87th Session
Geneva, June 1999

Introduction

1. The Committee was originally composed of 217 members (94 Government members, 50 Employer members and 73 Worker members). To achieve equality of voting strength, each Government member entitled to vote was allotted 3,650 votes, each Employer member 6,643 votes and each Worker member 4,550 votes. The composition of the Committee was modified nine times during the session and the number of votes attributed to each member was adjusted accordingly.⁽¹⁾

2. The Committee elected its Officers as follows:
 

3. At its tenth sitting, the Committee appointed a Drafting Committee composed of the following members: Mr. A. Anderson (Government member, Australia), Mrs. A. Benhamou (Employer member, France), Mr. S. Steyne (Worker member, United Kingdom), and the Reporter of the Committee, Mrs. M. Niven (Government member, United Kingdom).

4. The Committee held 20 sittings and had before it Reports VI(1) and VI(2A) and (2B), prepared by the Office on the fourth item on the agenda of the Conference: "Child labour".

5. The representative of the Secretary-General presented Report IV(2A), which contained summaries of the comments received from governments, after consultations with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, on the texts prepared by the Office following the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, in 1998, and Report IV(2B) which contained the text of the Proposed Convention and Recommendation.

6. The representative of the Secretary-General recalled the decisions taken by the Conference the previous year. These were that there should be a legally binding Convention, supplemented by a Recommendation, obliging States ratifying the Convention to take measures to secure the prohibition and immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The Convention should be short, precise and contain basic principles capable of being ratified and effectively implemented. The determination of the types of work deemed to be hazardous or likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of children should be made at national level. Access to education should not be a criterion for the definition of the worst forms of child labour, but its importance should be taken into account when taking measures of prevention, removal, rehabilitation and reintegration. Finally, the subject of child soldiers should be deferred to the second discussion.

7. The representative of the Secretary-General noted the exceptionally large response to the text of the proposed Convention and Recommendation and pointed out that the comments showed overwhelming support for a new Convention and Recommendation on the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The replies also indicated that the texts of the proposed Convention and Recommendation were a good basis for the second discussion, with consensus on many issues, notably on the principle that there are forms of child labour that cannot be tolerated anywhere and that these should be the priority for national and international action.

8. There was divergence of opinion on some key issues, but the text had been only minimally changed by the Office, as the replies indicated that on most issues the proposed text was accepted by the majority of member States and that, where there were differences, there was insufficient agreement to support one particular position over another. He emphasized that the proposed Convention was concerned first and foremost with situations that could not be tolerated under any circumstances. It applied to all young persons under the age of 18, and would oblige member States which ratified the Convention to take measures to prohibit and immediately eliminate the worst forms of child labour. These worst forms comprised: (i) all forms of slavery and practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, forced or compulsory labour, debt bondage and serfdom; (ii) the use, procurement or offering of a child for prostitution, production of pornography or pornographic performances; (iii) the use, procurement or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs; and (iv) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it was carried out, was likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of children.

9. The proposed Convention required that countries design and implement programmes of action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour and that all necessary measures be taken to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Convention, including monitoring mechanisms, appropriate sanctions, and measures of prevention, removal, rehabilitation and social reintegration. Particular attention was to be given to the special situation of girls and of other children at special risk. Finally, it required member States to take steps to assist one another in giving effect to the provisions of the Convention. The proposed Recommendation provided further guidance concerning the definition of hazardous work, the elements of a programme of action, and provisions designed to aid effective enforcement and implementation.

10. The representative of the Secretary-General highlighted some of the major issues likely to come up during the second discussion. The first concerned whether all hazardous work covered by the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), should be covered by the new Convention. Some had felt that the new Convention had a more limited scope and was concerned with hazardous work which posed imminent danger or with work which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Others, especially workers' organizations, had expressed a wish to give specific examples in the Convention of work likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of children, such as the criteria set out in Paragraph 3 of the proposed Recommendation.

11. The explicit inclusion or not of child soldiers and the use of children in armed conflicts was the second major issue. The third contentious issue was whether the denial of access to education should be a criterion for determining the worst forms of child labour. Some governments and workers' organizations wished to reconsider the issue and suggested various formulations, such as specifying, as a worst form of child labour, work that systematically denied children access to education, whilst some governments and employers' organizations opposed this on the basis that it would broaden the scope of the new Convention to include all child labour.

12. The fourth issue was the relationship between immediate and time-bound measures. The final issue related to the possible role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other concerned groups. Several governments had stated that broader consultations should be required in the Convention and there was support from some workers' organizations for consultations with the concerned children and their families.

13. The representative of the Secretary-General concluded by stressing the historical significance of the second discussion on the worst forms of child labour, as new instruments would add to the body of international law begun by the International Labour Organization in 1919, which had culminated in 1973 with the adoption of the comprehensive Minimum Age Convention (No. 138), the ILO's fundamental Convention for the elimination of child labour. He drew attention to the growing international consensus for clearer priorities nationally and internationally to tackle the problem of the worst forms of child labour, as reflected especially in the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour, adopted in 1996 by the International Labour Conference. The resolution had reaffirmed the long-standing policy of the ILO to put an end to child labour, and called for policies to "immediately proceed to put an end to the most intolerable aspects of child labour, namely the employment of children in slave-like and bonded conditions and in dangerous and hazardous work, the exploitation of very young children, and the commercial sexual exploitation of children".

General discussion

14. The Employer Vice-Chairperson expressed the Employer members' desire for a universally ratifiable and meaningful Convention. It should not be a repetition of Convention No. 138, but should be concise, simple, understandable, unambiguous, focused and realistic. The reasons for this were that children themselves had to feel and be protected, that anything less than full ratification would result in the continuation of practices which injure, maim and kill children, and that unrealistic, ambiguous and complicated instruments would result in confusion, uncertainty, avoidance and excuses. He stressed that the Employer members remained committed to these intentions.

15. He referred to the issues already agreed upon which the representative of the Secretary-General had outlined earlier noting, in particular, that age 18 was appropriate as the Convention did not refer to all work, only its worst forms, was consistent with the higher minimum age in Convention No. 138 and did not affect its other minimum ages, and was also consistent with the definition of "child" in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was, however, some unease amongst the Employer members regarding the age of 18, contrasting this, for example, with the lower minimum age for marrying. He called on all those present not to unravel what had been agreed, as this would almost certainly result in repeating the previous year's work.

16. He also stated that some issues required further debate, including the possibility of a shorter, more concise and meaningful Preamble, the need for a common understanding of the words "immediate", "effective" and "time-bound", the issues of the inclusion of child soldiers and the wording on education and whether they would promote or hinder ratification, and the role of NGOs.

17. The Employer Vice-Chairperson stressed that the Employer members were committed to finding consensus on these issues and that they also remained committed to the development of a universally ratifiable and immediately implementable Convention. The questions under consideration were life and death issues relating to the protection of children. He considered that the new Convention was fundamental to the ILO's reputation.

18. The Worker Vice-Chairperson expressed the willingness of the Worker members to work for a ratifiable instrument. The Worker members did not want an instrument resulting in an advantageous position for one or the other group; they wanted to develop an instrument that could be presented before the conscience of the world and effect change. The instruments should be dealt with expeditiously for the sake of the children and in order to take care of their future. He stated that child labour could not be addressed in isolation from the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session, Geneva, 1998. He noted the presence of the NGOs and the participants in the Global March against Child Labour. The children had brought demands that could not be overlooked.

19. The Worker Vice-Chairperson referred to the reply to the Government of Canada in the Office Commentary in Report IV(2A), Child Labour, under Article 4, paragraph 1, concerning possible complaints based on the omission of types of work from the list to be determined and the role of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in interpreting it. The Worker members indicated their intention to request a clarification.

20. The Worker Vice-Chairperson emphasized that the Worker members were open to dialogue and discussion and had conducted discussions over the past year with many parties all around the world. He stated that much could be achieved from informal dialogue and recalled that the Committee on Child Labour had not had a single vote during the first discussion and that he hoped to repeat that record this year. He considered that the instrument under discussion would be a flagship for the ILO, which would heighten the ILO's reputation throughout the world. The ILO was the one institution that reflected the views of employers' and workers' organizations; and it played a central role in the promotion of social dialogue to maintain democracy.

21. The Worker Vice-Chairperson emphasized that child labour was a human rights issue which needed the framework of the Convention to be operationalized. The proposed instrument was not intended to reword Convention No. 138, but to complement it. Nor was the instrument intended to be used to vilify governments that permitted child labour. However, whatever the reasons for the existence of child labour, immediate action had to be taken to deal with its worst forms. He reiterated that the focus of discussion was the worst forms of child labour, not the abolition of all forms of child labour.

22. The Worker Vice-Chairperson highlighted the issues that would be raised by the Worker members, namely, those related to education, child soldiers, the nature of hazardous work, social reintegration and the special situation of girls. He spoke of the advisory and interpretive role of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, pointing out the importance of the record of Committee members' contributions in the Committee's Report, which would subsequently be used to guide interpretation. Everyone wanted the Convention, but the important question was what would happen after adoption of the instrument and what the governments, employers' and workers' organizations would do. Monitoring mechanisms could be envisaged at national level made up of governments, employers' and workers' organizations with NGOs selected after consultation with the social partners; NGOs should not be left out once the Convention was adopted. Reporting mechanisms to bring attention to violations of provisions giving effect to the Convention were also important. There was a need to protect those who reported abuses concerning the worst forms of child labour to make reporting effective.

