Bank in the field were actually convinced of the importance of international labour standards. The interventions and advice of the IMF and the World Bank had direct negative consequences for freedom of association and working conditions in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya and the countries of West Africa and Latin America. According to recent information, the IMF intended to carry out a study to analyse the possible economic impact of fundamental rights. This measure was in the view of the Worker members totally unacceptable following the studies carried out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and many other organizations and the adoption of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up.
37. The Worker members noted that the Committee of Experts attached a great deal of importance to the integration of labour standards in operational activities and in the discussions on the social dimension of globalization. The discussions on the social dimension of globalization and international commerce should continue to be followed, including at the WTO, and should result in concrete action to promote the practical application of international labour standards. International investments should also favour the application of international labour standards. The Worker members concurred with the Committee of Experts that international labour standards and the observations of all the various ILO supervisory bodies should be used as basic points of reference in implementing programmes of the ILO and those of other international institutions, not only with respect to fundamental labour standards but over the whole range of international labour standards. In effect, it did not make sense that the supervisory bodies should be confronted with violations of labour standards that were a result of decisions of programmes of international financial institutions, of the WTO and of other organizations.
38. The Worker members recalled that since the beginning of the campaign for the ratification of the seven fundamental Conventions, more than 120 ratifications had been registered and others were expected. While these results were encouraging, many countries did not appear to have the political will to proceed towards ratification. Some highly industrialized countries such as Australia and New Zealand stated quite simply that their legislation was not in conformity and for this reason they had not ratified the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). Australia meanwhile was planning to ratify the Convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour presently being discussed. However, some developing countries and newly industrialized countries such as Thailand, were prepared to ratify Convention No. 138 or at least to modify their legislation. Furthermore, for some Conventions, such as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), progress had been less significant than for others. Finally, while most governments had informed the ILO in one manner or the other of their intentions concerning ratification, there were still 17 countries that had not yet sent a response, in particular countries engaged in conflicts or with weak resources. In such cases, ILO technical assistance would be very useful.
39. The Worker members recalled that, with respect to the revision, ratification and the eventual denunciation of Conventions, the Committee had always given much attention to the very important work of the Working Group on the policy regarding the revision of standards. They had stated since the beginning of the reflections that the decision should be supported by a thorough analysis of problems of application and by a consensus among the three groups. They considered that the results of the Working Group met these criteria. There was also a good interaction between the Working Group and the Conference. They also underlined that the activities of the Working Group members had not been limited to revision. Their objective was also to promote the ratification of existing Conventions and not only the fundamental Conventions.
40. Several Government members (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Morocco) referred to the social repercussions of economic changes and their implications for the ILO, in particular regarding its priorities for action. The Government member of India noted the commitment of the Director-General to giving the ILO's policies and programmes a new direction and orientation, taking into account the economic, employment and social manifestations of globalization, liberalization of trade and rapid technological changes. Noting the negative implications of globalization in particular on employment, he considered that the need for the creation of greater opportunities for women and men to secure decent employment and income was one of the most important strategic objectives of the Organization in the coming years, and that the progress of all other objectives was contingent upon the attainment of the core objective of employment.
41. The Employer member of South Africa, referring to the Report by the Director-General to the Conference Decent work which outlined an integrated approach to the ILO's activities, emphasized the need also to adopt an integrated approach to the supervisory machinery of the ILO. He observed that the Committee of Experts sat at the crossroads of where such an integrated, non-sectoralized approach needed to be synthesized so as to continue to underscore the authority of their observations and requests to member States. The common purpose of ILO Members was to uphold its values and specifically those relating to the core Conventions which represented enduring principles of labour rights. The challenge was how best to apply these principles in the present context of change. As highlighted by the Director-General in his Report, the traditional cornerstones of the ILO's activities had been shifted by the transformation of the economic and social environment brought about by the emerging global economy. In this global economy, policies of economic liberalization had altered the relationship among the nation State, labour and business. Economic outcomes were now more influenced by market forces than by mediation through social actions, legal norms or state intervention. After describing the changes that had taken place, and noting their impact on the organizations of employers and workers, in such a context of change, it was clear how critical it was to conserve the principles contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It had also become vital to adapt their application to these changed circumstances. He emphasized that it was clear that "one size fits all" templates to collective bargaining and collective bargaining structures could hardly bring optimum results, as bargaining at all levels needed to be capable of coping with such fast-changing circumstances. In this context it was relevant to refer to the implicit flexibility contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 which would merit further reflection.
42. The Worker member of France emphasized that the rapid development of technology, working methods and conditions, and globalization called for the further development of existing standards and the establishment of new general and sectoral standards. Globalization also raised the acute question of the link between standards and international trade. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore, the ILO's exclusive competence for labour standards had been clearly stated. However, there had been no cooperation between the WTO and the ILO in order to consider together positive ways of ensuring the effective promotion of fundamental standards, notably through technical and scientific support, trade preferences or a moratorium on the external debt of countries which respected the fundamental rights of workers. The violation of human rights could not be described as a comparative advantage; on the contrary, it was an unacceptable form of dumping prohibited by the rules of the WTO which had nothing to do with protectionism. Furthermore, countries which sought to derive benefits from their refusal to discuss the question were in the medium to long term vulnerable to unilateral reaction, for example, by consumers' organizations which could affect their exports. It would be paradoxical if social standards were the only standards excluded from the regulation of international trade, particularly since the next round of negotiations at the WTO would focus in particular on the environment and technical standards for product safety, which could have a significant impact on the opportunities for developing countries to export to markets in the industrialized countries. The Worker member of Pakistan considered that the ILO should strengthen its relations with the IMF and the World Bank.
43. Several Government members (China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Nepal, Sri Lanka) referred to the progress in the number of ratifications achieved under the campaign of ratifications of the fundamental Conventions launched in 1995, mentioning in particular the fundamental Conventions ratified by their countries.
44. A Worker member of Germany pointed out that Conventions on technical issues had received fewer ratifications than the core Conventions. The campaign should therefore be extended to such instruments as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), as well as Conventions on occupational safety and health and migrant workers. The Worker member of the United States considered that the Declaration was not a substitute for the ratification of ILO Conventions. The Worker member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries) expressed the hope that the follow-up mechanism of the Declaration would facilitate the process of ratification of fundamental Conventions. The Worker member of India expressed the view that further ILO assistance would be needed to ensure implementation of Conventions, and the Worker member of Pakistan called for assistance to workers' organizations in this respect.
