Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)

Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) - Bolivia (Plurinational State of) (Ratification: 1997)



A Government representative expressed the unwavering commitment of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to eradicate the causes of forced and hazardous labour and the labour exploitation of children and young persons, through the development and implementation of policies, plans and programmes at all levels of the State. The Political Constitution of the State and the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code prohibited forced labour and child exploitation, as well as the performance of any work without the consent and fair compensation of children. The General Labour Act and the Code fixed the minimum working age at 14 years. Social reality in much of the world was that children and young persons, because of necessity, entered work before they reached the minimum age. ILO reports indicated that 10 per cent of the world population of children and young persons were engaged in work and that 5.4 per cent carried out hazardous work which entailed a violation of their rights. In Latin America and the Caribbean the rate of child labour was 8.8 per cent and the Plurinational State of Bolivia was not spared from that reality. It was necessary to take action to raise visibility of and combat this situation. It should also be emphasized that the causes were structural and multiple and public policies for its effective and progressive eradication were therefore necessary, taking into account the fact that informality contributed to the extremely vulnerable everyday situations in which each child and young person continued to experience. Since 2006, the Plurinational State of Bolivia had been developing social and economic policies that guaranteed all its inhabitants a decent and better life, with an increase in the gross annual domestic product of more than 5.8 per cent over the last nine years. The national minimum wage had also been raised from US$63 in 2004 to US$237 in 2015, that is, an increase of 400 per cent. The population living below the extreme poverty line had decreased from 45 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2015.

He referred to the following examples of public policies adopted for the benefit of children and young persons: (i) the Juancito Pinto allowance, which provided a monetary incentive for primary school pupils (in 2015 this had been extended to secondary school students) which contributed to reducing the school drop-out rate to 1.5 per cent; (ii) the new Education Act; (iii) the eradication of illiteracy; (iv) free school breakfasts in the public education system, thereby reducing the rates of child malnourishment; (v) the Juana Azurduy allowance for pregnant women, which was a payment that reduced the rates of child and maternal mortality and benefited young workers during pregnancy; (vi) the supply of computers to educational centres and schools and of laptops to secondary school students to improve the quality of education; and (vii) the installation of internet services in the education system and in urban and rural areas. In this context, the Code which had been adopted set the minimum age for work at 14 years. In addition, an exception had been established of 12 years for work carried out by children for another person and 10 years for work carried out by children on their own account with, in both cases, special prior authorization from the parents or guardians and the State authorities, provided that the conditions that protected children’s rights were ensured. Child exploitation and forced and hazardous labour were also prohibited. The Code envisaged a plurinational plan for children and young persons which incorporated the programme for prevention and social protection for working children under 14 years of age, under which support was to be provided to families in extreme poverty, with the commitment to provide work to the parents of underage workers. Furthermore, among other initiatives, mechanisms had been established to further promote education, training and awareness raising among families and society when the cause of work was extreme poverty. The exception to the minimum age was provisional, with a view to overcoming this problem by 2020. With the aim of protecting children, the following measures had been adopted: the right to receive a salary equal to the national minimum wage, the right to short- and long-term social security, the promotion of the right to education, and a 30-hour working week for work carried out for a third party by children aged 12–14 years, with two hours of that schedule dedicated to study. The Plurinational State of Bolivia was not contravening the Convention, but was seeking to broaden protection of child workers under the new Code, which was an exceptional measure that contributed to the application of the public policies aimed at eradicating child labour. The Government would seek international cooperation so that other countries, particularly those in the region, could share best practices for the eradication of child labour. Conscious of the work that needed to be undertaken over the following five years, the Government expressed its commitment and would make good use of the experience of the international community and the ILO. The Government invited the Committee of Experts to adopt a comprehensive approach in its analysis of the situation of child labour in the country, which took into account all the measures and public policies that had been implemented over the past nine years for children and adolescents.