23. The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States, stressed the importance of the instruments under consideration and the great need for clear international commitments to combat exploitative forms of child labour. The first discussion had indicated that the vast majority of Committee members considered the proposed text to be a satisfactory basis for discussion. The new instruments were to focus exclusively on forms of child labour so exploitative and hazardous that no child should be engaged in them. The text of the new Convention needed to be short, clear and concise and it should aim at universal ratification by ILO member States. The new Convention was to complement and be consistent with Convention No. 138; it should also avoid inconsistencies with other international instruments dealing with child labour. The importance of international cooperation and assistance was reaffirmed. She anticipated debates concerning the definition of the worst forms of child labour; the level of detail desirable in the new Convention; and the degree of flexibility to be accorded to the national authorities in determining the worst forms of child labour.

24. The Government member of Switzerland stated her Government firmly believed the adoption of the new instruments was fundamental to the fight against child labour. She recalled that the President of Switzerland had recently announced that Switzerland was likely to ratify Convention No. 138 in 1999, and that it had supported the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), since 1998. She stated that the Government of Switzerland supported the role played by NGOs and other voluntary organizations in this area. Referring to the proposed instruments, she stated that her Government considered that appropriate sanctions, including penal sanctions, were required and called for international cooperation and assistance in addressing the problem.

25. The Government member of India confirmed his Government's commitment to the full eradication of all forms of child labour, beginning with the most exploitative and hazardous ones. He expressed support for a new instrument which could be ratified and implemented and had a clear, well-defined scope. All governments had to take immediate action to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, bearing in mind their socio-economic context and specific situation regarding child labour. Precipitate actions could drive children into even deeper forms of exploitation and should be avoided. He stressed that child labour could only be eliminated gradually and that efforts must take into consideration the level of development of each country and be directly linked to the level of international cooperation necessary to promote socio-economic development and the eradication of poverty. He stressed the importance of the multi-dimensional approach contained in the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1996 and the need to include these elements in the text under discussion. Adequate resources needed to be mobilized and the ILO should support job-creation and poverty-eradication programmes. The new instruments should not address the problem of the worst forms of child labour purely in a political and civil rights context. The Convention should combine in a balanced manner elements relating to the eradication of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy which were directly linked to the ILO's efforts to gradually secure the realization of economic and social rights, alongside political and civil freedoms. He indicated that the main areas where changes would be essential to the draft text would be as follows:

• the title as well as Article 1 had to make it clear that the Convention addressed immediate and effective action for the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour;
• the complex nature of the phenomenon had to be reflected in the Preamble primarily with consensus language of the 1996 ILO resolution;
• the scope of the convention should remain focused on the worst and most hazardous forms of child labour and there should be no prescriptive age limit that would undermine ratification prospects;
• provisions related to the national implementation of the Convention had to reflect the complex nature of the phenomenon and not create untenable legal obligations for enforcement. The Convention clearly had to indicate that alongside appropriate national legislation, only multidimensional strategies to provide access to educational opportunities (particularly in the 5-14 age group), avenues for gainful employment of parents, eradication of parental illiteracy and protection of all rights of the child contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could effectively eliminate certain manifestations of the worst forms of child labour;
• any references to access to education had to reflect that governmental responsibility lay in facilitating the availability of this economic and social right in a progressive and developmental context. They also had to indicate that the implementation of desired goals such as compulsory primary education had to be seen in conjunction with the availability of resources, including through enhanced international cooperation;
• draft Article 8 of the Convention had to be reinforced through language that explicitly endorsed international cooperation, solidarity and assistance for eradicating poverty and promoting socio-economic development.

26. The Government member of Egypt commented on the very important role played by the ILO in the fight against child labour both at the normative level and through the practical assistance provided by IPEC. She emphasized that poverty remained one of the basic reasons why children had to work and called for a greater focus on national policies and compulsory primary education. She announced her Government's ratification of Convention No. 138 and confirmed Egypt's commitment to respect relevant international standards, which was reflected in recent ministerial decisions. There should be further expansion of ILO's technical assistance programmes in favour of developing countries in their efforts to eliminate child labour.

27. The Government member of China underscored the importance of addressing the worst forms of child labour and confirmed the importance his Government attached to the protection of children. He recalled the ratification in December 1998 of Convention No. 138, which demonstrated China's determination to eliminate the problem. China supported the adoption of the new instruments. A new Convention should be clear, concise, and flexible to make universal ratification more likely. He reaffirmed that poverty was the underlying cause of child labour in many developing countries and called upon the ILO to provide more assistance to countries facing the problem, to allow them to strengthen their economies.

28. The Government member of Japan said that solving the problem of child labour was one of the most important issues facing the world today. He stated that in May 1999 the Japanese Parliament had passed new legislation on punishment for child prostitution and pornography, and that this had enhanced protection of chidren. He stressed that a new Convention should contain only those principles which were essential to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, so that it would be ratifiable by as many countries as possible.

29. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran considered child labour to be a dominant issue of our time. At least 120 million children were working throughout the world, the overwhelming majority of them in developing countries. He cited poverty as the driving force behind child labour. However, there were reasons to be optimistic in view of the emerging consensus on the obligation to combat child labour, especially its intolerable forms. The Islamic Republic of Iran had been able to take successful action against child labour, and its incidence was very low. International organizations, and the ILO in particular, should provide assistance to countries struggling with child labour problems and help them develop comprehensive programmes. These should include statistical work and research, awareness-raising activities and the improvement of education, health and other social services.

30. The Government member of France reaffirmed her Government's dedication to the adoption of a new Convention and emphasized the need to make it one of the ILO's core standards as laid down in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. Child labour was not only an economic and social problem, but also a moral one. Recent initiatives against child labour undertaken by her country included a report on child labour in France, a new draft law to respect children's rights and an increased contribution to IPEC.

31. The Government member of Pakistan stressed her Government's commitment to eliminating the worst forms of child labour. A flexible instrument with clear definitions of the worst forms was needed in order to ensure a maximum number of ratifications. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child served as an example in this regard. Any work it was proposed to ban in addition to bonded labour and work in the sex and drugs trade had to be of the same severity as those readily identifiable activities. She also emphasized that the title of the Convention should be modified to bring out the need for prohibition and immediate measures, as opposed to the immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour.

32. The Government member of Canada reiterated strong Canadian support for the intent and principles of the proposed instruments which had to be simple and focused on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour and allow for immediate and universal ratification. The Global March against Child Labour had provided an even greater incentive to arrive at agreement. She stated that Canada would seek consistency in the references to child labour and the worst forms.

33. The Government member of Sudan emphasized the importance of the child labour issue and cautioned against reopening last year's general discussion. Sudan had recently taken a number of important steps against child labour. These included the establishment of a Council on the Protection of Children, action programmes and improved child support services.

34. The Government member of Norway called for a clearer specification of hazardous types of work and for sufficient flexibility and a stronger reflection of the importance of education in the proposed Convention. The issue of child soldiers should be included and reference to "other concerned groups" reinforced. The Agenda of Action emerging from the 1997 Oslo Conference on Child Labour was cited as a useful tool for international and national action against child labour. Norway contributed to the IPEC programme and would continue to do so in the future. The ILO remained a cornerstone in worldwide efforts to eliminate child labour, but inter-agency cooperation needed to be strengthened.

35. The Government member of Senegal stated that poverty, instability and war in the African region had created a high demand for cheap labour. Child labour undermined children's education and integration into society, therefore there was a need for strong instruments. Children worked in agriculture, cattle raising, as domestic servants, with their families in the informal sector, and as apprentices from the age of six or seven in handicrafts, workshops, and construction sites in unhealthy environments under hazardous working conditions. The Government member of Senegal expressed support for the substance of the proposed Convention. She emphasized the need for a follow-up mechanism, and for providing legal and financial assistance by the ILO where necessary. The Preamble should stress the advantages of concrete action regarding training and education. She hoped the ILO would commit itself to promotional action.

36. The Government member of Lebanon repeated that her Government had enacted a law prohibiting admission to employment for children who had not completed age 15 and hazardous work for children under the age of 17 or 18, depending on the nature of the activities performed. The Government, along with employers' and workers' organizations, had established a national strategy on child labour. The Government believed that the proposed Convention and Recommendation should be clear and flexible and the proposed Recommendation should complement the Convention. She questioned the use of the phrase "applied in conjunction with" in Paragraph 1 of the proposed Recommendation and questioned whether "should" was the proper word in a Recommendation as Recommendations provided guidelines and were not binding instruments.

37. The Government member of Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee, strongly supported the unanimous adoption of the proposed Convention. He recalled a number of African meetings on child labour which had enabled the development of an African common position that demanded urgent action be taken against the worst forms of child labour. Poverty and social deprivation had contributed to the rapid increase in the number of children seriously affected by child labour on the continent. He stated that the members of the African Group on the Committee would be guided by the decisions passed by the Labour and Social Affairs Commission of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, which stated in Article 15 that "every child shall be protected from all forms of economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development". The Group would propose several changes to the texts, including an explicit reference to the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict in the definition of the worst forms of child labour; a reference to civil society in the Convention; more explicit language regarding the need for increased technical and financial assistance to complement national efforts aimed at the effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour; and reference to the eradication of poverty, since this was the principal root cause of the worst forms of child labour. Lastly, there was a need to emphasize the need for education with regard to prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration. The need for a concise, ratifiable Convention should not preclude the inclusion of important issues such as poverty eradication measures.

