Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Ireland (Ratification: 1931)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Ireland (Ratification: 2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee welcomes the ratification by Ireland of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. Noting that the first report of the Government has not been received, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information on the application of the Protocol, in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Vulnerability of migrant workers in the fishing sector to practices of forced labour and trafficking. (a) Assessment of the Atypical Migrant Working Scheme for the Non-European Economic Area (EEA) Crew (AWS). The Committee previously noted the information from the Government and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) in relation to the functioning of the Atypical Migrant Working Scheme for the Non-European Economic Area (EEA) Crew (AWS) which regulates the employment of non-EEA migrant workers in the fishing sector in Ireland. It noted measures to protect non-EEA fishers under the AWS, including (i) the obligation to provide a contract of employment certified by a practising solicitor and in their native language, (ii) the possibility to transfer employment without the employer’s consent and (iii) to follow-up on cases of fishers who have left their employment before the end of their contract.

The Government indicates that the AWS is administered by the Department of Justice to grant immigration permissions for a small number of specific occupations and employments that do not fall as eligible under the employment permits legislation. It reports that in 2021, 77 individuals were granted AWS fisher permissions, and 157 were granted renewal of permissions, including 18 migrant fishers who changed employer. To date, in 2022, 48 individuals were granted AWS fisher permissions, and 63 were granted renewal of permissions, including seven migrant fishers who have changed employer. In total, since the launch of the AWS for non-EEA fishers in February 2016, until 1 October 2021, 429 permissions have been issued, including nationals from the Philippines, Egypt, Ghana and Indonesia.

The Government adds that it reiterates its concerns about the assumptions made regarding the State’s fisheries sector, and that a review of the AWS for non-EEA fishers has recently been undertaken, to determine whether the Scheme should be continued in its current form or modified and whether there is a more appropriate mechanism for the employment of non-EEA workers on eligible vessels. Stakeholders involved included relevant Government Departments, solicitors representing applicants, and the ITF. The Committee notes that in its report published in March 2022 the review group recommended that the employment of non-EEA crew in the Irish Fishing Fleet should be provided for under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment’s (DETE) employment permits system instead of the AWS. It further recommended that any AWS Fisher with a current immigration permission, and who wishes to do so, have their existing immigration permission extended for a period of time, to be agreed by the relevant Departments, to allow them to remain in the State to apply for an employment permit under the DETE’s employment permit scheme and receive a decision on that application The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken in relation to the implementation of the review group’s recommendations as well as on measures to prevent migrant workers in the fishing sector from being victims of trafficking in persons or any abusive conditions of work that could amount to forced labour. In the meantime, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the AWS for non-EEA fishers, including the number of permissions granted, renewed, and of migrant fishers who have changed employer.

(b) Inspections and identification of victims. In relation to the inspections conducted and the measures taken to identify and protect potential victims of trafficking for labour exploitation in the fishing industry, the Government indicates that a high level of inspection is in place in the fishing industry and that the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has secured compensation in cases of labour exploitation. From February 2016 to May 2022, 382 contraventions were recorded, and 245 investigations were carried out and closed, of which 20 resulted in prosecutions, which occur when vessel owners fail to rectify contraventions and/or to pay unpaid wages or employ fishers without permission to work. Contraventions detected from 2019 to date relate to: the employment of fishers without permission (20 per cent of contraventions), working hours and rest regulations (20 per cent of contraventions), the national minimum wage (11 per cent of contraventions), as well as unauthorised deductions, failure to keep records and issue payslips and employment contracts (20 per cent of contraventions). Currently, 35 investigations are underway. The Government also indicates that 84 inspections of fishing vessels have been undertaken by WRC Inspectors in 2019, 33 in 2020, 49 in 2021, and 21 from the beginning of 2022 to the end of May. The Government further states that the WRC administers an adjudication system that hears and decides on complaints, grievances and disputes submitted by employees alleging violations of labour laws. From January 2016 to May 2022, 283 complaints involving 30 migrant fishers were received for adjudication by the WRC. The complaints included issues relating to minimum wage, weekly and daily rest, public holiday entitlement, paid annual leave, breaks, and hours of work. Compensation was awarded to fishers whose complaints were upheld, including for unpaid wages. The Government also states that a number of information and awareness measures have been introduced to enhance employment rights awareness and compliance in the fishing industry, including : (i) the publication in March 2022 by the WRC of a Fishing vessel Owners Employers Guide; (ii) WRC Inspectors providing their contact details to fishers and fishing vessels owners at inspections in case of follow up enquiries ; and (iii) a specific page “Working on Irish fishing vessels” on the WRC website for fishers and fishing vessel owners.