45. Several Government members (Canada, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States) spoke of the policy concerning standards, some specifically referring to the work of the Working Party on the Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, or to the proposals contained in the Report of the Director-General, Decent work. The Government member of France referred to the causes for the low level of ratification of Conventions and the ways to overcome it, in particular by the choice of subjects and the content of the standards adopted. There was a certain discrepancy between the very favourable positions expressed concerning revision and the present situation of little enthusiasm to include those revisions in the agenda of the Conference. In this respect, the Government member of the United States considered that priority should be given to the recommendations of the Working Party. The Government member of Germany noted that the decisions on the choice of items to place on the agenda did not always reflect a choice of the most urgent or important issues of concern. Several Government members (Canada, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), Switzerland, United Kingdom) expressed interest in the attention devoted by the Director-General to the developments relating to standards. The Government member of Switzerland paid tribute to the Working Party and called for reflection on improving the process of the adoption of standards and the supervisory system, without losing any of its relevance and good characteristics.
46. The Government members of France and Japan stressed the universal character of standards, and stated that the ILO as a universal institution should continue to adopt universal standards. The Government member of Japan emphasized also the importance of maintaining the objectivity and impartiality of the supervisory procedures.
47. The Worker member of Italy mentioned the elaboration of a code of conduct for enterprises and a social label for goods, and the Government member of Germany considered that the ILO should play an active role in this regard.
48. The Worker members stated, with regard to codes of conduct and best practices on the social policies of enterprises, more and more enterprises were developing such codes of conduct, and the ILO had devoted many publications to this. These codes were seeing the light of day under pressure from public opinion, trade unions and other organizations such as consumer organizations and NGOs. Enterprises were increasingly aware of their social image. This was in itself a positive development. The ILO should follow this question for many reasons. The various codes of conduct and their follow-up were of different qualities. Only a limited number of these codes mentioned all the fundamental labour standards or the 1977 Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. The ILO also had the necessary expertise to advise enterprises on the matter. Thus enterprises could directly contribute to the promotion of the application of fundamental labour standards, safety and health at the workplace, and the implementation of appropriate conditions of work and wages.
49. The Worker members were pleased to note that most of the interventions laid particular stress on the importance of international labour standards and the supervisory machinery. They observed that the Employer members supported an integrated approach in which emphasis was laid on international standards, social justice and social dialogue. Within this context, employment and economic activity should go hand in hand with international standards and, especially, with the seven fundamental Conventions, social protection and social dialogue. The Worker members endorsed this overall and integrated approach. They further noted that a number of governments had also advocated a parallel approach to international standards on the one hand and economic development on the other. In their opinion, this consensus in respect of the ILO's strategic objectives was encouraging. It was indeed indispensable if good intentions were to be transformed into concrete measures at both the national and international levels. The Worker members noted that several Government members (in particular, the Government member of the United Kingdom) had stressed the growing importance of the supervisory machinery in a world undergoing profound changes. In this respect, the Worker members urged that the globalization of the economy should be accompanied by a strengthening of the application of Conventions for all workers, including those working in export processing zones, and they noted that several Governments (Germany, Kenya and the United States) had also stressed this last point. Moreover, with the globalization of the economy, the ratification by the whole of the international community of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 had become indispensable. The Worker members went on to highlight the universal vocation of the ILO and its standards. The ILO and its bodies should make every effort to ensure that universally ratifiable standards of quality should be adopted where the political will was present. They opposed the introduction of regional divergencies within the standards.
50. The Employer members stated that the general discussion had provided for a number of approaches, and new elements as well as new approaches. In this context, they recalled the Director-General's Report which contained a new approach with respect to standard setting, which needed to become more flexible. Another positive element was the work of the Working Party on the Revision of Standards. They also noted that the Committee of Experts had reviewed its position on several issues. In this regard, they considered that flexibility was indispensable in order not to lose touch with reality. They also mentioned that it had taken decades for the ILO to acknowledge that standards had not been adopted for an eternity. This partly explained why the ILO Constitution had not provided specific provisions for the abolition of outdated standards. In conclusion, they were encouraged by the new approach towards more flexibility and insisted on the importance of continuing the social dialogue.
51. The Committee noted with interest the information regarding ratifications, communicated by the following Government members: Canada (the Government was pursuing its efforts to ratify the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)); China (procedures had started with a view to the ratification of the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and of the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150)); Dominican Republic (the instruments of ratification of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and of the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150), are about to be deposited with the Director-General); Japan (the Government has taken steps for the ratification of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), by submitting it to Parliament); Nepal (the country is about to ratify the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105); Portugal (studies and consultations had been started with a view to the ratification of the Part-Time Work Convention, 1994 (No. 175), of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), of the Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 18), and the Protocol to Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 [and Protocol, 1996] (No. 147)); Seychelles (the cabinet of the Council of Ministers had approved the ratification of the following Conventions: the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148), the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151)); Switzerland (the country will be ratifying the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)).
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work and its Follow-up
52. The Employer members raised the question of whether the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up really intended to create additional means on the effective implementation of fundamental ILO standards. The Declaration had been elaborated because many member States had not yet ratified the core ILO Conventions. However, it remained an open question whether the Declaration would provide additional possibilities for the implementation of these standards. With respect to the view expressed by the Committee of Experts that the follow-up of the Declaration should not constitute a substitute for the established supervisory machinery or impede its functioning, the Employer members considered that this view might create some kind of confusion. In particular, concerning the hope expressed by the Committee of Experts that a coherent approach with the ILO's established standards and supervisory machinery would be maintained in practice, they underlined the different approaches of international labour standards and the Declaration. In their opinion, there was a clear distinction between these instruments which would need to remain visible with regard to their supervision.
53. The Employer members, while welcoming the intensive campaign to promote a more widespread ratification of the ILO's seven fundamental Conventions, considered a success by the Committee of Experts, considered that the unsatisfactory level of ratifications of these Conventions had been an underlying reason for the adoption of the Declaration. The future would show its real significance.