The Employer members emphasized that the Committee of Experts had made observations on seven occasions on the manner in which the Plurinational State of Bolivia was applying the Convention. It was a situation of the utmost gravity and involved three issues. First, the Committee of Experts deplored the fact that the new Children’s and Adolescents’ Code amended section 129 of the previous Code by reducing the minimum age for employment to 10 years in the case of own-account work and 12 years for children working for a third party, which was contrary to Article 7(4) of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had expressed its deep concern at the distinction made between children working on their account and children working for a third party. The 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions stated that equal protection should be given to children in both situations, since many children working on their own account were engaged in the informal economy and under hazardous conditions. Second, even though the Convention contained a flexibility clause in Article 7(1) and (4) enabling children between 12 and 14 years of age to perform light work, provided that it was not harmful to their health and did not prejudice their school attendance or vocational training, the new Code only allowed this possibility from 14 years of age. The Employer members considered that the age for admission to light work should be reduced. Third, the legislation did not contain provisions obliging employers to keep registers, as provided for in Article 9(3) of the Convention. The existence of data on the number of minors in work would enable the Government to perceive the magnitude of the problem of child labour. According to the 2010 ILO Global Report on Child Labour, 23 per cent of children between 5 and 14 years of age were engaged in economic activity and 60 per cent of children in the rural sector were working (14 per cent in hazardous work). It was a widespread phenomenon affecting more than 500,000 children. There was a significant lack of conformity between the legislation and the Convention which needed to be rectified rapidly. However, any amendment of the legislation should be effected in full consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations. There was also a need for the Government to adopt a national plan for the progressive elimination of child labour through social dialogue and to strengthen labour inspection in both the formal and informal sectors. In conclusion, the Employer members emphasized the importance of having recourse to the technical assistance of the Office in that regard. The Worker members emphasized that the present case concerned the minimum age for admission to employment, light work and the keeping of registers. Prior to 23 July 2014, the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code, which set the minimum age for admission to employment at 14 years, had been in conformity with the Convention. The new Code reduced the age allowing children to work on their own account from 10 years of age, and for a third party from 12 years of age. According to the Government, this amendment was aimed at improving the country’s economy and combating poverty. While noting the various measures mentioned by the Government representative, and without questioning the sincerity of the Government’s commitment to reducing poverty, it should be strongly affirmed that the Government had given the wrong signal, both within the country and to neighbouring countries. As children were the most vulnerable persons, legalizing the possibility for them to work would not empower them, but would open the door to all types of abuse. It was also necessary to take into account that the Government had never considered consulting the social partners when there were proposals to amend the law.

The Worker members recalled that in 1997, when it ratified the Convention, the Plurinational State of Bolivia had chosen the option provided for in Article 2 of the Convention to specify a minimum age of 14 years. The Minimum Age Recommendation, 1973 (No. 146), provided that Members should take as their objective the progressive raising to 16 years of the minimum age for admission to employment. While the Worker members could understand the Government’s argument that such measures for the reduction of the minimum age were essential to supplement the income of the poorest families, they did not agree with that view. In this regard, in the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee of Experts emphasized that “Article 2(2) foresees the raising of the minimum age but does not allow the lowering of the minimum age once declared”. In addition, the flexibility clauses contained in Articles 4 (exclusion of limited categories of employment or work) and 5 (application to certain branches of economic activity), which were not used by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, were aimed at promoting the progressive elimination of child labour and improving the progressive implementation of the Convention. The temporary nature of the exceptions to the minimum age of 14, for a period up to 2020, did not make them more acceptable, since these exceptions constituted a violation of the Convention and were in violation of Recommendation No. 146. In relation to light work, a State which had specified 14 years as the minimum age at the time of ratification could reduce it to 12 years with respect to certain types of work provided for in Article 7, but the employment of children under 12 years of age in light work could not be authorized under any circumstances. Noting that, pursuant to the Convention, the specified minimum age must not be less than the age of completion of compulsory schooling, it should be emphasized that depriving children of schooling and training opportunities would result in a lack of skills and perpetuate the impoverishment of society. In this regard, it should be recalled that the Government had raised the age for compulsory schooling, and that children needed to have completed 12 years of schooling, which meant that the age for completion of compulsory schooling was at least 16 years. Allowing children to work as from 10 years of age would inevitably affect their compulsory schooling and, the new legislation was therefore incompatible with the Education Act and in clear violation of the Convention. Furthermore, the Convention covered all economic sectors, as well as all forms of employment or work, including work in family holdings or in the agricultural sector, domestic work and own-account work. However, the new Code established a distinction between children working on their own account and those in an employment relationship, while the two groups of children should be entitled to the same level of protection. In this regard, the Worker members wondered whether the notion of “own-account work” held any meaning with respect to a child of 10 years of age. Even if, due to significant economic difficulties, children were left to themselves and were forced to find their own livelihoods, their situation could not be compared to that of adults who chose to be self-employed instead of being employed. While the new Code correctly qualified work in the agricultural and construction sectors as hazardous, it established an exception for children carrying out that type work in a family or community undertaking, which was in violation of the Convention, which did not allow such a distinction and prescribed a higher minimum age for hazardous work (18 years). With respect to the Government’s argument that labour inspection would better monitor and protect children in the workplace if they were covered by the General Labour Act, the Worker members were of the view that the Government did not realistically have the capacity to monitor the working conditions of an estimated 850,000 children working nationwide, in addition to adult workers, considering that the national inspectorate only had 69 inspectors. Therefore, reducing the minimum age, while maintaining the same number of labour inspectors, would have an adverse effect and increase the exploitation of children. The Worker members indicated that while they understood the Government’s argument, the conclusions on this case would have to be firm concerning the action to be taken and the time frame, since no derogation was possible for fundamental issues such as child labour and minimum age.