38. The Government member of Morocco emphasized the need to combat poverty in order to eliminate child labour. He stated that the instruments should be clear and that an explanation should be given of how the implementation of this instrument could affect member States. He also noted the need for technical cooperation and financial assistance. He further stated that the involvement of children in armed conflict had to be addressed for the sake of the credibility of the instruments. He also recalled the measures the Government of Morocco had been taking for the protection of children such as the ratification of Convention No. 138, the establishment of a parliament for children and the implementation of a cooperation programme in the framework of IPEC's activities.

39. The Government member of South Africa endorsed the statement made on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee. He stated that the South African Constitution ensured that "every child has the right to be protected from exploitative labour practices". South Africa supported an effective and targeted Convention that supplemented Convention No. 138. He summarized his Government's position on several issues. First, an explicit reference to the prohibition of involvement of children in armed conflict should be made because it affected more than 300,000 children in approximately 30 conflicts in the world. Those children had difficulty demobilizing once peace was restored as they had become accustomed to violence and experienced severe problems when they returned home. The use of child soldiers should be considered an illegal activity. The involvement of children in armed conflict was clearly work which by its nature or circumstances in which it was carried out was likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of children. This had been documented by the United Nations Study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children (51st Session, 1996). Convention No. 138 established a minimum age of 18 for such dangerous work. Second, a reference should be made to access to education as it was central to the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. A lack of commitment to provide basic education could unintentionally result in children who were withdrawn from the worst forms of child labour ending up on the street. Third, the proposed Convention should provide clearer guidelines for hazardous work, such as those contained in Article 5, paragraph 3, of Convention No. 138 which indicated the industries or sectors of the economy to which the Convention must as a minimum apply, notably, mining and quarrying; manufacturing; construction; electricity, gas and water; sanitary services; transport, storage, and communication; and plantations and other agricultural undertakings mainly producing for commercial purposes. Such determination at the international level should not preclude additions at the national level. Fourth, there was no contradiction between the concepts of immediate measures and time-bound measures; the Convention should require States to take immediate measures, such as bringing their law and practice into line with international standards, and setting up the necessary institutional capacity and programmes aimed at prohibiting and eliminating the worst forms of child labour. However, the effective elimination of child labour needed well-conceived, strictly time-bound programmes. Fifth, formulating and implementing strategies for the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour should be done with the full participation of employers' and workers' organizations, civil society, community leaders and NGOs. Finally, the proposed Convention was expected to fall within the scope of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up.

40. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that children represented the future and hope of mankind and that they had to be protected to respect their integrity. He favoured the adoption of the Convention and Recommendation to provide a regulatory framework to abolish child labour. All States had a right to a decent standard of economic development but this had to be achieved without child labour. His Government had ratified a number of international instruments and had enacted laws against slavery and practices akin to slavery, sale and trafficking of children, child prostitution, child pornography and violence against children which were severely punished. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic had also enacted legislation providing compulsory free education and sanctioning parents or guardians who did not send their children to school. The instruments should be flexible, clear, straightforward and easily understood and should avoid obstacles to ratification. The worst forms of child labour should be abolished as soon as possible. He also stated that Article 3(d) and Article 4 needed to be brought into line to avoid the risk of activities being defined as hazardous work in one country but not in another. It should be understood that child labour was remunerated work and this implied that unremunerated work by children was not covered. He also considered that poverty was the root cause of child labour, but other causes also needed to be studied. Parents and guardians needed to be made aware of the issue in order to protect their children.

41. The Government member of the United States commented that the proposed Convention on the worst forms of child labour was an important addition to international labour standards, which historically had addressed the issue of child labour. He noted that the Report of the Director-General to this Session of the ILC foresaw strong action against the worst forms of child labour as an important element for the ILO in future. He stated that the United States Government had accelerated its contributions to IPEC and its action against child labour reflected the personal commitment of the President. He welcomed the presence of two young Americans among participants in the Global March. They had served as a reminder that developed countries, too, had to be vigilant, and the United States had renewed its attention to the issue within the country. He considered that the proposed Convention should be a well-targeted instrument on the worst forms of child labour and be complementary to and consistent with Convention No. 138, while not duplicating its provisions. It should not present technical obstacles to ratification and should strengthen commitment to joint action to eliminate child labour. The definition of hazardous work in Article 3(d) should be different from that in Convention No. 138, should be clear and achievable, and not present technical barriers to ratification. He said this would permit a clearer approach to Article 4, paragraph 1, and would avoid any paradoxical outcomes. Recalling the debate on the age of eligibility for military service, he thought it inadvisable to add unnecessary obstacles to ratification. The intention of the Convention was not to limit traditional national military training and voluntary service consistent with current international law. International legal obligations set an age limit of 15 years, which admittedly was low; but in trying to address these issues it would be prudent not to establish a norm that would prove unworkable or counter-productive. The emphasis should be on the coerced or criminal imposition of military activity. He further stated that education was fundamental to ending child labour, and that it was appropriately addressed in Article 7, though the United States was willing to consider ways to emphasize it further. He concluded by stating that concerning means of action the United States was willing to consider ways of strengthening the obligation for cooperation within the ILO, with other international organizations, and with NGOs and the public at large, who had much to contribute to this effort.

42. The Government member of Bangladesh commented that while there was no doubt that child labour was detrimental to children and that all children should attend school, the reality was different. Poverty was the primary cause of child labour, exacerbated by other factors such as the lack of schools and the inability of families to afford schooling. Socio-economic considerations had to be taken into account when formulating interventions targeting the worst forms of child labour. Legislation was important but insufficient by itself. Policy interventions should be aimed at development, education and social mobilization. The Convention should be flexible and should allow decisions regarding what constituted hazardous work to be made at the national level. He stated that the Government of Bangladesh had demonstrated the political will to address child labour and had instituted national machinery to protect children against abandonment, neglect, economic exploitation and other abuse. With the assistance of IPEC and UNICEF, action by the Bangladeshi Garment Manufacturers Association had now rendered the ready-made garment sector of Bangladesh almost free of child labour.

43. The Government member of Sri Lanka hoped for a Convention that could be ratified and implemented by all member States, whether developed or developing. He recalled the debate on the title of the proposed Convention during the first discussion, and reiterated his support for the position taken by the Governments of India and Pakistan that this should be renamed "Immediate action for the abolition of the worst forms of child labour Convention, 1999". He also suggested that the age to which the Convention would apply should be to those under 15, in line with the age of compulsory education in Sri Lanka and many other countries. Child labour was to be found in the informal sector, not the formal sector, in Sri Lanka as in other developing countries. He considered that poverty was a major cause of child labour and that this needed to be addressed through the generation of employment, foreign capital investment and poverty alleviation programmes; he called for an international fund to this end, financed by a percentage of member States' GNP. The elimination of child labour required the active participation and cooperation not only of governments but also of NGOs, employers' and workers' groups. He also supported the inclusion of child soldiers in the Convention. He reiterated the full support of the Government of Sri Lanka for the proposed Convention, and recalled the recent establishment of a child protection task force in Sri Lanka.

44. The Government member of the Russian Federation confirmed that his Government was in favour of drawing up a Convention complemented by a Recommendation on the worst forms of child labour. He stressed the need for a short, clear, unambiguous and generally acceptable instrument which would permit universal ratification. The Convention should prohibit only the worst forms of child labour and there should be a clearer definition of these forms. However, he doubted the advisability of including a reference to child soldiers, given that this issue was being addressed through the consideration of a United Nations draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts. He commented that if the proposed Convention before the Committee were to be adopted without substantive change it would be a significant step, as it would go further than Convention No. 138. The Preamble should reflect the relation between the new Convention and Convention No. 138 and a comparison of the provisions of each Convention should be made on the basis of general norms in line with international treaties. He stated that the current Convention should be in line with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up.

45. The Government member of Namibia reported on the decisions taken during the April 1999 Session of the OAU Labour and Social Affairs Commission, chaired by his Government. There was consensus on a large number of issues, although there was some divergence on the definition of hazardous work and the criterion for its determination contained in the proposed instruments. The April Session had recognized four major outstanding issues, namely: the question of child soldiers; the role of education; hazardous work; and the role of NGOs and other concerned groups. It had also been decided to adopt a common African position during the discussion at the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference. The meeting had also urged support for the proposed new Convention and the promotion of African participation in ratification and implementation of the new instruments. Important issues to the African members were the prohibition of the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, the inclusion of NGOs in the application of the provisions of the Convention, and the need for increased technical and financial assistance.

46. The Government member of Yemen pointed to poverty as a major cause of child labour. The demographic explosion in developing countries, the question of globalization and structural adjustment policies had generated unemployment and had negative repercussions on the child labour situation. Normative work had to be complemented by the support of industrialized countries, which should face up to their moral and humanitarian responsibilities emerging from the globalization process. He highlighted the central role of his Government in identifying and fighting the worst forms of child labour. The Government of Yemen had ratified all relevant Conventions and expressed its support for the new Convention. There were some questions concerning the interpretation of Article 3 of the proposed Convention.

47. The Government member of Chile expressed his Government's support for the adoption of the proposed instruments, which were considered integral to efforts to eliminate child labour. He stated they were complementary to Convention No. 138, and pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was the most complete legal instrument for the protection of children's rights. The standards contained in that Convention needed to be adequately reflected in the text for adoption, namely, mentioning explicitly prohibition of the worst forms of child labour and the obligation on States to protect children against economic exploitation and from performing any work that was likely to be hazardous or to interfere with their education, or be harmful to their health and development; to effectively guarantee their right to education and to ensure they were not enrolled in armed conflicts. He also hoped that the new instruments would be ratified by as many countries as possible.