54. The Worker members considered that the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up undeniably constituted an extremely important development with regard to international labour standards, and that its approval and implementation would without doubt have an important political and social impact, which could contribute to the strengthening of the relevance and impact of international labour standards. It was also important that the Declaration become a reference point for technical cooperation and for the orientation of various ILO programmes as well as those of the other international institutions to which reference was previously made. During its March 1999 session, the Governing Body established procedures for the application of the follow-up. The first global report would be dedicated to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Three concerns and priorities were to be emphasized. First, the Worker members considered that the follow-up to the Declaration should not be a substitute for the established supervisory mechanisms or impede their functioning. They shared the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts in this regard. Second, there should be consistency between the application of fundamental principles and rights. Even if the primary purpose of the Declaration and its follow-up were intended to be promotional in nature, it was essential to avoid the emergence of different conceptions of freedom of association, of collective bargaining or of prohibition of discrimination. Third, the campaign to promote the ratification of fundamental Conventions should be continued.
55. The Worker members noted that in this connection, the Report of the Director-General to the Conference entitled Decent work clearly stressed that the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up should strengthen the ILO's ability to promote fundamental rights and that countries should still be encouraged to ratify the fundamental Conventions. Rights at work, and therefore labour standards, also figured among the four strategic objectives of the ILO recommended by the Director-General.
56. Several Government members (Belgium, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), Switzerland, United Kingdom) referred to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. Some Government members (Belgium, Egypt, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries), Switzerland) shared the view of the Committee of Experts that the follow-up should not substitute for, nor impede the functioning of, the supervisory system and that action was required to ensure that a consistent and coherent approach with the ILO's established standards and supervisory mechanisms was maintained in practice. The Government member of Switzerland stressed that it was important that the Declaration follow-up should begin according to the agreed schedule and that the Report should lead to strengthened cooperation among the departments inside the Office, as well as between international institutions, including the financial institutions.
57. Speaking as the Employer spokesperson for the Declaration in 1998, the Employer member of the United States also considered that the Declaration and its follow-up was intended to be complementary to the existing supervisory machinery, and not an alternative to it. The principles deriving from the Declaration were of a different nature from obligations undertaken as the result of the ratification of Conventions. They were designed to achieve the policies set out in Conventions, but not their detailed legal obligations. Moreover, the principles contained in the Declaration concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining differed from the detailed elaboration of such principles by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Declaration reinforced the policies set out in the fundamental Conventions, so that countries which had not yet done so would be in a position to ratify those Conventions, and countries which had already ratified them would be in a better position to achieve their full implementation in law and practice. It therefore embodied a consistent and coherent approach to the ILO's established supervisory machinery.
58. The Government member of Kenya stressed the promotional nature of the follow-up to the Declaration and referred to the substantial resources under Strategic Objective No. 1 on the promotion and effective implementation of the Declaration. The Government member of India considered that the core principles of the Declaration should be promoted regardless of whether or not the member States had ratified the corresponding Conventions. The Declaration should not be used as a pretext for not ratifying the relevant ILO Conventions, since ratification was the appropriate step for promoting and implementing the principles and rights enshrined in the Declaration.
59. The Worker members considered that the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up should be the starting point and reference in order to achieve a better knowledge and application of international labour standards. A number of Governments had underlined, as had the Worker members, the complementary nature of the Declaration and its follow-up (Belgium, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland); like the Worker members, these Governments echoed the concerns of the Committee of Experts that the follow-up of the Declaration was in no way intended as a substitute for existing mechanisms. The Declaration should stimulate governments to ratify and effectively apply the fundamental Conventions and orient technical cooperation.
Other international and regional issues
60. The Employer members noted that every year, the report of the Committee of Experts described the collaboration of the ILO with other international organizations responsible for human rights treaties and instruments. These instruments had either universal or regional coverage. The universal treaties were generally the responsibility of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Considerable progress had sometimes been recorded in the implementation of such treaties, although it often took some time before this success became visible. One illustration was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in the beginning, had been little more than a solemn declaration. This meant that its only significance had been as a political recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, since the member States of the United Nations had not been able to agree on any more far-reaching provisions. However, since then, most of the provisions of the Universal Declaration had come to be considered as an integral part of international common law. It had therefore become a part of the expanding body of international law, which corresponded to the overall process of globalization. In this respect, although many people regarded globalization with anxiety, its other aspects should also be taken into account.
61. The Worker members underlined that, in respect of the collaboration between the ILO and other human rights organizations, the ILO had undoubtedly strengthened its own capacity of intervention concerning human rights at work. However, the ILO should develop its collaboration with the United Nations and other specialized institutions in order to reinforce the follow-up in the field of human rights.
62. The Worker member of the Netherlands noted with regret that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights did not refer to the ILO's work in relation to human rights, and the resolutions on trade and development adopted in the past few years by the United Nations General Assembly did not refer to the discussion on the social clause in the ILO and the World Trade Organization.
63. The representative of the Secretary-General indicated that contacts with the special rapporteurs and the standing organs of the United Nations had been intensified in recent years and contacts with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with other international organizations, including the World Bank and the IMF, had been more frequent.
64. The Government members of Belgium and Romania referred to the collaboration between the ILO and the Council of Europe indicating that new ratifications had been registered for both the Social Charter, its additional protocols, and the revised Social Charter which would enter into force in July 1999. More particularly, according to the Government member of Belgium, this movement seemed to announce a new era in European cooperation based on the application of fundamental social rights, largely inspired by those elaborated by the ILO but which also took into account directives on social matters by the European Community. He agreed with the Director-General that the ILO should also take an interest in the efforts towards regional cooperation in matters of social rights be it on the basis of existing Conventions, through the elaboration of new instruments, or in the context of a technical contribution for management of social aspects of trade agreements. The Government member of Romania stressed the complementarity, complexity and occasionally the inconsistency of regional and international labour and social protection instruments. Special attention should be paid, when selecting proposals to be included in the standards portfolio, to the quality, universality and flexibility of ILO standards. If contradictions between international and regional standards arose, the universality of the former and the rationale of the latter would be called into question. A Worker member of Germany referred to a case that had recently been brought under the supervisory system of the Charter using the collective complaints procedures on the subject of the prohibition of child labour. A number of ILO Conventions had played an important role in the process of revision of the Social Charter and the ILO should continue to play its role as a standard-setting and supervisory body. The comments of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association should be considered as authoritative for the interpretation of the European Social Charter, as a minimum level of protection.