The Employer member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, although the labour sector in his country (as in many others) operated under very particular circumstances, in which, for example, underage children were obliged to work in order to help their families, it was obvious to the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) that the Government had entered into a commitment to eliminate all forms of child labour that did not conform to the principles of the ILO. Any amendments made to the provisions of section 58 of the General Labour Act or to section 52 of Regulatory Decree No. 224, which specified that the minimum age for apprenticeship was 14 years, had to comply strictly with Articles 2(4) and (5) and 5 of the Convention, which essentially provided that: (i) the minimum working age of 14 years was non-negotiable; (ii) the Plurinational State of Bolivia’s economy and educational facilities would need to be considered insufficiently developed; and (iii) employers’ and workers’ organizations had to be consulted first (which had regrettably not been the case). There was no child labour in Bolivia’s formal sector represented by the CEPB, because no legally constituted enterprises under the supervision of the authorities recruited minors. On the other hand, the informal economy which, in view of its anonymity, was able to take advantage of the poverty of certain segments of the population and deny them decent jobs, did indeed resort to child labour in order to minimize operating expenses, labour costs and taxation. That being so, keeping registers as a means of identifying child workers, as required under Article 9(3) of the Convention, was especially necessary if the informal sector were to be monitored properly. Consequently, one of the first steps that needed to be taken in tackling the child labour problem responsibly was to develop a set of formalization policies under which the labour legislation could be applied to the informal economy, which currently employed over 70 per cent of the country’s workers. The temporary nature of the lower minimum age for work (that is, 5 years) could not justify the legislation not being in conformity with the Convention. Finally, as the promotion and effective practice of tripartism was a fundamental principle of the ILO, and given the fact that there had been no such tripartism when the Government decided to lower the minimum working age in the new Code, even though the consultation of workers and employers was mandatory under Articles 2(4) and (5) and 5 of the Convention, the CEPB was fully prepared to collaborate with the Government in the planning of ways and means of bringing the country’s legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB), the most representative trade union organization, had not participated in drafting the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code. However, the COB’s list of claims addressed the issue of amending the General Labour Act, including setting the minimum age for admission to work at 14 years. Although the Government had acted in good faith, the workers refused to take a step backwards in labour protection and deplored the fact that any flexibility should be sought in the application of international Conventions. Priority should be given to reforming the law in order to resolve the issue. The Government had taken several steps to improve the situation of workers. More should be done to that end, but with the agreement of workers and employers. He requested technical assistance from the Office, particularly in order to strengthen labour inspection, as many enterprises did not respect workers’ rights.