48. The Government member of Eritrea outlined measures taken by his Government to eliminate child labour. After formal independence in 1993, the Government officially announced compulsory primary education and established programmes of financial support to children to enable their school attendance, with priority for orphans, children with disabilities and street children; and a rehabilitation project and training for homeless adolescents with problems. The Government of Eritrea had signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and its draft Labour Code posed restrictions on the employment of young people. It supported measures by the ILO and the international community to eliminate the worst forms of child labour.

49. The Government member of Saudi Arabia considered that poverty was the main if not the sole cause of child labour, and that it resulted in parents letting their children work in order to boost their low family incomes. This meant that children stopped going to school and risked getting involved in dangerous or morally reprehensible work. In his view, the Convention should make provision for assistance to families with low incomes, as this would help reduce child labour.

50. The Government member of Tunisia outlined action taken by his Government to consolidate measures to protect children and promote their rights, including the establishment of the school-leaving age at 16; the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; the creation of a National Council on Children's Affairs, with representatives from ministries concerned, from organizations concerned with children and from the trade union movement, with the aim of contributing to strategies to protect and promote children's physical and psychological health, education and leisure, protecting them from exploitation and abuse and enhancing the role of the family. The Government had promulgated a child protection code and had ratified Convention No. 138 in 1995. The Government of Tunisia supported the adoption of flexible instruments likely to attract a large number of ratifications and to be readily and effectively applied.

51. The Government member of Uruguay supported the aims of the proposed texts as a complement to Convention No. 138. She expressed her Government's support for the inclusion of child soldiers as among the victims of the worst forms of child labour listed in Article 3 of the proposed Convention, as this was one of the most dangerous forms of work; and for raising the age of eligibility for involvement in the armed forces. She welcomed the fact that the members of the African Group on the Committee would be presenting a draft amendment covering the recruitment and involvement of children in warfare. Her Government was also ready to accept, in the context of the present Convention, the reference only to participation and was open to the recruitment of persons to the armed forces under the age of 18 for the purposes of vocational training only, as a way of enabling national legislation to adapt gradually to this new international standard.

52. The Government member of Zimbabwe stated that she joined other countries in their commitment to the care and protection of children. Along with a traditionally protective culture, a supportive NGO constituency and positive national legislation, her country was working towards making children's rights a reality. However, unless poverty was addressed, legislation would eliminate child labour on paper only. The Convention should be a practical instrument and programming tool aimed at gradually eliminating poverty and providing children with the means, not only of survival, but of development. The Government member of Zimbabwe recognized the importance of basic primary education and free education was being targeted to destitute families. She concluded that there was a need to protect children from damaging experiences, and this included their participation in all forms of military conflict.

53. The Government member of Ethiopia stated that the future of all countries depended on their children. It was unthinkable to expect sustained development without giving due attention to the welfare of children. The worst forms of child labour characterized by exploitation, serious abuse, excessive long hours, low or no pay, inadequate working conditions and exposure to occupational hazards should be prohibited and eliminated. For these reasons the Ethiopian Government strongly supported unanimous approval and ratification of the proposed Convention and Recommendation. The instruments should not seek to revise or replace existing standards on child labour but rather expressly refer and reaffirm their complementary nature. The Convention should take into account the reality of widespread poverty and underdevelopment and the need for continued and increased international cooperation. The Government member of Ethiopia also emphasized the disturbing trend of recruiting and using children in armed hostilities. Children were not only victims of violence in situations of armed conflicts, but also served as instruments of violence, trained or indoctrinated to kill and abuse other children and adults. Recruiting and using children for warfare not only destroyed their moral values but also inclucated a culture of violence and intolerance. This in turn made rehabilitation, reconstruction and reconciliation even more daunting tasks. The proposed Convention should incorporate the recruitment for and the use of children in armed conflict as a worst form of child labour; showing the resolve of the world community to prohibit and eliminate this heinous practice. He concluded by informing the Committee that Ethiopia had recently ratified Convention No. 138, together with the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1957 (No. 100) and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1951 (No. 105), bringing to six the number of fundamental ILO Conventions ratified by Ethiopia.

54. The general discussion was concluded by brief comments from the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons. The Employer Vice-Chairperson noted the commitment of the Committee to reach a consensus but regretted the lack of focus and precision in much of the general discussion. The Employer members were particularly concerned about the issues of child soldiers, the role of NGOs and Article 3(d) on hazardous work. They also regarded Article 7, paragraph 2, as problematic since it could put an obligation on States to set up programmes to ensure free, basic education while there were still 25 countries in the world without compulsory education in place. He encouraged the countries concerned to consider this Article carefully. Another area of concern was the frequently mentioned link between poverty and child labour. While he recognized that there was no doubt about this interrelationship, he appealed to the Committee to concentrate on the worst forms of child labour for which poverty could not provide an excuse for inaction.

55. The Worker Vice-Chairperson expressed disappointment at the lack of consistency between the intentions expressed in the general discussion and the content of the first amendments submitted. These amendments cast some doubt on whether the Committee would be able to arrive at a Convention at all. He recalled the level of international attention focused on the work of the Committee and appealed to its members to consider the consequences of failure to reach agreement.

56. The representative speaking on behalf of NGOs from the Americas pointed out that there were some 30 million children working in the Americas, many of them in hazardous conditions such as in brick-manufacturing, quarrying, mining, agriculture, in factories, building sites and as domestic servants. Poverty was the primary cause of child labour, and far-reaching and radical changes were necessary to address the issue. The proposed Convention on the worst forms of child labour was one such measure. She stated that Article 3 of the Convention was welcome, however, it should reckon with the fact that 75 per cent of working children in the region did not attend school. Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognized the importance of including as harmful, work which denied access to schooling and she appealed for consistency in international instruments relating to children's rights. She also appealed for an inclusion in Article 3 of the proposed Convention a reference to children in armed conflict as this, by its nature, was harmful to a child. She concluded that eliminating child labour required broad consensus, coordination and action of all governments, employers' and workers' organizations, NGOs and child workers themselves.

57. The representative speaking on behalf of African-based NGOs commended the new Convention for setting the age to which the Convention would apply at 18, in conformity with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with Convention No. 138. She considered that education was crucial to successfully tackling the problem of child labour, and that without it the vicious cycle of poverty would not be broken. She noted the role of civil society in the fight against child labour, commenting that for the Convention to systematically exclude their participation would be an oversight. She stressed the need to include in the proposed Convention practices which were particular to the situation in Africa, including all forms of traditional, cultural, religious practices and rituals that predispose children to child labour, such as arranged and forced child marriages, offering of children to shrines, and mock child marriages; the use of children in slave-like and invisible domestic work; and the use, procuring or offering of a child for armed conflict.

58. The representative speaking on behalf of Asian-based NGOs reiterated the Global March's call for all governments, employers' and workers' organizations to unite with the child workers, their families and communities to combat exploitative child labour. She stated that, in keeping with the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, these working children had the right to be protected from exploitative and hazardous work and abuse. Most child labourers in the Asian region worked in the informal sector, largely hidden from view, so it was important that the new Convention and national plans of action should address child labour in these areas. She stated that Governments needed to develop basic education which was child-centred, relevant and accessible to the poor, and to strengthen informal and vocational education for children once they were removed from hazardous working conditions and bonded labour. She commented that it was imperative for working children, their families, communities, concerned NGOs and civic organizations to be seen as active partners and collaborators in national plans of action on the new Convention. She concluded with a call for governments, and employers' and workers' organizations to ensure that it was translated into practical action in their own countries.

59. The representative speaking on behalf of European-based NGOs welcomed the new Convention, which she believed would provide a legal framework to help reinforce the activities of civic organizations working on the issue. She stressed that the worst forms of child labour were not found only in developing countries and pointed to the thousands of asylum-seekers, refugee and migrant children working in hazardous forms of labour in Europe. The new Convention would be missing an essential component if it did not specifically prohibit child participation in armed conflict irrespective of how they were recruited. She considered that all children had a right to basic education, which was essential to their development and future prospects. She noted with pleasure that the Report of the Director-General to the Conference referred to the possibility of expanding social dialogue to include civic organizations, and stated her concern that the proposed new Convention did not reflect that important role in combating child labour. She pointed out that IPEC included NGOs amongst its main partners at the country level, and called for the views of children and families directly affected by the worst forms of child labour and of relevant civil society organizations to be taken into account, when determining types of hazardous work and when designing, implementing and monitoring action programmes.

60. The representative speaking on behalf of the Global March against Child Labour reiterated its support to governments, employers' and workers' organizations to achieve rapid ratification and implementation of the new Convention. He pointed out the need to differentiate between the issue of poverty and child labour, and urged all parties concerned to take immediate measures to put an end to the worst forms of child labour. Education was considered a fundamental right for children and experience had shown that educational programmes could also be offered in countries where a large portion of the population lived below the poverty line. He concluded by urging member States to consider the elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a moral and social commitment. The Worker Vice-Chairperson indicated that the organizers of the Global March had been in constant discussion with the Worker members about reaching an agreement on language acceptable to them.