Furthermore, the Government indicates that WRC inspectors have received training from the national police (An Garda Síochána) on the identification of cases of trafficking in persons. The WRC Inspectorate works closely with the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) and the Garda National Protective Services Unit in relation to reporting potential immigration and trafficking issues encountered during inspections. Nine WRC inspectors are trained and available for deployment on fisheries control operations. The Government reports that there were no cases of trafficking in persons identified in the fishing industry in 2019 and 2020. In 2021, seven victims of trafficking were identified; all were offered the services of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), and three accepted the services offered by the NRM. The Committee further notes from the AWS Report Review that between 2016 and 10 September 2021, 27 non-EEA fishers were admitted to the NRM as suspected victims of human trafficking. Of the 27 individuals admitted, 18 had participated in the AWS Scheme. All allegations of human trafficking made in relation to the Scheme or the fishing sector have been fully investigated by An Garda Síochána and examined by the Director of Public Prosecutions and none of the allegations have been substantiated to date nor any prosecutions taken in this regard.

The Committee welcomes this information and encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that the competent authorities, in particular the WRC, have the means and capacities to be able to identify situations or forced labour of migrant fishers and gather evidence that will allow for the prosecution of perpetrators. Please indicate also the measures taken to raise awareness among migrant fishers on the risks of forced labour as well as on their rights. Finally, the Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of investigations carried out and sanctions imposed following inspections and complaints concerning cases of trafficking in persons and practices of forced labour involving migrant fishers.

2. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the steps taken to implement the 2016 national Action Plan against trafficking. The Government indicates that a draft Third National Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Human Trafficking was presented to the Minister of Justice in 2022. Within this process, an analysis of the situation of trafficking in the country was carried out which included a summary of issues in relation to human trafficking that the new National Action Plan should address and lessons for implementation from previous action plans and from other relevant domestic and international experience.

The Government also indicates that in 2021, the Courts handed down the first convictions for trafficking in persons. The Committee notes from the Trafficking in Human Beings in Ireland Annual Report 2021 of the Department of Justice that 44 victims of trafficking were identified by the national police in 2021, compared to 35 in 2018, 3 in 2019 and 10 in 2020. Of the 44 victims identified in 2021, 25 were victims of sexual exploitation and 19 labour exploitation. The victims were mainly from Nigeria, Slovakia and Ghana. In May 2021, the Government approved the creation of a revised National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for the identification of victims of trafficking in persons and the provision of support, in which the identification of victims will no longer be the sole responsibility of the national police. The Annual Report also refers to the establishment of (i) a forum consisting of Government, state agencies and civil society organizations to support victims of trafficking, and (ii) an Independent National Rapporteur for Anti-Human Trafficking operating under the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. The National Rapporteur’s responsibilities include monitoring the implementation of anti-trafficking policy at national level and playing a key role in the collection of data on trafficking in persons.

The Committee notes the concerns of the GRETA, in its 2022 Evaluation Report on Ireland, regarding the decrease over the years of the number of investigations into trafficking in persons, as well as the low number of prosecutions compared to the number of investigations (para. 101). The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, both for labour and sexual exploitation. It requests the Government to provide detailed information in relation to the adoption of the third national action plan as well as on the measures taken for its implementation. Please provide information on the assessment of the impact of these measures, in particular in relation to prevention of trafficking and identification and protection of victims, as well as on the annual reports produced by the Department of Justice. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the investigations undertaken for cases of trafficking, prosecutions initiated and convictions imposed, indicating the difficulties faced by law enforcement bodies in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), received on 4 September 2018.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Vulnerability of migrant workers in the fishing sector to practices of forced labour and trafficking. The Committee notes that the ITF points in its observations to cases of migrant fishers who have been at risk of trafficking and abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour since the introduction of the Atypical Migrant Workers Scheme for the Non-European Economic Area Crew (the AWS). The ITF alleges that the Scheme’s major feature is linking permit holders to a specific employer. After the permit is granted, the fisher’s permit is only valid if it is supported by a specific employer. While there is provision allowing change of employer, the process and the conditions for making such a change are very difficult in practice. According to the ITF, this situation creates a relationship in which the fisher is dependent on the employer; as well as an environment in which trafficking and forced labour can take place and prevents the fishers from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse. The Committee further notes that according to the ITF, migrant fishers have reported working manifestly excessive hours with little opportunity to rest, being paid below the minimum wage, and being threatened with dismissal and suffering physical abuse. In this regard, the ITF refers to the report published in 2017 by the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland (MRCI) according to which over 65 per cent of migrant fishers in Ireland worked more than 100 hours a week for which they were paid, on average, less than €3 per hour. The report also found that one in four migrant workers had experienced physical and/or verbal abuse.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply in its report that the main features of the AWS include a written contract of employment for a duration of 12 months which must be in place between the employer and employee and certified by a practising solicitor. Employers/shipowners must comply with the requirements under European Union (EU) and national law such as terms of employment, national minimum wage, hours of work etc. Moreover, a copy of this contract must be lodged with the Central Depository for Sea-Fishing Boats. At least 50 per cent of the members of the crew must be nationals of any of the member States of the EU, as this ensures that the non-EEA employees have a comparator with the workplace to help safeguard their rights. An employee employed under the AWS can move from one employer to another provided that the new employer is also registered under the AWS. The Government further states that the AWS has only been in operation for 2.5 years and in that time, a significant amount of work has been undertaken to put in place the necessary framework to provide a mechanism for these fishers to secure valid employment and a comprehensive monitoring and enforcement structure. Closing the scheme would leave these vulnerable workers with no process for resolving their employment and immigration issues nor with a means of ensuring that their employment rights are protected.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s recent information that following recent mediation between a number of Government Departments and the ITF on the scheme for employment of non-EEA fishers in parts of the Irish sea-fishing fleet, a settlement agreement has now been reached and signed by all parties. The major points of the agreement include: (i) the obligation to provide the employment contract to the non-EEA fishers in their native language, as well as in English; (ii) the possibility for non-EEA fishers to transfer employment without the existing or previous employer’s consent; and (iii) the obligation of the Department of Justice and Equality to follow-up on cases of fishers who have left their employment, for any reason, before the end of their 12-month contract. A letter has to be issued to the fishers requesting for details within 28 days on their new employment contract.