The Government member of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), made special mention of the “Regional Initiative for Latin America and the Caribbean Free of Child Labour”, which had been established with the support of governments, employers and workers of the region, with a view to stepping up the pace of the reduction of child labour and achieving the goal of its elimination by 2020. GRULAC considered that the persistence of child labour perpetuated inequality and the exclusion of large sections of the population, jeopardized sustained growth in the region and threatened the productivity of the adults of the future by limiting opportunities for access to decent work. GRULAC noted that the actions taken by the Government were set out in its Constitution, which established the duty of the State, society and the family to safeguard the best interests of children and young persons. She also emphasized the information provided by the Government indicating that the Code had been drawn up on the basis of dialogue with civil society and the active participation of the latter, including associations supporting children and young persons. GRULAC observed that the Government’s initiative was temporary and geared to the elimination of the causes of work by children and young persons. It should result in better living conditions for them, as well as eliminating the need for such work. She emphasized the progress achieved by the Government in reducing poverty and, consequently, in tackling the structural causes of child labour. She trusted that the Government would continue implementing policies for the progressive reduction of child labour, with a view to its effective elimination, in accordance with the objectives of the Convention.

The Worker member of Uruguay said that the Uruguayan trade union movement had followed with much interest the social and political progress achieved in the country. The Uruguayan trade union movement was aware of the recent progress made, as indicated in the Government’s detailed account, and was not indifferent to the general political developments taking place throughout the Americas to promote international labour standards through negotiation and social dialogue. However, as the trade union movement was independent, it was free to express its disagreement with the Government’s position. Firstly, he deplored the fact that the social partners had not been invited to participate in the drafting process of the new Children’s and Adolescents’ Code. Secondly, the distinction introduced by the new Code between children working on their own account and those in employment relationships constituted a clear and unfounded discrimination as there was no obvious reason to distinguish between these two groups of children. He criticized the attempt by the Government to address these societal and poverty issues by reducing the minimum age for admission to work, and firmly believed that the solution to these problems could not be found in permitting 10-year-old children to work. Indeed, even by taking cultural and social aspects into consideration, nothing could justify such a measure which, in addition, was in clear violation of the fundamental principle of Convention No. 138. Finally, he welcomed the commitment of the Employer members’ not to employ minors, as those who employed them would be guilty of child labour.

The Government member of Canada noted with concern the new Children’s and Adolescent’s Code adopted on 17 July 2014, which reduced the minimum age to 10 years for own-account work and 12 years for an employment relationship. He considered that it was not in line with either the letter or the spirit of the Convention, whose goal was to eliminate child labour and to progressively raise the minimum age. While the national legislation provided for a compulsory schooling of up to 12 years, the new Code would hinder the ability of children to attend school. He recalled that the Convention permitted light work for persons between 13 and 15 years of age only where such work did not threaten children’s health and safety, or hinder their education or vocational training. He expressed the view that hazardous workplace conditions in the country would not meet the definition of the term “light work” as provided for in the Convention. He supported the observation of the Committee of Experts, which urged the Government to take immediate measures to ensure the amendment of section 129 of the new Code, so that the minimum age was at least 14 years, in conformity with the age specified by the Government at the time of ratification and with the requirements of the Convention in this regard.

The Government member of Nicaragua commended the steps taken by the Government to eliminate child labour. Inequality, poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth made it difficult to eradicate what was a structural problem. The measures taken by the Government had been highlighted during the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in terms of the social and economic progress made. Work was currently under way to adopt a national five-year plan to prevent and progressively eradicate the worst forms of child labour and to protect young workers. The measures taken should be considered as a whole, since structural problems could not be eliminated in isolation. In the case of child labour, the viewpoints of children, families, communities and the nation should be kept in mind. Consideration should be given not only to the commitments made by the Government, but also to the action it took.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of GRULAC, took note of the commitment of the Government to eliminate child labour. The national legislation on the issue had been drafted with the active participation and in dialogue with civil society. His Government had no doubt that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia would pursue its child and adolescent protection policies with a view to eradicating the causes of child labour, and he hoped that the Conference Committee would not overlook the positive aspects of the explanations and arguments put forward by the Government. He trusted that the conclusions reached would be objective and balanced.