Consideration of the proposed texts contained
in Report IV(2B)

A. Proposed Convention concerning the
prohibition and immediate elimination
of the worst forms of child labour

Title

61. A series of amendments were submitted and discussed concerning whether the title should refer to "immediate prohibition", but not "immediate elimination"; "immediate measures for elimination", rather than "immediate elimination"; "effective" elimination, instead of "immediate" elimination; and "prohibition and elimination" without any reference to "immediate". As the discussion below reveals, consensus was reached on the phrase "prohibition and immediate action for the elimination" of the worst forms of child labour.

62. The Employer members submitted an amendment to replace the word "concerning" by "on" and delete the word "immediate". The Employer members argued that while it was necessary to refer to urgency and immediacy of action in the body of the text of the Convention, its title should remain simple and concise.

63. The Worker members pointed to the need to keep the word "concerning" as this was the term commonly used in other ILO Conventions. They strongly opposed the second part of the amendment on the grounds that the requirement of immediacy for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour was an essential element of the proposed Convention. The deletion of "immediate" was also opposed by the Government member of Ethiopia. The Government member of India suggested a subamendment to insert "measures for the" so that the reference would be to immediate "measures for the" elimination of the worst forms of child labour. The Government members of Ethiopia and Zimbabwe supported the subamendment but the Employer and Worker members opposed it. The Government member of Switzerland opposed both the amendment and the subamendment. The Employer members withdrew the amendment.

64. The Government members of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela submitted a similar amendment to delete "immediate". The Government member of Colombia speaking on behalf of the abovementioned countries expressed concern about the future implementation of the Convention with the title as proposed. He anticipated difficulties for the international community if the title did not correspond to the results produced by the instrument itself. Given their commitment to eliminating the worst forms of child labour, they withdrew the amendment but emphasized that the terminology would create obstacles for the implementation of the Convention.

65. The Government member of Morocco submitted an amendment to insert the word "immediate" before the word "prohibition" and replace the word "immediate" with the word "effective" before the word "elimination", so that the title would read as follows: "Proposed Convention concerning the immediate prohibition and effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour". The amendment would better reflect that prohibition of the worst forms of child labour through legislative means could be immediate, whereas their elimination required time. The Government member of India supported the amendment indicating the need to adopt an instrument which contained achievable goals. The Worker and the Employer members opposed the amendment, as did the Government members of Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland and Zimbabwe, while the Government member of Angola supported it. The Government member of Nigeria supported the first part of the amendment and proposed a subamendment to change the second part to read: "effective measures for the elimination". The Government member of Morocco supported the subamendment, but in view of the insufficient support indicated for the amendment, withdrew it.

66. The Government member of Ethiopia on behalf of the Government members of the African Group on the Committee submitted an amendment to insert after the word "immediate" the words "measures for the". He referred to the previous discussions and confirmed that the title should refer to immediate measures for elimination, not immediate elimination. The Worker members opposed the amendment, reaffirming that the commitment was to immediate elimination, but that it was understood that immediate elimination did not mean today, but rather without delay or as soon as possible. The Government member of Egypt pointed out there was a general consensus to take immediate steps against the worst forms of child labour and that the new Convention should be a flexible instrument capable of being rapidly ratified by many member States. The Government members of China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Lebanon, Namibia, Spain and the Syrian Arab Republic supported the amendment confirming the need to urgently adopt measures to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. The Employer members also supported the amendment. The Worker members, while recognizing the support for the amendment suggested that "immediate action" was preferable to "immediate measures" and established a closer link between the Title and the wording in the Preamble and better reflected the concept of an ongoing process to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. The Government member of Ethiopia on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee opposed the subamendment, while the Government member of the Sudan supported it.

67. The Government member of the Netherlands proposed a subamendment whereby the title would read: "Proposed Convention concerning immediate measures for the prohibition and effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour", in an effort to facilitate the discussions. However, the Worker members believed such proposals weakened the intention of the instruments. They recalled the great expectations of the outside world concerning the proposed instruments and that the title should convey a strong and clear message about what the new ILO instruments intended to do about the worst forms of child labour.

68. The Government member of France agreed and reiterated the need to focus on central issues and not go back on the consensus that had been reached the previous year. She thus supported retaining the title in the Office text. The Government members of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Norway, Poland and Uruguay also expressed their support for the existing title. In view of this show of support, the Employer members also decided to support the existing title.

69. The Government members of Spain and Rwanda continued to support the amendment proposed by the Government member of Ethiopia, as the title should make a clear statement to the public with achievable and realistic aims. The Government member of Bolivia, speaking on behalf of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela agreed with the Government member of Spain, believing that the instruments should be viable and achievable.

70. The Worker members reiterated their conviction that the title should convey a strong message to the world, and that the word "immediate" clearly conveyed the sense of "without delay". In the light of the strong support for retaining the original title, the Government member of the Netherlands withdrew her subamendment. A show of hands by Government members indicated majority support for maintaining the original title, but the Government member of Ethiopia stated that the members of the African Group on the Committee preferred to retain the intention of their amendment and to this end they could accept the proposal that had been made by the Worker members to replace the word "measures" by "action".

71. The Worker members stressed their wish for consensus on the aims of the instruments as did the Employer members in supporting this subamendment. The Government member of the Netherlands on behalf of several other Government members also supported it. The subamendment was adopted, as was the amendment as subamended.

72. The Title as amended was adopted.

Preamble

Preambular paragraphs 1 and 2

73. Preambular paragraphs 1 and 2 were adopted without change.

Preambular paragraph 3

74. An amendment submitted by the Employer members proposed to delete the word "effective" before "elimination" and to replace the words "with a view to achieving the total abolition of child labour" with "on child labour". Their intention was to ensure a simple, readily understood instrument. The second part of their amendment sought, in the interests of clarity, to move away from the words taken directly from the Preamble to Convention No. 138, which referred to the total abolition of child labour as defined in that Convention, but which could be misunderstood by the general public to refer to all work done by children.

75. The Government member of Canada spoke to a similar amendment, which was to be submitted by the Government members of Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States, to delete the words "which remain the fundamental instruments with a view to achieving the total abolition of child labour". They considered the phrase a commentary on Convention No. 138 which was unnecessary, and pointed out that no other instruments mentioned in the Preamble had such a commentary.

76. The Worker members opposed the amendment and stated that Convention No. 138 was the governing standard on child labour, which remained fundamental to child labour, and that the resolution of 1996 went to its heart. The principle it represented, the total abolition of child labour, needed to be stated for it to be adhered to.

77. The Employer members opposed the amendment proposed by the Government member of Canada and the abovementioned group of Governments, maintaining their amendment. The Government member of Egypt considered the fundamental nature of Convention No. 138 needed to be emphasized. The Government member of India argued that the Employer members' amendment oversimplified the text, as it no longer linked the aim of Convention No. 138 with any specific intention concerning child labour.

78. The Government members of Cuba, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Italy, Lebanon, South Africa and Uruguay opposed the amendments in favour of keeping the Office text. The Government member of France stated that the wording was taken directly from Convention No. 138 and that it would be strange to question such wording. Furthermore, the wording reflected the previous year's decision regarding the link between Convention No. 138 and the new Convention, which was important to recall in the Preamble. The Government member of Switzerland, supported by the Government member of Turkey, agreed with the Government member of France and noted that the Preamble was not a legally binding part of the instrument. She stated that her Government had erroneously been included on the proposed amendment submitted by Canada and the other Governments mentioned.

79. The Government members of Colombia and Hungary supported the amendment submitted by the Government member of Canada and others, stating that the key word in this paragraph was "complement". When reference was made to other international instruments in the text of a Convention, added qualifications or interpretations were not given.

80. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States, suggested a subamendment to delete the word "the" before "fundamental instruments" in the preceding phrase in the title. The phrase in the title would thus read : "... which remain fundamental instruments on child labour, and". The Worker members agreed to support the subamendment in the interests of reaching consensus. Support was also voiced by the Government members of Argentina, Denmark, Finland, Rwanda, and Switzerland, but the Government members of Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, India and South Africa felt that the proposed subamendment would weaken the intent of the text and the reference to Convention No. 138 and Recommendation No. 146 as "the" fundamental instruments should remain. Following an appeal by the Worker members to concentrate on more substantive matters in the proposed Convention, the amendment as subamended was adopted by consensus, thus the reference read as follows: "to complement the Convention and Recommendation concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, 1973, which remain fundamental instruments on child labour,".

81. The Government members of Egypt and Ethiopia withdrew an amendment to replace "national and international action" by "national action and international cooperation", in favour of the amendment being submitted next by the Government member of Morocco. The Government member of Morocco submitted an amendment to delete "and international" after "national" and to insert "international cooperation and assistance" after the word "action".

82. The insertion of "international cooperation and assistance" to replace "international action" sought to clarify which kind of international action was to be taken and the methods needed to support the efforts of the States involved to achieve the elimination of the worst forms of child labour.

83. The Employer members expressed some disagreement with the proposal, indicating that the question was covered in greater detail in Article 8 of the proposed Convention. The Worker members recognized the strong call made by several developing countries for technical and monetary support in addressing the problem of poverty eradication and elimination of the worst forms of child labour. While confirming the intent of the Workers to give considerable attention to the question of international cooperation and assistance under Article 8, the Worker members considered it unnecessary to include a similar reference in the Preamble and thus opposed the amendment.

84. The Government member of Sweden proposed a subamendment to retain the words "international action" and to insert the words "including international cooperation and assistance". The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the members of the Group of Industrialized Market Economies (IMEC) (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States), supported the subamendment, as did the Government members of South Africa and the United States. The subamendment was also supported by the Worker members and the Employer members. The amendment as subamended read as follows: "as the main priority for national and international action, including international cooperation and assistance". The amendment as subamended was adopted.