Moreover, the Committee notes that the AWS was launched in 2016 to facilitate the employment of non-EEA workers. Under this regulatory framework, a non-EEA worker has to sign a short-term employment contract for a duration of 12 months with the normal entitlements to annual leave, maternity leave, and payslips. The Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 (updated to October 2015) require that employees with a fixed-term contract get written notice of the expiry date of their contract. Under section 6 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001, both employers and employees are entitled to at least one-week notice of termination of the employment contract. The Acts do not affect the right of an employer or employee to terminate a contract of employment with due notice due to the misconduct of the other party (section 8).

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the AWS establishes a regulatory framework for the employment of migrant workers in the fishing sector in Ireland, including the possibility for the worker to terminate his/her employment relationship under the new scheme for employment of non-EEA fishers without the existing or previous employer’s consent.

While noting the positive steps taken regarding the issue under examination, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the application in practice of the AWS, including information on the number of migrant fishers who have changed employer and whose work permits have been transferred to a new employer.

2. Identification and assistance to victims. The Committee notes that the ITF alleges that 15 fishers who held permits to work in Ireland have been identified by the Garda National Protective Services Bureau as potential victims of trafficking in persons. A further six fishers who did not hold permits have also been officially identified as potential victims. In this regard, the Government indicates that the national police (An Garda Síochána) is investigating these allegations and other complaints made by the ITF. Once the investigations into the allegations made by the fishers have been concluded, a file will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who in turn will assess whether there is a sufficient case to prosecute for the alleged breaches.

The ITF also asserts that there is a poor practice on the part of government agencies in identifying victims of forced labour and trafficking; a lack of assistance; as well as lack of information and access to legal advice available to victims and fear of reprisals due to the work permit being tied to an employer under the Scheme. Furthermore, the redress system available through the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is totally inadequate as it is designed to service people in regular employment situations who are resident in Ireland. It also can take several months for a case to be dealt with which encourages delinquent employers to “play the system”. To date, not one employer has engaged meaningfully with the WRC.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has undertaken many awareness-raising campaigns in the fishing industry, including: (i) the distribution of a WRC leaflet on the Atypical Scheme and employment rights for workers on fishing vessels; (ii) the publication of the WRC’s Employment Law in Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi and Filipino, the primary language of non-EEA crews; as well as (iii) the establishment of a WRC contact helpline for fishing vessel owners and crews (telephone: [phone]).

The Committee recalls that the particular nature of the work of migrant fisher workers, due in part to their isolated situation at sea, requires taking proactive measures to facilitate the identification of victims of trafficking working under forced labour conditions. While taking due note of the various awareness-raising measures taken by the Government, the Committee requests it to continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that, under the AWS, victims or potential victims of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation in the fishing industry are swiftly identified and referred to the appropriate protection services. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of persons benefiting from these services.

3. Law enforcement measures and adequate penalties. In its allegations, the ITF underlines the absence of any agency or department responsible for monitoring the implementation of the AWS. According to the ITF, while inspecting fishing vessels has uncovered multiple breaches of the Scheme, and the details of breaches were forwarded to the relevant authorities, no action was ever taken. The ITF alleges that multiple failures have emerged in terms of prosecuting perpetrators. Only three prosecutions were initiated in 2017 despite 117 investigations into suspected trafficking incidents. In relation to forced labour, three individuals were prosecuted in 2017. Among other things, the Government has failed to strengthen its law enforcement mechanisms, including measures to enforce anti-trafficking laws against those who target migrant fishers, as well as to ensure that sufficiently effective penalties are applied to individuals who subject these workers to conditions of forced labour.