The Worker member of Ghana said that child labour was a threat to the progress of any country which faced challenges, as well as to the growth of a well-trained and capable future global workforce. The phenomenon of child labour was deplorable and should be condemned everywhere. Child labour was often justified by the immediate need to relieve poverty and not the long-term development and best interests of the child. While recognizing that the challenge with child labour in various sectors in Ghana was a function of poverty, he provided information concerning the projects and measures adopted to confront the situation, including through tripartism and working closely with the ILO, with a particular focus on the fishing and cocoa sectors and education initiatives. To permit and certify 10-year-olds, as had been done by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, was a retrograde step, and he urged the Government to revert to the age of 14 as the minimum age for work, in keeping with the ratification of the Convention.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed concern regarding the recent changes in Bolivian law to legalize child labour from the age of ten years. Act No. 548 of 17 July 2014 was incompatible with the Convention, as Switzerland had already pointed out during the 20th Session of the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review. Lowering the legal minimum age for work sent the wrong message to families and children, as the employment of children under the age of 14 was not consistent with the requirements of a proper education that would enable children to break the cycle of poverty and gain access to decent work as adults. He therefore requested the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to bring its legislation into line with the Convention and to take measures to promote the rights of the child.

The Government member of Egypt said that there was no doubt that the Bolivian Government had the political will to stop the exploitation of children, as demonstrated by the Government’s ratification of the Convention and the legislation adopted in 2014 preventing children’s exploitation in work. The international community was responsible for protecting children in the world of work, and the Bolivian Government should have the opportunity to continue its efforts in that respect.

The Government member of Cuba expressed support for the statement made by GRULAC. She emphasized that the information provided by the Bolivian Government demonstrated its firm political will to make progress in eradicating child labour and to fulfil the commitments arising from the application of the Convention, as endorsed by the Bolivian Constitution, which guaranteed the best interests of children and young people. This political will was also reflected in the projects that the Bolivian Government had developed to eradicate child labour, as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts. They included the Triple Seal programme of incentives for cooperation, which required enterprises to demonstrate that they did not use any form of child labour in order to be eligible for certain benefits; the Action Plan 2013–17 in conjunction with UNICEF; and the introduction of awareness-raising measures and training. She recommended that account should be taken of the progress made by the Bolivian Government in eradicating poverty and fighting for social inclusion, as well as social programmes that had a bearing on eradicating child labour.

The Government member of Pakistan thanked the Government for its commitment to promoting international labour standards and recognized that the Bolivian Government was striving to expand its range of protection of the rights of children and young persons and was making efforts to reduce structural elements that contributed to extreme poverty. The legislative Code under discussion aimed to prohibit dangerous work or work activities that prejudiced the health or morals of children and prohibited those which jeopardized their educational prospects. It strove to protect children who had otherwise been outside legislative protection. While he noted with satisfaction that public education and health facilities had improved in recent years, he urged the country to take into account the valuable input of the social partners at the national and international levels to improve the law and its implementation and he welcomed the Government’s readiness in that regard.

The Government representative said that the problem would not be so complex if the current capitalist global economic system did not place such overriding importance on profits which gave rise to and facilitated this type of exploitation of boys and girls. Child labour was a social reality and laws would not make the situation worse. On the contrary, the law reflected this reality. He recalled that the Plurinational State of Bolivia had taken the practical steps already mentioned to eradicate child labour. Those measures had produced positive results, such as a reduction in malnutrition and the end of illiteracy, as also confirmed by international indicators. Moreover, the recent legislation had only reduced the working age for light work and work under state control. The subject of child labour had been controversial since the dark days of neoliberalism, when his people had been cruelly exploited. But since 2006, with the Constituent Assembly and the new Political Constitution, the debate had begun on child labour. The President, Evo Morales had indicated that it was necessary to govern for the people, and particularly listening to the sacred voice of boys and girls in defence of their rights. He also recalled that delegations of the workers concerned had called for the recognition and protection of their rights at work and, referring to the statement of GRULAC, he highlighted the political will of the Bolivian State to safeguard the rights of children and end child exploitation and child labour. That was the undertaking. President Evo Morales had given instructions to improve the situation of children and to resolve their problems of health, nutrition and education. The legislative amendments adopted were therefore simply an exception and were intended to protect these working children, who were also heads of household, with the ultimate aim of eradicating child labour.