85. Preambular paragraph 3 was adopted as amended.

Preambular paragraph 4

86. The Employer members submitted an amendment to delete the word "effective" before the word "elimination" to ensure consistency with the text adopted in Preambular paragraph 3. The Worker members supported the amendment. The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the members of the IMEC Group on the Committee, opposed the amendment stating that the provision should be consistent with the language in Article 1 of Convention No. 138. The Government members of Argentina and India also opposed the amendment. The Employer members withdrew the amendment.

87. The Worker members submitted an amendment to insert "free" before "basic education", to mention explicitly the importance of free basic education. The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the members of the IMEC Group on the Committee, supported the amendment. The Government members of Bolivia, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic and Venezuela supported the amendment. The Government member of Chile, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Brazil and Uruguay, supported the amendment and added that it was consistent with Article 22 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Employer members also supported the amendment but recalled that there were countries without compulsory education systems. The amendment was adopted.

88. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States, submitted an amendment to refer to the removal of children from "such" work, meaning from the worst forms of child labour rather than all work, and to replace the word "reintegration" with the word "integration", since many of the children engaged in the worst forms of child labour had not yet been integrated into society.

89. The Employer members supported the amendment, while the Worker members supported the change to "integration", but opposed the insertion of "such" work. The Worker Vice-Chairperson referred to cases in which child workers had been removed from one "worst form" only to find themselves in another and emphasized the objective of creating the necessary environment for rehabilitation and educational opportunities and other integrative measures. To address these concerns the Government member of Sweden proposed a subamendment to insert the word "all" before the words "such work", which was supported by the Government member of the United States and by the Employer members. The Worker Vice-Chairperson stated that the Worker members would accept the subamendment in the spirit of compromise and emphasized that there was a measure of protection ensured because the new Convention was in the context of Convention No. 138, which protected children and provided for minimum ages. The Government members of Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela suggested that a better definition was needed in Spanish which would be addressed by the Drafting Committee. The amendment as subamended was adopted.

90. The Worker members submitted an amendment to add "while supporting the needs of their families" at the end of the paragraph. The needs of the families of children engaged in the worst forms of child labour needed to be taken into account to ensure that well-intended actions did not have unintended and harmful consequences.

91. The Employer members stated that they were not against the suggestion but questioned the usefulness of the amendment since social integration encompassed a wide range of actions, including support to families.

92. The Government members of Ethiopia and India supported the amendment. The Government member of Sweden supported the idea, but suggested "taking into account" rather than "supporting" as one could speak of support to families or of taking their needs into account, but not of supporting their needs.

93. The Worker members opposed the subamendment as it changed the meaning of the proposed amendment.

94. The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States, supported the subamendment as did the Government members of Egypt, Pakistan and Venezuela, as it made the point more clear. To meet the concerns of the Worker members, however the Government member of the United States suggested an alternative might be to replace "supporting" with "addressing" or with "while responding to the needs of".

95. The Government member of Argentina was concerned that it might imply that Governments were under an obligation to provide subsidies to the families of children in the worst forms of child labour and also pointed out that there were children without families. The Government member of Venezuela also referred to the problem of street children who had no families.

96. The Worker members agreed to the proposal to replace "supporting" with "addressing". The Employer members also supported it. The subamendment was adopted as was the amendment as subamended.

97. The Government member of Pakistan expressed concern regarding the implications for implementation, particularly economic. The Government member of Bolivia shared the same concern. The Government member of Hungary pointed out that the Preamble was not a legally binding part of the text, and so there were no implications for implementation.

98. Preambular paragraph 4 was adopted as amended and read as follows:

Considering that the effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour requires immediate and comprehensive action, taking into account the importance of free basic education and the need to remove the concerned children from all such work and to provide for their rehabilitation and social integration, while addressing the needs of their families.

Proposed new Preambular paragraph
after Preambular paragraph 4

99. The members of the African Group on the Committee, and the Government members of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Singapore submitted identical amendments to insert a new Preambular paragraph 5, to read: "Recognizing that child labour is to a great extent caused by poverty and that the long-term solution lies in sustained economic growth leading to social progress, in particular poverty alleviation and universal education, and".

100. The Government member of Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee, explained that a reference to poverty was not an excuse for inaction, but a recognition of the reasons for child labour. Poverty and social deprivation had contributed immensely to the increase in child labour, particularly in Africa, and the amendment was submitted to reflect the fact that poverty was a principal causal factor of child labour. This was indicated in the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour adopted at the 83th Session of the International Labour Conference in 1996, from which the text of the amendment had been taken.

101. The Government member of India, speaking on behalf of the majority of members of the Asia-Pacific Group on the Committee, echoed the sentiments of the Government member of Ethiopia, and added that whilst some of the worst forms of child labour were a consequence of the denial of political and civil rights, others such as those defined as hazardous work, were frequently rooted in poverty and socio-economic circumstances, including inadequacy of resources to provide for economic and social rights. It was not a question of making excuses. Poverty could not justify the denial of any human rights, but was frequently a reason for their absence from the lives of countless millions as economic and social rights could only be promoted and secured progressively.

102. The Employer members stated that there were concerns about the complex relationship between poverty and child labour and its worst forms, but after a long debate the previous year it had been decided that it was inappropriate for poverty to be linked in this manner to the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. Moreover, there had been support for a short and concise Preamble. However, the issue had grown in importance since the first discussion and the Employer members were not opposed to its inclusion in some form.

103. The Worker members stated that poverty was both a cause and a consequence of the worst forms of child labour. It was inappropriate to lift one paragraph from the 1996 resolution concerning the elimination of child labour. It would be more appropriate to mention the resolution itself.

104. The Government member of the United States commented that the interrelationship between poverty and child labour was complex and still not well understood and that the proposed amendment did not capture that complexity. If one were to address, permit or explain the existence of child labour as a response to poverty, there would be both poverty and child labour for ever. He suggested it would be better to say that child labour was "both a cause and a consequence of poverty" rather than "to a great extent caused by poverty" and that the long-term solution "includes" rather than "lies in" economic growth. He opposed including a reference to the resolution in the Preamble; it was counter to keeping the Preamble short and the debate on the elimination of child labour had advanced considerably since adoption of that resolution.

105. The Worker Vice-Chairperson reiterated that certain aspects of child labour had to be eliminated without delay and for which poverty was not an excuse. The Government member of the Netherlands recalled the Worker members' earlier suggestion that the Preamble refer to the full 1996 resolution on the elimination of child labour, while the Government member of Ethiopia disagreed as the members of the African Group on the Committee had wished to refer in particular to poverty eradication and not in its place to the resolution in general. The Government member of India agreed with the Government member of Ethiopia.

Proposed new paragraphs after Preambular
paragraph 4, Preambular paragraph 5,
a proposed new paragraph after Preambular
paragraph 5, Preambular paragraphs 6 and 7
and Preambular paragraph 8

106. Considerable discussion followed on how to reconcile the various view points. The Government member of India presented a proposal which incorporated a number of changes that had been agreed upon by many Government members, and by the Employer and Worker members as a result of consultations. The proposal consisted of:

(a) a specific reference to the 1996 resolution concerning the elimination of child labour;

(b) the adoption of the amendment submitted by the Government member of Ethiopia, on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee, to include the following new Preambular paragraph:

"Recognizing that child labour is to a great extent caused by poverty and that the long-term solution lies in sustained economic growth leading to social progress, in particular poverty alleviation and universal education, and".

(c) the adoption of the amendment presented by the Government members of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States, to add a new Preambular paragraph after paragraph 5 recalling the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up;

(d) the adoption of amendments submitted by the Employer members to delete Preambular paragraphs 7 and 8;

(e) withdrawal of an amendment by the Government members of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea to include a paragraph from the 1996 resolution on the international community addressing the root cause of child labour, and;

(f) withdrawal of the amendment by the Government members of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and Singapore to add a paragraph from the 1996 resolution on the shared responsibility for the progressive elimination of child labour.

107. The Worker Vice-Chairperson expressed support for the composite proposal. He stated the Worker members' intention to submit an amendment at an appropriate point in the body of the text which would give effect to the provisions of the Convention to enhance international cooperation and assistance, including support for social and economic development, for poverty eradication and for universal education.

108. The Government member of Lebanon stated she was favourable to the maintaining of the reference in Preambular paragraph 8 to the Copenhagen Summit on Social Development. The Government member of Uruguay, speaking also on behalf of the Government member of Chile, expressed concern about the Spanish text and stated that she preferred maintaining a reference to the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development and the Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development, 1995, and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995 in Preambular paragraph 8. Not having the text of the 1996 resolution in front of her she did not know whether that resolution made reference to those instruments, but if it did, then she would accept the proposal.

109. The Government member of the Netherlands, on behalf of the members of the IMEC Group on the Committee, indicated their support. The Government member of Ethiopia, on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee, stated their agreement but noted that they agreed to delete Preambular paragraph 8 only because it was part of the entire proposal. The Government member of Mexico declared her surprise that references to gender issues, in particular to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995 were being deleted from the text. In response, the Worker members maintained that gender issues were taken into account by referring to the 1996 resolution and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up and there should be no implication that they were not aware and supportive of gender issues. The Government member of Pakistan reluctantly agreed with the proposal. She made it clear that accepting the reference to the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up did not change her Government's position on the Declaration that had been stated at the time of its adoption.