In its reply, the Government states that, from April 2016 to July 2018, some 310 port inspections of whitefish vessels were undertaken by WRC inspectors. Some 169 of the 186 whitefish vessels that came within the scope of the scheme in that period were inspected. There are currently some 172 vessels which come within the scope of the AWS. Eleven WRC inspectors and a regional manager have undergone a three-day Safety at Sea Survival training delivered by the Irish Sea Fisheries Board so as to enable them to undertake fisheries inspections. To date, some 210 contraventions have been detected by the WRC across the 169 vessels inspected. The breakdown by contravention type is as follows: 29 per cent of contraventions relate to records; 20 per cent of contraventions relate to leave, bank holiday and Sunday entitlements; 15 per cent of contraventions relate to illegal workers; and 12 per cent of contraventions concern failures to issue payslips. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the results of the inspections conducted by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), indicating the number and nature of violations detected and the penalties imposed.

4. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes that the Government has adopted a legal and institutional framework to combat trafficking in persons, including: (i) the adoption of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Act 2013 that has broadened the scope of the definition of “exploitation” to include forcing a person to engage in criminal activities and aligned the definition of “forced labour” with Convention No. 29; (ii) a person guilty of an offence of forced labour or trafficking in persons shall be liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life or a lesser term; (iii) the establishment of the Department of Justice and Equality’s Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) that has the lead on all policy issues on human trafficking in Ireland and works in close collaboration with other Irish government agencies, including the Garda National Protective Services Bureau (Police), the Health Services Executive, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Legal Aid Board and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service; and (iv) the adoption of the second national action plan against trafficking 2016–19. The Committee welcomes these measures and requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to implement the 2016 national action plan against trafficking and the results achieved. Please also indicate whether the national action plan has been renewed and to report on it.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. Referring to its previous comments concerning the free and informed consent required from prisoners working for private enterprises, both inside and outside prison premises, the Committee notes with interest the Prison Rules adopted in 2007, which replace the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947. The Committee notes that Rule 30(1) provides that a prisoner may, with his or her consent, and with the authority of the Governor, engage or participate in approved employment for an approved person and the approved person shall remunerate the prisoner concerned at a rate no less favourable than he or she would remunerate a person who is not a prisoner. According to Rule 30(2) approved person means a person, company or other body approved by the Minister and for the purposes of such employment the approved person shall be deemed the employer of the prisoner.

The Committee furthermore notes the Government’s indications in its report that the Irish Prison Service does not enter into employment contracts on behalf of prisoners working outside prison with private employers, as well as the Government’s statement that there are no instances of prisoners working for private entities inside Irish prisons.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. Referring to its earlier comments concerning the work of prisoners for private enterprises, both inside and outside prison premises, the Committee has noted from the Government’s reports that prisoners working outside penitentiary institutions perform their work on the basis of a free employment relationship, whereas prisoners working in workshops run by private enterprises within state prisons are obliged to work without their consent and in conditions apparently bearing no resemblance to the free labour market.

As regards prisoners who participate on a voluntary basis in work placements outside the prisons, the Committee previously noted, in particular, the Government’s indication that all of the elements of employment rights legislation are applicable to them as to any other individual participating in the labour market, as well as the Government’s explanation that a contract of employment may be either verbal or in writing. It has also noted the examples of letters containing offers of employment to prisoners, supplied by the Government. While noting this information, the Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, sample copies of the written contracts of employment concluded by the prisoners with private employers for work outside penitentiary institutions, as well as specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. Please also supply copies of any provisions governing the “outside employment” of prisoners.

As regards work of prisoners inside prison premises, the Committee has duly noted the Government’s repeated indications in its reports that there is a very limited provision of employment and training opportunities for a small number of this group through arrangements with private entities. The prisoners work under the supervision of prison staff for a maximum of four-and-a-half hours per day, but there are no written agreements in regard to these small-scale activities nor are there formal consent arrangements as such applied. However, the Government refers to the “voluntary participation” by the prisoners in these activities. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this issue, supplying copies of the relevant rules and regulations in force and describing the conditions of work of prisoners working for private entities inside prisons.

Regarding the Government’s request for guidance on the issue of “voluntary consent” in relation to work for private entities inside prison premises, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 54–61 and 103–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where the Committee recalled that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control. The Committee further pointed out that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

The Committee hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in private enterprise workshops inside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest the draft text for rule 32 of the Prison Rules currently under revision, which provides for a consent requirement and a level of remuneration no less favourable than that of a free worker, and requests the Government to communicate a copy of the revised Prison Rules, as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee reminds that, as regards the questions raised by the Government concerning the drafting of agreement/consent forms or contracts of employment of prisoners, the Government may wish to request the Office’s technical assistance.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. Referring to its earlier comments concerning the work of prisoners for private enterprises, both inside and outside prison premises, the Committee has noted from the Government’s reports that prisoners working outside penitentiary institutions perform their work on the basis of a free employment relationship, whereas prisoners working in workshops run by private enterprises within state prisons are obliged to work without their consent and in conditions apparently bearing no resemblance to the free labour market.