65. The Worker member of Brazil made reference to the adoption of the MERCOSUR Declaration on social and labour questions, which was inspired by the ILO's Declaration. It should contribute to the regional awareness of the need for discussion on this subject in the process of globalization.
66. The Government member of Belgium, referring to the discussion on social questions and globalization, stated that each organization acting in the economic and social field, had its own share of responsibility for supporting the social aspects of globalization in conformity with the commitments made at the World Summit for Social Development. Each organization should therefore examine what it could do within the parameters of its mandate. Social development rested on the dynamism of the fundamental social instruments of the ILO. One should therefore welcome all initiatives which contributed to fulfilling this social responsibility, including those which concerned the coordination between the institutions of relevance in this context.
Fulfilment of standards-related obligations
67. The Employer members approved of the gradual renewal of the body of ILO standards. Obsolete instruments were being replaced by the ratification of revised Conventions, or obsolete Conventions were being denounced at the invitation of the Governing Body. Information was also provided in the report on cases of denunciation of ratified Conventions which had not been accompanied by the ratification of a revised Convention. One illustration was the denunciation by the Netherlands and Zambia of the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45), which contained a categorical ban on underground work by women. A similar situation had occurred in relation to the general prohibition of the night work by women. These well-meant protective measures had their roots in what might be termed a pre-scientific era. However, if certain types of work were unhealthy, they were uniformly unhealthy for both men and women. The exclusive prohibition of these types of work for women merely served to reduce their opportunities on the labour market.
68. The Employer members drew attention to the new presentation of information concerning the ratification of Conventions. The information provided now not only covered cases of new ratifications, but also denunciations. While not constituting a value judgement, such information reflected the real situation more closely.
69. The Employer members recalled that the entire supervisory system was based primarily on the reports that member States were required to provide. By the end of the session of the Committee of Experts, some 62 per cent of requested reports had been received. A majority of member States had therefore fulfilled their reporting obligations. The principal problem lay in the timely receipt of the reports. When they were transmitted too late, there was no opportunity for their careful examination and it was often necessary to defer them for examination to the next year. For many years, the Employer members had called for member States which repeatedly submitted their reports between the end of the session of the Committee of Experts and the beginning of the Conference to be listed by name. Unfortunately, this request had not been put into effect and no explanation had been provided. They re-emphasized that reports on the application of ratified Conventions needed to include information on their implementation in practice. Reports confined to the legislative situation did not always provide a realistic overall picture. This was another aspect in which there were still many shortcomings in the reporting process. The representative of the Secretary-General stated that he would bring the question posed by the Employer members to the attention of the Committee of Experts at its next session.
70. The Employer members noted the cases of progress referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts, and stressed the important information that was provided by large numbers of employers' and workers' organizations. In this context, it was important for more member States to ratify the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). With respect to the complaints procedures under the Constitution and others, the report of the Committee of Experts succinctly described the complaint procedures instituted under articles 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution. The Employer members noted the considerable increase in the number of representations made under article 24 and the cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
71. The Worker members expressed the hope that the pace of ratification would increase appreciably in the near future in developing countries, as well as in industrializing countries and industrialized countries. The Worker members appealed to the 15 members of the European Union and the Community's institutions to clarify urgently possible legal problems concerning the procedures to ratify the Conventions on health and safety. These problems discouraged the ratification of these Conventions and were impeding ratification in other regions of the world. Member States should abandon their passive attitudes where their legislation does not conform to a particular Convention. International standards should rather be used to revise and implement the legislation. The Office and all the constituents should reinforce their efforts to ensure that international labour standards are more widely known. In this respect, the concern the Director-General raised in his Report that most standards were not well known, was found to be correct.
72. The Worker members noted that the report of the Committee of Experts also provided information on the denunciation of Conventions which were not accompanied by the ratification of a revised Convention. In the case of Australia, there had been no real tripartite consultations concerning the denunciation of the Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920 (No. 9). However, the Working Group on Maritime Standards in Australia had recommended the ratification of the new revised maritime Conventions, namely the Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Convention, 1996 (No. 179) and the Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180). In the case of the denunciation of the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45) by the Netherlands, the new Convention, the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), was not ratified. Luxembourg denounced the Night Work (Bakeries) Convention, 1925 (No. 20) without ratifying the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171).
73. The Worker members noted that even though the majority of governments duly submit reports, a very important minority does not or does so late, including first reports following ratification. The majority of reports were received between 1 September and the end of November when the Committee of Experts met; however, reports should be sent to the ILO between 1 June and 1 September to ensure that the ILO can prepare for the meeting of the Committee of Experts. The final problem arose from the fact that a number of reports were incomplete and did not reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies or to the observations of employers' or workers' organizations. The Worker members, like the Employer members, had always emphasized the importance of constructive dialogue between member States and the supervisory bodies. Without a detailed response from the governments to the questions and observations of the supervisory bodies, such dialogue was no longer possible and, as a result, the attitude of the supervisory bodies would necessarily become more firmly entrenched. In this context, four points should be emphasized. Some of the countries concerned were small developing countries or countries that have faced significant upheavals. ILO technical assistance and the support of the members of the multidisciplinary teams could assist these governments. Some of the countries mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts have or should have the technical and organizational capacity to take part in a dialogue with the supervisory bodies. Many of them should reinforce their labour administration and develop tripartism through efficient consultation structures as was called for in the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) and its corresponding Recommendation (No. 152). The Committee of Experts should shortly evaluate the arrangements in force concerning the submission of reports and arrive at conclusions. The cycle for sending most reports had been extended to five years; the reports were simplified and emphasis had been put on the real problems of application. These important reforms had not had the expected effect. The existence of a tripartite structure was important in order to encourage respect for the obligations arising from the ILO Constitution and from ratified Conventions.