110. The changes noted in (a) to (f) above were adopted by consensus with the following effect.

111. A new Preambular paragraph after paragraph 4 was adopted: "Recalling the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour adopted at the 83rd Session of the International Labour Conference in 1996".

112. A second new Preambular paragraph after paragraph 4 was adopted: "Recognizing that child labour is to a great extent caused by poverty and that the long-term solution lies in sustained economic growth leading to social progress, in particular poverty alleviation and universal education, and".

113. Preambular paragraph 5 was adopted without change.

114. A new Preambular paragraph after paragraph 5 was adopted: "Recalling the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1998,".

115. Preambular paragraph 6 was adopted without change.

116. Preambular paragraph 7 was deleted.

117. Preambular paragraph 8 was deleted.

Preambular paragraph 9

118. The Employer members withdrew their amendment to add "the worst forms of" before the word "child", in view of the fact that the Conference agenda item was on child labour.

119. Preambular paragraph 9 was adopted without change.

Preambular paragraph 10

120. Preambular paragraph 10 was adopted without change.

Preambular paragraph 11

121. Three amendments concerning the short title of the proposed Convention were discussed together. The Government member of Ethiopia and other Government members of the African Group on the Committee proposed replacing the word "Abolition" by the words "Measures for the Elimination", to be consistent with the long title. The Government members of Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Singapore proposed to insert the words "and effective action for" after the word "immediate". The Employer members proposed to replace the words "Immediate Abolition" by the words "Prohibition and Elimination".

122. The Government member of the Netherlands, on behalf of a number of the members of the IMEC Group on the Committee, and the Government members of Cuba and Uruguay supported retaining the full title which had been agreed upon in this part of the text as well, rather than having a different short title. The Government member of Sweden stated that it was customary for the Conference to adopt a short title and proposed a subamendment so that the proposed Convention would be referred to as the the "Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999"; this was seconded by the Government member of Pakistan. The Legal Adviser stated that for the sake of convenience it had been customary since the 1920s for international labour standards to be known by shorter titles. The official title reflected the content of a Convention and the short title was used in the list of titles of Conventions and in documents.123. The Employer members, the Worker members and the Government members of Argentina, Bolivia, Finland and Lebanon supported the subamendment. After an indicative show of hands, the subamendment was adopted which replaced the three pending amendments.

124. Preambular paragraph 11 was adopted as amended.

125. The Government members of Egypt and Pakistan expressed their reservations about the reference to international action, as this reference could lend itself to misinterpretation or abuse. They stated that this reference could only be understood in conjunction with Article 8.

126. The Preamble was adopted as amended.

Article 1

127. The Worker members submitted an amendment to provide that "all necessary and effective" measures would be required. The addition would signal in stronger language the need for concrete action. The amendment was supported by the Government members of Argentina and Finland but opposed by the Employer members and the Government member of the Netherlands. A discussion ensued, taking into account several other amendments submitted to this Article concerning the deletion or placement of "immediate" and whether measures should be "effective".

128. After consultations, the Government member of the Netherlands proposed a subamendment which inserted the words "immediate and effective" before "measures", deleted the word "immediate" before "elimination" and added at the end of the Article the words "as a matter of urgency.". The Article as subamended thus would read: "Each member which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency." The subamendment was supported by the Employer members and the Worker members. Following an indicative show of support, the subamendment was adopted. The amendment as subamended was adopted.

129. Article 1 was adopted as amended.

Proposal concerning Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
of the proposed Convention and Paragraph 3
and a new Paragraph 4 of the proposed
Recommendation

130. Given the number of important issues represented by the amendments submitted to Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the proposed Convention, the Committee decided to allow time for extensive group meetings and an informal tripartite working group to work toward consensus on a number of key issues in these Articles, in particular, the age of children to which the Convention would apply, the definition of hazardous work, the determination of hazardous work (Article 4 of the Convention and Paragraph 3 of the Recommendation), the explicit inclusion of children in armed conflict, the role of education in Article 3 and Article 7, and the role of NGOs or other members of civil society. As a result of the consultations, the Government member of Australia presented a comprehensive proposal which included amendments agreed upon by many Government members and by the Employer and Worker members. These proposed amendments related to Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the proposed Convention and Paragraph 3 and a proposed new Paragraph 4 in the proposed Recommendation. The proposal was as follows:

(a) No amendment to Article 2;

(b) Article 3, subparagraph (a): after the words "of children" replace the existing text with the words "debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;";

(c) Article 3, subparagraph (d): replace the word "jeopardize" with the word "harm";

(d) Article 4, paragraph 1: replace the words "taking into account" with the words "fully taking into consideration" and add after the words "international standards" the words "in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Recommendation [on the worst forms of child labour];

(e) Article 4, paragraph 3: replace the word "after" with the word "in";

(f) Article 6, paragraph 2: add at the end of the paragraph the following words: "taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.";

(g) Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph (b): after "removal", replace the words "from work" with the words "from the worst forms of child labour"; and delete the following words at the end of the subparagraph: "through, inter alia, access to free basic education";

(h) Article 7, paragraph 2: insert a new subparagraph (c) as follows: "ensure access to free basic education and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, for all children removed from the worst forms of child labour;";

(i) Paragraph 3 of the proposed Recommendation: replace the words "as a minimum" with the words "inter alia";

(j) Paragraph 3, subparagraph (a): replace the word "emotional" with the word "psychological";

(k) Paragraph 3, subparagraph (e): replace the words "which does not allow for the possibility of returning home each day" with the words "where the child is unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.";

(l) After Paragraph 3, insert a new Paragraph under the title "Hazardous Work", as follows:

Notwithstanding Article 2 of the Convention, for the types of work referred to under Article 3(d) of the Convention, national laws or regulations, or the competent authority, may, after consultation with the workers' and employers' organizations concerned, authorize employment or work as from the age of 16 years, on condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the young persons have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.

131. The Committee agreed that it accepted the principle of the proposal coming from the informal working group and that it would be considered as a whole. Before the specific provisions of the proposal from the informal working group were considered, several members commented on the proposal. The Employer members and the Worker members supported the proposal. Nevertheless, the Worker members were concerned about a number of points. Regarding the issue of children in armed conflict, some Worker members -- notably the members from the Americas -- were very disappointed with the manner in which it was proposed to deal with this most hazardous form of child labour. They felt that an injustice was being done to children by not having a broader provision for all children in armed conflict and that it would be necessary to return to this issue because wars would continue. The Worker members were also concerned about a reference in Article 6 to "other concerned groups as appropriate". They were reluctant to agree with its inclusion because they considered some governments were responsible for the repression of trade unions and deaths of some trade unionists and were more open to consulting with NGOs than trade unions. They felt that "other concerned groups" should mean groups sincerely committed to the abolition of the worst forms of child labour. The Worker Vice-Chairperson proposed a subamendment to the proposal for Article 4, paragraph 1, namely, to delete the word "fully".

132. The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the members of the IMEC Group on the Committee, and the Government member of India, speaking on behalf of the members of the Asia-Pacific Group on the Committee, and the Government member of Guatemala, speaking on behalf of the members of the Latin American Group on the Committee, supported in principle the proposal but requested legal advice on various issues. The Government member of Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the members of the African Group on the Committee, supported the proposal and welcomed the deletion of the word "fully" suggested by the Worker members. Regarding the issue of children in armed conflict, the Government member of Ethiopia stated that the proposal did not reflect the views of the members of the African Group on the Committee concerning children in armed conflict, which they considered the most hazardous and injurious form of child labour.

133. The Government member of Australia, on behalf of the members of the informal working group, posed several questions to the Legal Adviser that had been raised by members of the Committee during consultations. First, regarding Article 4, paragraph 1, he questioned the effect of the reference to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Recommendation in this provision of the Convention. Second, also referring to Article 4, paragraph 1, he asked what was meant by "relevant international standards". Third, referring to Article 4, paragraph 3, and the use of the phrase "in consultation with", he sought advice on what was required of ratifying member States. Finally, he wanted clarification on the links between Article 3(a) of the proposed Convention concerning the worst forms of child labour and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and what the legal requirements and obligations were for member States that ratified the proposed Convention.

134. The Government member of Egypt presented a further question to the Legal Adviser regarding the new Paragraph proposed for the Recommendation starting with "Notwithstanding Article 2 of the Convention,". He questioned whether it was legally correct to include in a Recommendation an exception to an Article in a Convention.

135. Concerning the question on the nature of the obligation arising from a reference to a Recommendation in a Convention, the Deputy Legal Adviser stated that though it was infrequent, a number of international labour Conventions made such references to ILO Recommendations as well as to United Nations Recommendations. He explained that such references did not make it mandatory for Governments to comply with the provisions of the Recommendations, and that in this case, it was a procedural obligation to take into consideration the contents of the Recommendation in question. The content of a Recommendation did not become binding by such reference. With regard to which international instruments were relevant, the representative of the Legal Adviser said that these were too numerous to list, but for example there were standards concerning toxic substances, dangerous processes, heavy weight, night work and so on. Such reference did not oblige member States that had not ratified these instruments to comply with them, merely to take them into account. Regarding the question on the meaning of "in consultation with", he stated that the obligation to consult was commonly included in international labour standards and was an element of the decision-making process. Under such a provision, Governments were obliged to consult with the social partners before a decision was taken but were not obliged by the result of the consultation. However, Governments had to consult and to consider the elements discussed in good faith because consultation without consideration would not respect the spirit of the obligation. He noted that the difference between "in" consultation with and "after" consultation with was minimal, and reflected the discontinuous (after) or the continuous (in) character of the consultative process.