As regards prisoners who participate on a voluntary basis in work placements outside the prisons, the Committee previously noted, in particular, the Government’s indication that all of the elements of employment rights legislation are applicable to them as to any other individual participating in the labour market, as well as the Government’s explanation that a contract of employment may be either verbal or in writing. It has also noted the examples of letters containing offers of employment to prisoners, supplied by the Government with its latest report. While noting this information, the Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, sample copies of the written contracts of employment concluded by the prisoners with private employers for work outside penitentiary institutions, as well as specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. Please also supply copies of any provisions governing the “outside employment” of prisoners.

As regards work of prisoners inside prison premises, the Committee has duly noted the Government’s repeated indications in its reports that there is a very limited provision of employment and training opportunities for a small number of this group through arrangements with private entities. The prisoners work under the supervision of prison staff for a maximum of four-and-a-half hours per day, but there are no written agreements in regard to these small-scale activities nor are there formal consent arrangements as such applied. However, the Government refers to the “voluntary participation” by the prisoners in these activities. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this issue, supplying copies of the relevant rules and regulations in force and describing the conditions of work of prisoners working for private entities inside prisons.

Regarding the Government’s request for guidance on the issue of “voluntary consent” in relation to work for private entities inside prison premises, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in
paragraphs 54–61 and 103–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where the Committee recalled that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control. The Committee further pointed out that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

The Committee hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in private enterprise workshops inside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest the draft text for rule 32 of the Prison Rules currently under revision, which provides for a consent requirement and a level of remuneration no less favourable than that of a free worker, and requests the Government to communicate a copy of the revised Prison Rules, as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee reminds that, as regards the questions raised by the Government concerning the drafting of agreement/consent forms or contracts of employment of prisoners, the Government may wish to request the Office’s technical assistance.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2, (paragraphs 1 and 2, subparagraph (c)), of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. Referring to its earlier comments concerning the work of prisoners for private enterprises, both inside and outside prison premises, the Committee has noted from the Government’s reports that prisoners working outside penitentiary institutions perform their work on the basis of a free employment relationship, whereas prisoners working in workshops run by private enterprises within state prisons are obliged to work without their consent and in conditions apparently bearing no resemblance to the free labour market.

As regards prisoners who participate on a voluntary basis in work placements outside the prisons, the Committee previously noted, in particular, the Government’s indication that all of the elements of employment rights legislation are applicable to them as to any other individual participating in the labour market, as well as the Government’s explanation that a contract of employment may be either verbal or in writing. It has also noted the examples of letters containing offers of employment to prisoners, supplied by the Government with its latest report. While noting this information, the Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, sample copies of the written contracts of employment concluded by the prisoners with private employers for work outside penitentiary institutions, as well as specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. Please also supply copies of any provisions governing the “outside employment” of prisoners.

As regards work of prisoners inside prison premises, the Committee has duly noted the Government’s repeated indications in its reports that there is a very limited provision of employment and training opportunities for a small number of this group through arrangements with private entities. The prisoners work under the supervision of prison staff for a maximum of four-and-a-half hours per day, but there are no written agreements in regard to these small-scale activities nor are there formal consent arrangements as such applied. However, the Government refers to the “voluntary participation” by the prisoners in these activities. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this issue, supplying copies of the relevant rules and regulations in force and describing the conditions of work of prisoners working for private entities inside prisons.

Regarding the Government’s request for guidance on the issue of “voluntary consent” in relation to work for private entities inside prison premises, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 54‑61 and 103–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where the Committee recalled that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control. The Committee further pointed out that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

The Committee hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in private enterprise workshops inside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest the draft text for rule 32 of the Prison Rules currently under revision, which provides for a consent requirement and a level of remuneration no less favourable than that of a free worker, and requests the Government to communicate a copy of the revised Prison Rules, as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee reminds that, as regards the questions raised by the Government concerning the drafting of agreement/consent forms or contracts of employment of prisoners, the Government may wish to request the Office’s technical assistance.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c), of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private enterprises. Referring to its earlier comments concerning the work of prisoners for private enterprises, both inside and outside prison premises, the Committee has noted from the Government’s reports that prisoners working outside penitentiary institutions perform their work on the basis of a free employment relationship, whereas prisoners working in workshops run by private enterprises within state prisons are obliged to work without their consent and in conditions apparently bearing no resemblance to the free labour market.