74. The Worker members indicated that the observations of employers' and workers' organizations formed an important element in the development of the supervisory system. Once again, the Committee of Experts had received a large number of observations from employers' and workers' organizations. These initiatives bore witness to the importance of the ILO for the workers and their organizations and also to the persistent nature of problems of application in numerous countries. To obtain a true measure of the impact and the importance of the reactions of national and international workers' organizations, it was also necessary to view them against the representations submitted under article 24 of the Constitution, complaints under article 26 and complaints examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. Some procedures were better known than others and thus more widely used by organizations. Such was the case regarding complaints placed before the Committee on Freedom of Association, or representations. As a result of certain weaknesses in the present regular supervisory system, such as the lengthening of reporting periods, the failure to provide reports due and the absence of replies from certain governments to the comments of the supervisory bodies, these procedures had their uses. It was therefore important that the ILO should have the means necessary to organize the follow-up. The ILO should also continue its efforts to update its procedures, including that governing representations. With respect to the cases of progress mentioned in the report, these show clearly the importance of the ILO and its supervisory system for the daily lives of workers, even if, in the great majority of cases, far too much time passed between comment by ILO bodies and the adaptation of laws and practices.
75. With respect to denunciation of Conventions, the Government member of Portugal considered that these should be followed by the ratification of revising Conventions. She referred to the denunciation of the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45) specifically and said that any revision of the prohibition against work by women in mines should be made in the context of an improvement of conditions of work in mines. This was also mentioned by the Government members of the Netherlands and Spain, and the Worker member of the Netherlands, with descriptions of the situation in their countries. The Worker member of Greece deplored the fact that eliminating positive discrimination in the name of equality resulted in losing the level of protection in some countries. He considered that equality of opportunity could not mean the elimination of certain rights for women but rather the extension of these rights to men.
76. The Government member of Lebanon wondered whether Convention No. 45 could still be considered relevant or whether it could properly be viewed as a shelved or obsolete Convention. The representative of the Secretary-General stated that this Convention had not been shelved nor identified as obsolete by the Governing Body.
77. The Government member of Kenya drew attention to the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Worker member of the Netherlands stressed the importance of having tripartite consultations within the meaning of the Convention with respect to denunciations and ratifications.
78. The Government member of Germany considered that the decrease in the fulfilment of the obligation to report by member States was particularly disturbing, all the more so because the follow-up to the Declaration would also depend on a proper fulfilment of reporting obligations of member States. The Government member of Egypt called on the ILO to increase the technical assistance provided to countries to help them meet their reporting obligations. The Government member of Swaziland suggested the provision of financial assistance accompanied by technical assistance.
79. The Worker member of Finland (speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries) whose views were shared by a Worker member of Germany, stressed the point that the work of the Committee of Experts was only as good as the material and information they received and on which they based their assessments. In this regard, he stressed the importance of the role of the employers' and workers' organizations in the implementation of Conventions. The quality of the governments' reports could be better if the reports were prepared in good cooperation with employers' and workers' organizations in the national tripartite ILO committees and if the reports were supplemented by observations from these organizations. He mentioned that this was the method used in the reports prepared, for instance, in Finland and according to his experience, tripartite preparatory work was a good method, and, indeed, the only acceptable method. The observations from labour market organizations gave the Committee a valuable insight into the practical application of the policies being pursued in the respective countries. According to the Worker member of France, the decrease in the number of reports submitted this year was virtually unprecedented over the past half century. The reporting cycle had, however, been considerably lengthened at the request of governments in order to allow them to provide comprehensive reports within the time limits. If shortcomings emerged in this system, other methods of supervision would be increasingly required. The Worker member of Pakistan recalled the importance of the obligation of sending reports on the application of Conventions in the non-metropolitan territories.
80. The Government member of India said that there had been more frequent recourse to the liberal application of some of the constitutional provisions, particularly article 26. He considered that article 26 was an extreme measure designed to deal with an extreme situation, and should be applied only as a last resort.
81. A Worker member of Germany stated that, although the Committee of Experts had not included in this year's report a reference to sanctions in the event of the non-application of a Convention by a member State, such measures were nevertheless necessary. The Employer members referred in this connection to last year's report of the Committee of Experts in which the Experts had changed their position on this question. They stated that this change of position was also noted in the 1998 report of the Conference Committee.
Other questions concerning the application of particular Conventions
82. The Worker members noted that the Committee of Experts' report this year contained some general considerations on the application of widely differing Conventions. These remarks were of great value. By drawing attention to developments and problems arising in different countries, these considerations bore witness to the desire of the supervisory bodies to remain in touch with the real situations.
83. The Government member of Cuba stated that the part of the report of the Committee of Experts, dedicated to the application of specific Conventions, was particularly useful in that it could be relied upon for precise indications regarding these Conventions, taking into account the limitations of different kinds that prevented conducting more detailed general surveys for more than one Convention each year. It thus contributed to a better understanding of the essential problems of their application.
The Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
84. The Employer members welcomed the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), which recalled the discussion on that subject held in the Conference Committee in 1998. All aspects of the subject merited further attention in future, given the Employer members' views in favour of a more restrictive interpretation of the present standards.
85. The Worker members recalled that last year the Conference Committee had undertaken detailed discussions regarding the problems of application of Convention No. 29, in connection with prison labour and especially in prisons under the management of private enterprises and where prisoners were made available to private enterprises. Work of this sort raised problems regarding fundamental rights, acceptable working conditions, and unfair competition with other enterprises, which were endeavouring to respect national and international standards. The Committee of Experts hoped to continue studying this question on the basis of further information from the member States. All governments should reply to the questions posed by the Committee of Experts in its general observation on Convention No. 29, and should consult employers' and workers' organizations. A new General Survey should shortly be carried out concerning forced labour instruments as the previous survey dated from 1979.