136. Referring to the link between Article 3(a) and Convention No. 29, he stated that each Convention was autonomous and unless there was a specific reference they remained autonomous. He noted that the definition of forced labour contained in Article 2 of Convention No. 29 remained valid for the purposes of the proposed Convention unless it defined the term differently. Convention No. 29 did not define debt bondage and serfdom, which were defined in United Nations instruments. Regarding the proposed new Paragraph after Paragraph 3 in the Recommendation, he stated that the text before the Committee could not be included in the Recommendation as drafted, because a Recommendation could not create derogation to an obligation contained in a Convention. He stated that the Employer and Worker members had agreed to modify the text accordingly. The proposed new wording was as follows: "For the types of work referred to under Article 3(d) of the Convention and Paragraph 3 of the Recommendation, national laws or regulations, or the competent authority, could, after consultation with the workers' and employers' organizations concerned, authorize employment or work as from the age of 16 years, on condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the young persons have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity."

137. The Government member of Argentina requested legal advice concerning the proposed text of Article 3(a) in relation to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) as Convention No. 29 made an exception for military service.

138. A representative of the Legal Adviser stated that Convention No. 29 did not exclude all compulsory military service, and that work carried out by conscripts for non-military purposes was considered as forced labour prohibited under Convention No. 29. The definition of forced or compulsory labour under Convention No. 29 did not specifically refer to "forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict". Therefore, it would be clearer if the word "and" were used in Article 3(a) instead of the word "including". Nevertheless, it was for the Committee to decide.

139. The Government member of Hungary stated his objections to the working methods of the Committee. He considered them inefficient, undemocratic and irregular. Some member States were effectively excluded from group representation as they did not readily belong to a particular informal government group, as these were determined primarily by geographical considerations. Furthermore, he felt such attachment to groups should be voluntary. He hoped a precedent was not being set for the Committee's future work as much remained to be discussed in plenary sittings of the Committee. He considered that decisions regarding what should be included or excluded from the text should be made in plenary, not in small informal groups, which had the additional disadvantage of denying the social partners the opportunity of hearing the arguments and counter-arguments of their counterparts. Finally, he stressed the importance of discussion in plenary, so as to ensure a record of the decisions taken, which was necessary for future interpretation of the instruments after their adoption and ratification. The Government member of Lebanon expressed her concern that the working methods were depriving the delegates of the opportunity to express their views and to seek clarification especially if the package deal were not to be further discussed in the Committee plenary.

140. The Worker Vice-Chairperson strongly objected to the assessment of the Government member of Hungary. He stated that all the groups had arrived at proposals to amend the texts only after full consultation with the members of their individual groups and that Government members did have the opportunity to state their positions in plenary. He stated that the Worker members were participating in working methods which promoted open and frank discussion in an informal forum and which were aimed at reaching consensus on very important issues in the proposed Convention and Recommendation. This consensus was critical to achieving wide support for the instruments, rapid ratification and effective implementation.

141. The Government member of Australia indicated that there were still a number of questions on which clarification was sought from the Legal Adviser. Five issues appeared to be most important: first, to clarify the meaning of the term "other concerned groups" in light of the tripartite nature of the ILO; second, to explain whether in Article 3 the use of language addressing criminal acts of adults would present a legal difficulty in view of the intention to define the worst forms of child labour; third, to explore the implications of the draft provision in the proposal to Article 3(a) on forced or compulsory recruitment of children in armed conflict for member States which allowed compulsory military service as of the age of 17, particularly in the event of armed conflict or military intervention; fourth, to clarify the implications of Article 2 for member States with legislation defining differently the age bracket of childhood; and lastly, to explain whether, in view of Articles 2 and 3(d) of the proposed Convention, ratifying member States would be able to invoke the flexiblility provision set out in a proposed new Paragraph 4 of the Recommendation when determining the types of work as provided for in Article 4, paragraph 1.

142. Other Government members had further questions. The Government member of Colombia asked whether the stipulation of Article 4 to consult with workers' and employers' organizations would be binding. The Government member of the Russian Federation sought clarification as to whether there were rules in the ILO or an established practice which would attach particular importance to the views of the Legal Adviser on the draft instruments, as compared to other legal interpretations, especially in cases of draft international treaties.

143. In responding, the Deputy Legal Adviser explained that the draft instruments, as amended, did not spell out the meaning of "other concerned groups". These could, for example, be parents' organizations, children's associations or organizations for the defence of children. A number of other Conventions, such as the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159) and the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, 1970 (No. 131) included similar references to other concerned groups or qualified persons. The above notwithstanding, Article 6, paragraph 2, fully respected the role of the tripartite constituents and accorded them a clear priority in the consultation process. In responding to the related question of the Government member of Colombia, he explained that while Article 4, paragraph 1, would make it binding for ratifying member States to include the social partners in the process leading up to a decision, the decision itself would be taken by the Government only. On the question regarding legal difficulties arising from the language used in Article 3 to address criminal acts by adults, he explained by example. Children making bricks in conditions of debt bondage were engaged in a worst form of child labour and were victims of it; whereas the adult who put them to such work was a criminal profiting from such work. In regard to the question of children recruited for lawful compulsory military service at the age of 17 and their potential participation in armed conflict, he noted that this was a very hypothetical question. ILO Conventions were universal texts expressed in general terms and as such could not envisage all possible situations that might occur. The purpose of the proposal on Article 3(a) was to cover forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict. This was all that could be said from a legal point of view. Concerning the issue of potential conflict of the draft Convention's definition of "child" with existing national legislation, the Legal Adviser recalled that Article 2 of the draft Convention stipulated only that the term "child" should apply to all persons under the age of 18 for the purposes of this Convention. It did not matter which designation national law gave to persons under the age of 18, on the understanding that all such persons were covered by the proposed Convention. Moreover, Article 2 corresponded to the definition of "child" in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was almost universally ratified. Regarding the last question expressed by the Government member of Australia, Article 4, paragraph 1, provided flexibility in that the determination of types of work was left to the discretion of member States subject to two procedural requirements, namely consultation with employers' and workers' organizations concerned and the need to take into consideration relevant international standards. The latter would not imply any obligation to ratify or respect the relevant standards. Additionally, there was the requirement to make the determination in good faith consistent with the obligation on ratifying States under the international law of treaties to implement in good faith the Conventions that they ratify.

144. In responding to the question raised by the Government member of the Russian Federation concerning whether there were any rules or established procedure of the Organization which attached any particular significance to the opinion of the Legal Adviser in view of other rules of interpretation of international treaties, the Legal Adviser referred to Article 63, paragraph 2(f), of the Standing Orders which provided for the possibility of a motion to ask for the opinion of the Legal Adviser. He also pointed out that the Legal Adviser served exclusively the Conference during its duration, and not the Office.

145. The Government member of Cuba stressed the importance of reconciling the language used in Article 3(a) with regard to criminal acts and the definition of the worst forms of child labour. She noted that the activities of the children subject to sale and trafficking of children, for example, were not child labour but crimes against children. She also voiced concern that the draft provision of Article 3 on children in armed conflict which, she thought, had a very limited scope, could contradict Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and jeopardize the ongoing discussions on the draft optional protocol to that Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflicts. The Government member of Colombia expressed similar concerns.

146. The Government member of Lebanon questioned whether the legal obligations under Article 3(a) differed in the case of voluntary recruitment. The Government member of Hungary suggested that it was for the Committee to interpret what it meant in view of the Legal Adviser's statement, not for the Legal Adviser to tell the Committee what the Committee meant.

147. Many Government members expressed satisfaction with the Legal Adviser's explanations.

148. The Committee examined as a whole the particular provisions and Articles affected by the proposal in the proposed Convention, which were Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The discussions on Article 5 and Article 8, though occurring in non-sequential order, are reported below in the order of the Articles in the Convention.

Article 2

149. An amendment by the Employer members to insert "Exclusively" at the beginning of the Article was withdrawn. The Government member of India announced the withdrawal of an amendment submitted by the Government members of India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia and Pakistan to take account of Article 3 of Convention No. 138. The decision was made on the basis that Article 3, subparagraph (d) and Article 4, paragraph 1, provided for a national determination of hazardous work which would constitute the worst forms of child labour.

150. Article 2 was adopted without change.

Article 3(a)

151. The Government member of the United States sought the understanding of the Committee on some important points. He indicated that the text that referred to the "forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict" as a worst form of child labour proposed under Article 3(a) was a most important and positive addition to the Convention. It addressed effectively an essential concern: the abduction, coercion, and forced or involuntary recruitment of children for use as participants in armed conflict. The adoption of the above text would make the Convention stronger and would significantly strengthen current international standards concerning forced or compulsory enlistment. It would in no way undermine other international standards on the subject. He stated that the United States and some other countries permitted the lawful recruitment of 17-year-olds to volunteer -- with parental consent -- to serve in the armed forces, including when armed conflict was regrettably necessary. He did not believe that such voluntary enlistment in lawful national military service was the basis of the concern which had resulted in this text.

152. He noted that there was no other obligation related to genuine service in armed forces, and/or lawful national military service contained or contemplated under Article 3(d) on hazardous work. In summarizing his intervention, the Government member of the United States requested the Committee's confirmation of the abovementioned understanding on two points that: Article 3(a) did not apply to 16- and 17-year-olds who lawfully volunteered for service in a nation's armed forces, and that Article 3(d) covering "hazardous work" did not impose any additional obligation in regard to the engagement of children in lawfu