As regards prisoners who participate on a voluntary basis in work placements outside the prisons, the Committee previously noted, in particular, the Government’s indication that all of the elements of employment rights legislation are applicable to them as to any other individual participating in the labour market, as well as the Government’s explanation that a contract of employment may be either verbal or in writing. It has also noted the examples of letters containing offers of employment to prisoners, supplied by the Government with its latest report. While noting this information, the Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, sample copies of the written contracts of employment concluded by the prisoners with private employers for work outside penitentiary institutions, as well as specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. Please also supply copies of any provisions governing the “outside employment” of prisoners.

As regards work of prisoners inside prison premises, the Committee has duly noted the Government’s repeated indications in its reports that there is a very limited provision of employment and training opportunities for a small number of this group through arrangements with private entities. The prisoners work under the supervision of prison staff for a maximum of four-and-a-half hours per day, but there are no written agreements in regard to these small-scale activities nor are there formal consent arrangements as such applied. However, the Government refers to the “voluntary participation” by the prisoners in these activities. The Committee requests the Government to clarify this issue, supplying copies of the relevant rules and regulations in force and describing the conditions of work of prisoners working for private entities inside prisons.

Regarding the Government’s request for guidance on the issue of “voluntary consent” in relation to work for private entities inside prison premises, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 54–61 and 103–120 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where the Committee recalled that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control. The Committee further pointed out that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may be also other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

The Committee hopes that, in the light of the above considerations, measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in private enterprise workshops inside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. In this connection, the Committee also notes with interest the draft text for rule 32 of the Prison Rules currently under revision, which provides for a consent requirement and a level of remuneration no less favourable than that of a free worker, and requests the Government to communicate a copy of the revised Prison Rules, as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee reminds that, as regards the questions raised by the Government concerning the drafting of agreement/consent forms or contracts of employment of prisoners, the Government may wish to request the Office’s technical assistance.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. 1. Work of prisoners for private employers. In its earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private persons and entities, both inside and outside prison premises, and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that, in regard to those prisoners who participate on a voluntary basis in work placements outside the prisons, all of the elements of employment rights legislation are applicable to them as to any other individual participating in the labour market. Noting also the Government’s explanation that a contract of employment may be either oral or in writing, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply, in its next report, sample copies of the written contracts of employment concluded by the prisoners with private employers, as well as specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour, as it was requested previously.

As regards work of prisoners inside prison premises, the Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report that there is a very limited provision of employment and training opportunities for a small number of this group through arrangements with private entities, the prisoners work under supervision of prison staff for a maximum of four and a half hours per day, but there are no written agreements in regard to these small-scale activities nor are formal consent arrangements as such applied, given the voluntary participation by the prisoners in these activities.

The Committee wishes to recall in this connection that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control. The Committee recalls that work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is compatible with the Convention only if two conditions are met, namely … that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently, i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely, that the person is not "hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations".

The Committee refers to the explanations given in paragraphs 127-143 of its General Report to the International Labour Conference in 2001 and in points 5-11 of its 2001 general observation under the Convention, where it pointed out that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only when such work is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security, etc.

In the light of the above considerations, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate how the voluntary consent of prisoners to work for private persons inside prison premises is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, as well as other measures taken to ensure that such work is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship, including guarantees and safeguards referred to above.

2. Referring to its earlier comments made under Convention No. 105, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947, have not yet been replaced by the proposed new Prison Rules. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply a copy of the new Rules, as soon as they are adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its reports received in 2001 and 2002. It has noted, in particular the information concerning the work of prisoners. The Government indicates that, on a very small scale, involving a total of 20 or 30 prisoners at a number of institutions, craft/assembly-type activity is brought into prison to provide occupation for some prisoners; the Governor of the prison obtains the work from private parties and is paid for the work at the prevailing outside rate, all payments received being passed on to the prisoners involved; such work is entirely voluntary on the part of the prisoners. As regard employment of prisoners outside prison premises, the Government states that they are not in this case employed as prisoners per se but as labour market participants, without distinction from other labour market participants, their employment being entirely voluntary on their part.

The Committee requests the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private persons and entities, both inside and outside prison premises, and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. The Government is also requested to indicate measures taken to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; such measures should include the formal consent of the person concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security (see also paragraphs 112-125 of the Committee’s General Report submitted to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference (1998) and paragraphs 128-143 of its General Report submitted to the 89th Session of the Conference (2001)).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

1.  In its previous comments the Committee noted the observations made by the Scheme Workers Alliance (SWA) in communications dated 18 January, 14  May and 31 August 1999, as well as the observations made by the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers’ Union in a communication dated 16 August 1999, concerning the application by Ireland of a number of ratified ILO Conventions, including Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. The Committee has also noted the detailed explanations provided by the Government in reply to these observations.