86. Several Government members (Cuba, Germany, Kenya, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) referred to the question of prisoners hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Government member of Kenya agreed with the views of the Committee of Experts that this question merited sustained attention. The Government member of Cuba considered that there was a risk that this might result in situations of exploitation of human rights under the cover of the rehabilitative function of prison labour. The Government member of Germany recalled that at the time of the elaboration of this instrument, the obligation for prisoners to work was considered as part of the punishment while the present view was that work by prisoners was seen as an important element in the process of resocialization. It was necessary to examine whether current practices, particularly in private prisons, were compatible with a strategy of resocialization. Referring to the General Report of last year and the general observation of this year as well as the comments addressed to his country, the Government member of Spain wondered whether the question under discussion merited such detailed attention when the paragraph of the Article was inconsequential compared with the whole Convention, since the report does not contain questions on prison labour and in the face of a Convention which was dense in reflective aspects and rich in its development of standards. The concern for Article 2(2)(c) of this extensive, important and fundamental Convention is deep and widespread within the Committee of Experts. One wondered whether this problem of such disproportionate connotations will withstand a balanced and weighted comparison to the treatment given to the major human situations which were reflected and regulated in detail by the Convention. The Government member of the United States recalled that last year, his Government had requested the Committee of Experts to re-examine its interpretation of Convention No. 29, in particular in relation to private prisons and prison labour for private enterprises. This question deserved in-depth treatment, particularly the aspects touching on prisoners hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. This meant dealing with the type of work covered and excluded from the Convention, the nature of the consent of the prisoner, minimum wage rates, authorized benefits and deductions and the conditions of the control by public authorities. The Government member of the United Kingdom stated that his Government would continue to work with the Committee of Experts and the social partners in the United Kingdom in developing a realistic and up-to-date interpretation of this fundamental Convention. He considered that this approach was crucial to maintaining and promoting the effective implementation of the Convention and supported the proposal of the Committee of Experts for a General Survey on forced labour. The Government members of Cuba and the United States expressed their support for a new General Survey.
87. The Employer member of the United States stated that, regarding the current examination of the legal situation in the United States with reference to Convention No. 29, the additional information provided by the Committee of Experts on the issue of prisoners being hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations to be useful. However, he considered that the call for further information on this subject should not have been confined to countries which had ratified the Convention. In practice, the provision of information from other countries would facilitate the ratification process. The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that only States bound by the Convention were required to provide information on its application, by virtue of article 22 of the ILO Constitution.
88. A Worker member of Germany requested the Government member of his country, when referring to the work performed by prisoners in the context of Convention No. 29, to refer not only to the role of work in the process of the social reintegration of prisoners, but also to the measures which needed to be taken for the satisfactory application of the Convention in national legislation in Germany. The Worker member of India opposed the use of forced labour in prisons. The Worker member of France stated that although work by prisoners was a recognized and effective method of social reintegration, certain essential criteria had to be met. Prisoners had economic and social rights and Convention No. 95 was also applicable to them. The right to a wage, coverage by legislation on occupational safety and health, the right to social security, a retirement pension and the probability of freely chosen employment also applied to prisoners.
Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108)
89. The Employer members noted that the aim of the Convention was to establish the purpose of identity documents for seafarers, as well as the purposes for which they should not be used, with particular reference to the distinction between such identity documents and passports. Seafarers' identity documents were not a substitute for a passport. Nor could a passport be used as a seafarer's identity document. However, such documents partly fulfilled the functions of a passport, particularly where seafarers wished to go ashore for a short period in a specific area. However, the Committee of Experts had not put forward reasons for the relatively low level of ratification of the Convention. It could only be speculated that the contents of the instrument were not fully understood in all member States or might conflict with national provisions on migration. Some countries might well be experiencing difficulties in aligning their national provisions concerning both passports and identity documents with the requirements of the Convention.
90. The Worker members pointed out that this was not the first time that the Committee of Experts had drafted general comments on Conventions of a technical nature such as Convention No. 108. Technical Conventions often had great importance both in principle and in practice for the workers concerned. As a result of the tightening of immigration regulations in many countries, seafarers were increasingly confronted with problems concerning temporary shore leave in port. However, the authorization to leave a ship when in port must not be confused with immigration documents such as passports and visas. The Committee of Experts recalled that the aim of a seafarer's identity document was to facilitate temporary shore leave by means of a reciprocally recognized document. It enabled the seafarer to leave the ship. In certain cases, he would otherwise be obliged to remain on board for many weeks, or even months, resulting in an intolerable privation for the seafarer. It should therefore be regarded as a special form of temporary entry. The Committee also recalled that a wide range of supplementary conditions, such as the presentation of complementary documents, the payment of taxes or the retention of the document by the port authorities, were contrary to the terms of the Convention. In certain countries the issue or retention of the identity document was used directly or indirectly to link a seafarer to a specific shipowner. The result of this was that labour laws and the freedom to work of seafarers were limited or depended on the good will of a specific shipowner. This could give rise to serious abuse, where the shipowner concerned subcontracted seafarers to other shipowners under inferior conditions on receipt of a commission. Such practices were unacceptable. The countries concerned should re-examine at an early date their regulations and their practice in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts.
91. The Government member of Cuba considered the evaluations and considerations of the Committee of Experts regarding the differences that could be noted between identity documents and passports to be very illuminating. Carrying out technical assistance activities in this area could be very beneficial, above all taking into account that the application of this Convention generally exceeded the scope of competence of ministers of labour.
92. A Worker member of Germany considered that the extensive comments of the Committee of Experts provided a valuable contribution to raising awareness of the objectives and provisions of the instrument. Such comments should become a regular feature of the report of the Committee of Experts on the other Conventions. The Worker member of Greece stated that although this was a maritime Convention, it concerned human dignity and the scope of human rights at work. Seafarers' identity documents were useful above all to enable a seafarer to obtain shore leave during the ship's call at port. It thus permitted him to leave his workplace which at the same time served as his place of lodging. He then asked whether there existed other categories of free workers who lived day and night at their workplace and needed a special document to leave it. He considered that the regulations for seafarers on leave were unique: most often, the seafarer was a foreigner but nevertheless he was not on the territory as a tourist. A clear distinction should be made between shore leave and the stay of a tourist. In conformity with the rule the crew followed the ship. This itself was the nature of work of seafarers, which explained their presence on the territory of various countries. He then noted that technical progress had sometimes diminished in a draconian manner the number of seafarers working on ships. It had also shortened the calls at port and lengthened the time at sea. Therefore, permission to go on land became a vital need for the seafarer. No one could remain confined on board for long periods without danger to his or her physical and mental health and well-being and, finally, the ability to ensure the security of navigation. What was being dealt with here was a universal principle, as was maritime law itself. Any free worker must be able to leave his or her workplace. The right to shore leave had always been a part of maritime custom, and was currently expressed in Convention No. 108. All countries should therefore ratify and apply this Convention. Any action taken to avoid issuing the identity document and to hinder obtention of shore leave constituted a clear violation of human rights at work. All countries should ratify and apply this Convention.
Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)
93. The Employer members noted that the part of the report of the Committee of Experts dealing with the application of Convention No. 122 contained no new elements. Any improvement in the employment situation would only take place through the coordination of measures in such areas as economic policy, monetary policy and social policy. The interdependence of these policy areas was such that their causes and effects needed to be taken fully into account. In its comments on the Asian crisis, the Committee of Experts had referred to the High-Level Meeting held in Bangkok in April 1998 and its conclusions and recommendations. The crisis had brought to an end a decade of sustained and rapid growth, which had resulted in relatively low levels of unemployment. The reasons for the occurrence of the crisis had included a lack of openness in markets and the absence of transparency in the financial sector. The crisis clearly provided an opportunity to improve structures and to make the necessary reforms. It was therefore important to offer the necessary support to the countries concerned. However, labour market policy measures could only be adopted as part of integrated economic and social policies, and could not be a substitute for general policy measures. There needed to be more widespread acceptance of the need to coordinate macroeconomic policy and international monetary policy. The Employer members emphasized the importance that ILO action could have in this respect.
94. The Employer members noted that a section of the Committee of Experts' report also covered the efforts made by the Member States of the European Union to achieve economic and monetary union. The Committee of Experts had referred in particular to the extraordinary session of the European Council on Employment, held in Luxembourg in November 1997, which had formulated a coordinated strategy on employment policy. It had also referred to the "employment guidelines" to be incorporated into national employment action plans in each Member State. The importance of the four overriding principles of employability, the spirit of enterprise, adjustment and equality of opportunity, should be emphasized in this respect. It was important to take into account the principle of subsidiarity, since each Member State of the European Union was responsible for its own employment and labour policies. The problems of individual Member States in this area therefore needed to be solved within their national boundaries.
95. The Employer members, referring to the situation in countries in Latin America and other developing regions, were particularly pleased with the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the informal sector. Although recognizing that it was better to note growth in the informal sector rather than just stagnation and job losses in the formal sector, they questioned the call made by the Committee of Experts for representatives of the informal sector to be more closely involved in the formulation and implementation of employment policy. Structures normally existed in the formal sector for the representation of the social partners, but it was very difficult to identify representatives of persons working in the informal sector. They also welcomed the general statement made by the Committee of Experts that the best means of promoting employment was by supporting private initiative. In a free society, the decisions of individuals determined whether and where jobs would be created.
96. The Employer members referred to the World Employment Report, 1998-99, which was concerned in particular with the development of globalization and the associated rapid technological change. In this respect, particular importance should be attached to the level of qualifications of workers. Empirical studies showed that a well-educated population raised the competitive level of a nation and permitted more rapid adjustment to structural change. In this respect, a good basis for vocational skills needed to be established at an early stage. It was very difficult to compensate subsequently for shortcomings in education or vocational training. The objective was to ensure that individuals achieved and maintained a high level of employability. This required the motivation of individuals and preventive measures to ensure that obstacles were overcome and passive support measures avoided.
97. The Worker members stated that with regard to Convention No. 122, the Committee of Experts had once again made very useful comments. One of the principal challenges of employment policy was undoubtedly the Asian crisis. Starting out as a financial crisis, it had quickly shaken the economy and society. Even though the traditional financial indicators showed that the crisis was becoming less serious, its consequences on the economy, and therefore on income and employment, would be felt for a long time. Did a crisis of this nature require a structural response, within which institutional reforms would have a major role to play? These were the findings of several studies and reports which had recently been submitted to the Governing Body. It was therefore necessary to work without delay for greater social dialogue, a better application of labour standards, a coordinated and transparent social, economic and financial policy and the establishment of a social protection network. It would also be necessary to establish effective services to provide guidance and retraining to workers who had been made redundant or who were likely to lose their jobs. Employability was not the responsibility of the worker alone, but was also a subject which needed to be addressed by employers and governments. In its report, the Committee of Experts had made recommendations within the context of the coordinated employment policy required by Convention No. 122. This position was fully supported by the Worker members. The impact of the crisis had also been felt in an important way in other regions, including Latin America and Africa. Employment levels were continuing to fall in the formal sector, while the informal economy increased in size. It was for this reason that dialogue was required with workers' organizations, including those from cooperatives and the informal sector, which did indeed exist, with a view to working without delay for the development of an employment policy which offered greater numbers of workers the prospect of better employment and adequate social protection
98. The Worker members considered that the Committee of Experts had also been right to note the establishment of a common currency, the Euro, in 11 of the 15 Member States of the European Union. Increased cooperation at the European level was required to direct monetary and economic policy more effectively towards social and employment objectives. In this respect, the Committee of Experts had referred to the extraordinary European Council on Employment held in Luxembourg in November 1997 and the adoption of employment guidelines and national employment action plans. These constituted an important first step, which was nevertheless not in itself adequate for the perusal of a coordinated employment policy, as required by Convention No. 122. Economic and monetary policy therefore needed to take employment objectives more fully into account. Although such coordination was envisaged on paper, the monetary, economic and financial authorities still tended to focus on applying their own measures. It was to be hoped that the process leading up to an employment pact, such as the one prepared for the European Summit in June, would lead to progress in this respect.
99. The Government of Cuba stated that the existence of a significant informal sector in many countries supported the need to continue the effort to incorporate general guidelines for development of this sector in the formulation and application of employment policy at the national level. The inclusion of this sector in the scope of labour inspection, as well as the observation that ILO minimum age conventions not only applied to employment of children for wages in the organized sector, but also to any form of economic activity, including self-employment, could contribute to the formulation and application of an efficient employment policy that protected the rights of workers. The Government member of Portugal considered that the right to work was a human right and was essential for the enjoyment of other fundamental and social rights. The Government member of India considered that the Convention provided a proper framework for adopting a national economic and social policy aimed at achieving productive employment for all. The Government member of Kenya agreed with the Committee of Experts to the effect that the goal of full, productive and freely-chosen employment remained the basic policy of the Organization. The Government member of Lebanon highlighted the importance of the ILO's global and InFocus programmes aimed at job creation and employment generation.