The unions provided detailed submissions expressing concern about the situation of the unemployed, the conditions under which payments are made under the Irish Employment Action Plan (EAP) and the limited availability of jobs, which were low paying and not necessarily suited to the skills and interest of the unemployed. The unions alleged coercion of the unemployed and of other welfare recipients into accepting such work. In their submissions, the unions referred, in particular, to the fact that to fall within the definition of "forced or compulsory labour" in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, work or service must be exacted "under the menace of any penalty", and that it was made clear during the consideration of the draft instrument by the Conference that the penalty here in question included "the loss of any rights or privileges".

The Government responded and denied breaches of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, referring to developments in employment and labour market policy which were articulated in the EAP. The Government also referred to its commitment to implement the EU Employment Guidelines, as well as its preventative strategies concerning young unemployed.

The Committee has come to the conclusion that the unions’ allegations do not raise matters which fall within the scope of Convention No. 29. The problems of unemployment and the scarcity of work which may only be found in low-level positions so that persons perform work which they may not wish to do in order to maintain themselves, do not usually fall for consideration under the Convention. There have been occasions when such circumstances were considered to come under the Convention, such as cases where acquired rights under a contributory unemployment insurance scheme were subjected to new conditions bearing on the range of work to be accepted by benefit recipients; or where certain categories of welfare recipients, such as asylum seekers, were denied by the authorities access to the general labour market, while being compelled to perform certain jobs under the menace of losing their only means of subsistence. In the present case, however, the issue appears to be rather one of general economic constraints.

The Governing Body committee set up to examine a representation concerning a comparable scheme in 1997, indicated:

In a case where an objective situation of economic constraint exists but has not been created by the government, then only if the government exploits such situation by offering an excessively low level of remuneration could it to some extent become answerable for a situation that it did not create. Moreover, it might be held responsible for organizing or exacerbating economic constraints if the number of people hired by the government at excessively low rates of pay and the quantity of work done by such employees had a knock-on effect on the situation of other people, causing them to lose their normal jobs and face identical economic constraints (GB.270/15/3, paragraph 30).

This has not been shown to have happened in the present case.

The Committee therefore concludes that the matters raised by the unions do not bear on the application of the forced labour Conventions by Ireland.

2.  In the absence of the Government’s report, and referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government once again to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards the following points:

(i)  whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii)  whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii)  whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv)  whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v)  the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers’ compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;

(vi)  what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii)  for whose benefit is the product of prisoners’ work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;

(viii)  how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to its earlier comments as regards discharge from the Defence Forces. It has noted, in particular, the Defence Forces Regulations (DFR) A 10, which lay down the conditions and financial cost applying to persons wishing to leave the service.

2. The Committee notes the observations made by the Scheme Workers Alliance (SWA) in communications dated 18 January, 14 May and 31 August 1999, as well as the observations made by the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union in a communication dated 16 August 1999, concerning the application by Ireland of a number of ratified ILO Conventions, including Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. The Committee also notes that these observations were transmitted to the Government in February, May and October 1999, for any comments as might be judged appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government will send its comments on these observations for consideration by the Committee at its next session.

3. Referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers' compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;

(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii) for whose benefit is the product of prisoners' work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;

(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2000.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government states once again in its report that, service in the Defence Forces being entered into voluntarily, the restrictions on discharge from the Forces do not amount to forced labour within the meaning of the Convention.

The Committee wishes to point out that restrictions on a worker's freedom to leave his employment are incompatible with the Convention, and that the fact that the relationship was entered into freely affords no grounds for preventing termination, subject to notice and within a reasonable period. With regard to discharge from the Defence Forces, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report concerning the conditions and financial cost applying to a person wishing to leave the service who was under the age of 18 when he enlisted. The Government states that, under paragraph 61 of the Defence Forces Regulations (DFR), a soldier who has completed less than 12 years' service is entitled, subject to certain conditions, to discharge upon payment of the appropriate sum which ranges from 40 to 5,000.

The Committee notes this information and asks the Government to specify the conditions referred to in paragraph 61 of the Defence Forces Regulations (DFR) A.10. and to provide a copy of these regulations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

1. In earlier comments, the Committee noted in relation to section 53 of the Defence Act, 1954, the Government's indication that persons enlisted in the defence forces at an age lower than 18 years have no option to terminate their service unilaterally on reaching that age. Regulations prescribe minimum periods of enlistment which differ on the basis of the nature of the employment selected: general service, apprentice/technician, army, naval service, etc. The Government indicated that enlisted personnel might purchase their discharge. The Committee requested the Government to indicate at what age and under which pecuniary conditions a person enlisted as a minor may purchase his freedom.