100. A Worker member of Germany stated that even though Convention No. 122 was a promotional Convention, its application had a direct impact on the implementation of other Conventions. In this respect, he recalled the discussions by the Member States of the European Union in Luxembourg in 1997, which had reaffirmed the central importance of macroeconomic policy for employment issues. Moreover, in response to the views expressed by the Employer members concerning the economic feasibility of certain types of social protection measures, he stated that recent crises in financial markets had fully demonstrated the need for social cohesion. By way of illustration, the increasing tendency to favour private insurance schemes over public social protection systems meant that, through their greater dependency on global financial markets, their beneficiaries were more vulnerable to financial crises. The Worker member of France referred to the comments of the Committee of Experts and to the ILO's World Employment Report covering employment in the world and the means of combating unemployment and underemployment, generalized basic education, initial and ongoing training to meet the growing demand for skilled workers and to learn new technologies, and the reduction of working time. The Asian crisis showed that efficient social systems were a prerequisite for balanced and sustained development and that their failure created a tragic situation for workers and hampered the possibilities for revival. Reference was often made, as causes of unemployment, to the insufficient flexibility of the labour market and the cost of labour and social protection. The Asian crisis proved the contrary. Social progress and social justice were essential criteria for sustained growth. In a future report, the Committee of Experts should study further the question of the conditions and methods for the maintenance and long-term development of employment, skills and protection against unemployment in order to meet the objective of Convention No. 122, namely full employment. That would help sustain the financing of social security and retirement pensions, which were currently being jeopardized by precarious employment, the imposition of flexibility and low wages.
101. The Employer member of South Africa stated that the promotion of the ideal of full employment would be a significant tool for the future as it provided an opportunity to integrate macroeconomic including monetary policies with labour market policies. This should also enable the Committee of Experts to contribute to the evaluation of the trade-offs and the costs associated therewith.
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)
102. The Employer members considered that it had not been possible for the Committee of Experts to say a great deal with respect to the application of Convention No. 169 because the Convention had only been adopted recently and had received few ratifications. The objective of the instrument was the protection of some 300 million indigenous and tribal people. In the same way as many other Conventions, it established minimum rights and provisions. Nevertheless, it was an extremely complex instrument which could affect the constitutional structure of a nation. It could also have an impact in areas which did not lie within the direct application of national legislation. By way of illustration, the Committee of Experts had referred in this respect to the peace agreement in Guatemala and the influence of the Convention in certain court cases.
103. The Worker members were pleased to have contributed decisively to the adoption in 1957 and 1989 of the two ILO standards on indigenous and tribal peoples, the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No. 107) and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). The Committee of Experts had rightly emphasized that Convention No. 169 was the most comprehensive instrument which could have been designed to protect the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The Convention had already had a major impact in many countries, even before its ratification, although much remained to be done.
104. The Employer member of Bolivia stated that the report of the Committee of Experts correctly pointed out that the Convention had influenced positive law. This had been the case as regards the Bolivian Constitution which had incorporated the principles of a multi-ethnic and multicultural society, and as regards the Mining Code. Furthermore, the application of the Convention was extremely complex and was generating doubts and difficulties, particularly when taking into account the fact that its scope of application exceeded labour and covered other issues relating to natural resources, different cultural and sociological aspects and matters pertaining to penal law. The Committee of Experts had stated that "this Convention establishes a relationship of respect between indigenous peoples and the States in which they live, a concept which should not be confused with autonomy or political and territorial independence from the nation State". This was important because in countries such as Bolivia there was a tendency to give too broad an interpretation to the Convention, to disregard its limits, terms and the need for flexibility. The Committee of Experts should help to provide an adequate interpretation of this Convention to encourage its dynamism, geographical coverage and to achieve its objectives.
Conventions relating to child labour
105. The Employer members noted that, in its comments on the application of Conventions on child labour, the Committee of Experts had referred to new instruments being prepared for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour; it had also underlined the lack of precise information provided by some countries on the application in practice of existing Conventions. The reports on the application of Conventions on child labour as well as, more generally, on all Conventions should be more accurate and complete, and should include information on the practical application of the standards. The measures adopted by member States, if they were not adapted to the real situation, would remain a dead letter. They agreed that a good level of education and training was one of the surest guarantees against "exploitative" child labour. Indeed, education and training were a determining factor in the future of any nation.
106. The Worker members stated that the ILO and the international community paid increased attention to the measures required to combat child labour throughout the world. In this respect they referred in particular to the current discussions in the Conference for the adoption of the new instruments, the exhaustive programmes, such as the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) for the prevention and elimination of child labour, and the campaign to promote the ratification of Convention No. 138. There had been an encouraging rise in the number of ratifications of the Convention. In several countries, trade union organizations had made a major contribution to the mobilization against child labour. In some countries, the ILO should provide assistance to trade union organizations to strengthen their capacity for action in fields such as combating child labour. The Worker members shared the concern of the Committee of Experts in relation to child labour in the informal sector and the need to strengthen controls, particularly through the labour inspectorate and the involvement of employers' and workers' organizations.
107. Several Government members (Belgium, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Kenya, Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries)) referred to the new instruments currently under discussion by the Conference. The Government member of Belgium considered that these instruments should aim at complementing the goals of Convention No. 138 with a view to taking certain immediate actions. The Government member of Cuba stated that the development and prolongation of basic schooling were important elements to guarantee the application of Convention No. 138. The Government member of Kenya commended the ILO's efforts in the fight against child labour and especially through the activities of IPEC to which the Government members of the Dominican Republic and Indonesia referred. The Government member of Sweden (speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries) expressed the hope that the supervisory activities relating to international labour standards in this area would contribute to the effective elimination of child labour.
108. The Worker member of Pakistan expressed the hope that the ILO would help in the application of the Convention to ensure that children had access to education. The Worker member of Colombia wondered whether it was realistic to hope to find a solution to this problem, given the increase in social marginalization and labour instability. The ILO should take the time to review the concrete results of its work. The Worker member of India stated that while laws existed in his country to prohibit bonded labour and child labour, these practices still existed, illustrating the fa