In its latest report the Government indicates that in the view of the Attorney-General, service in the defence forces could not constitute forced or compulsory labour as defined by this Convention because such service would have been entered into voluntarily and the persons concerned would have been aware that they would be bound by military law and discipline.

The Committee takes due note of this view. Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 67 to 72 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee recalls that, even where employment is originally the result of a freely conducted agreement, the worker's right to free choice of employment remains inalienable and the Committee has accordingly considered that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Conventions relating to forced labour. The Committee also has pointed out that the provisions relating to compulsory military service included in the Forced Labour Convention do not apply to career military service and may not be invoked to deprive persons who have voluntarily entered into an engagement of the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals, or with previous notice, subject to the conditions which may normally be required to ensure the continuity of the service.

This is all the more so where the voluntary nature of the engagement is held by the Government against a person who entered such engagement while being a minor, with or without the consent of his parents or guardian.

The Committee again requests the Government to indicate at what age and under what conditions a person enlisted as a minor may leave the service.

2. With reference to its previous comments concerning sections 47(6) and 49(2) of the Defence Act, 1954, concerning the early retirement or resignation of officers, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in future reports any changes that may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. The Committee noted in relation to section 53 of the Defence Act, 1954, the Government's information that persons enlisted in the defence forces at an age lower than 18 years have no option to terminate their service unilaterally on reaching that age. Regulations prescribe minimum periods of enlistment which differ on the basis of the nature of the employment selected: general service, apprentice/technician, army, naval service, etc. The Government indicated that enlisted personnel might purchase their discharge. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate at what age and under which pecuniary conditions a person enlisted as a minor may purchase his freedom.

2. With reference to its previous comments concerning sections 47(6) and 49(2) of the same Act, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in future reports any changes which may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. With reference to its previous comments concerning sections 47(6) and 49(2) of the Defence Act, 1954, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in future reports any changes which may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.

2. In relation to section 53 of the same Act, the Committee notes the Government's information in its report that persons enlisted in the defence forces at an age lower than 18 years have no option to terminate their service unilaterally on reaching that age. Regulations prescribe minimum periods of enlistment which differ on the basis of the nature of the employment selected: general service, apprentice/technician, army, naval service, etc. The Government adds that enlisted personnel may purchase their discharge. The Committee requests the Government to indicate at what age and under which pecuniary conditions a person enlisted as a minor may purchase his freedom.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. In relation to the application of sections 47(6) and 49(2) of the Defence Act, 1954, the Committee noted in its previous comments the information provided by the Government according to which any refusal by the President to permit voluntary retirement of officers (if applied for) or to accept resignations of officers (if tendered) is made in exceptional circumstances only where the retirements or resignations would have a significant adverse effect on the operational capacity of the defence forces, that any such refusal does not in any way preclude the officers concerned from making a fresh application whenever they wish at a future date and that a fresh application has every possibility of being successful where the exceptional circumstances obtaining when the original application was refused no longer apply at the time of the fresh application. The Committee requested the Government to indicate any changes which may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1990 that no such changes had occurred. The Committee requests the Government to continue to indicate any changes in law or in practice in this regard.

2. Referring to section 53 of the Defence Act 1954, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the possibility for a person enlisted as a minor to resign when attaining the age of 18 years.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. In relation to the application of sections 47(6) and 49(2) of the Defence Act, 1954, the Committee noted in its previous comments the information provided by the Government according to which any refusal by the President to permit voluntary retirement of officers (if applied for) or to accept resignations of officers (if tendered) is made in exceptional circumstances only where the retirements or resignations would have a significant adverse effect on the operational capacity of the defence forces, that any such refusal does not in any way preclude the officers concerned from making a fresh application whenever they wish at a future date and that a fresh application has every possibility of being successful where the exceptional circumstances obtaining when the original application was refused no longer apply at the time of the fresh application. The Committee requested the Government to indicate any changes which may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest report that no such changes have occurred. The Committee requests the Government to continue to indicate in its future reports any changes in law or in practice in this regard.

2. Referring to section 53 of the Defence Act 1954, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the possibility for a person enlisted as a minor to resign when attaining the age of 18 years.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government for a third consecutive occasion. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters:

Referring to its previous direct request concerning the application of sections 49(2) and 47(6) of the Defence Act, 1954, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government in its report for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. It noted that any refusal by the President to permit voluntary retirement of officers (if applied for) or to accept resignations of officers (if tendered) is made in exceptional circumstances only where the retirements or resignations would have a significant adverse effect on the operational capacity of the Defence Forces, that any such refusal does not in any way preclude the officers concerned from making a fresh application whenever they wish at a future date and that a fresh application has every possibility of being successful where the exceptional circumstances obtaining when the original application was refused no longer apply at the time of the fresh application. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its future reports any changes which may occur in the provisions concerned or in the manner of their application.