The Worker members observed that a law that authorized child labour could not be justified as a means of combating the problem. Certain measures referred to by the Government representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia were positive, but would be more effective if the law on child labour was restored. Authorizing exceptions, even temporary ones, to the principles contained in Convention No. 138 could be interpreted as legitimation by the International Labour Conference of an opt-out system, which would send the wrong signal to countries in situations of poverty or whose economies were in transition. This backward step would call into question the credibility of international action against child labour. The new Children’s and Adolescents’ Code was not in conformity with Convention No. 138, as it permitted work by children below the minimum age specified by the Convention. That was a step in the wrong direction. More investment was needed in the areas of public education and social protection. The Government should: (1) withdraw the contentious legislation and, after consultation with the social partners, prepare a new law that was in conformity with the provisions of the Convention; and (2) strengthen human and technical inspection resources and training for labour inspectors in order to take specific action in law and practice. It could show its willingness by accepting ILO technical assistance, which could begin by preparing, in conjunction with the social partners, a time frame for actions to bring the law into conformity with the Convention. It should also inform the Committee of Experts at its next session of the specific steps taken.

The Employer members emphasized that, even if the Bolivian Act was temporary, it was in violation of the Convention, which was one of the fundamental Conventions of the ILO. With regard to dialogue with civil society, they emphasized that the Convention required consultation with the most representative organizations of workers and employers, and those organizations had not been consulted when the new Act was passed. Various points should therefore be reflected in the conclusions. First, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia should be urged to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and to hold prior effective consultations with the most representative organizations of employers and workers so that steps to eradicate child labour were the fruit of tripartite dialogue. They also emphasized the importance of developing a national plan, in consultation with the social partners, that took into account primary and secondary education, which were the only ways out of poverty. It was also necessary to strengthen labour inspection which, in order to be effective, needed not only human resources but also a strategy to extend coverage to the informal sector. The Government should also be urged to accept ILO technical assistance for the eradication of child labour.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and the discussion that followed relating to the 2014 amendments to the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code which lowered the minimum working age from 14 to 10 years for self-employed workers and to 12 years for those children in an employment relationship, although the Government had specified a minimum age of 14 years for admission to employment or work upon ratification of Convention No. 138. These amendments also allowed all children under the age of 14 to undertake light work without setting a lower minimum age for such work. The discussions had also highlighted that these amendments would legally authorize children between 10 and 14 years to work, in addition to the approximately 800,000 children between 5 and 17 years of age who were in a child labour situation according to the last Child Labour Survey of 2008 which had been carried out by the National Institute of Statistics (INA) with ILO support.

The Committee also noted the detailed information provided by the Government outlining the economic and social policies put in place since 2006 which had produced positive results, such as a reduction in malnutrition and the end of illiteracy. The Government had also referred to a host of public policies adopted for the benefit of children and adolescents. In this context, the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code set a minimum working age of 14 years, but established an exception of 12 years for work carried out by children in an employment relationship, and of 10 years for work carried out by self-employed children. The exception to the minimum age was provisional, with a view to overcoming the problem of providing support to families in extreme poverty by 2020. The Government had stated that it did not contravene the Convention, but sought rather to broaden the protection of child workers under the new Code. Finally, the Committee noted the Government’s had statement that it would seek international cooperation so that other countries, particularly those in the region, could share best practices for the eradication of child labour.

Taking into account the discussion that took place, the Committee urged the Government to:

• repeal the provisions of the legislation setting the minimum age for admission to employment or work and light work, in particular sections 129, 132 and 133 of the Children’s and Adolescents’ Code of 17 July 2014;
• immediately prepare a new law, in consultation with the social partners, increasing the minimum age for admission to employment or work in conformity with Convention No. 138;
• provide the labour inspectorate with more human and technical resources, as well as training, with a view to a more efficient and concrete approach in relation to implementing Convention No. 138 in law and practice;
• avail itself of ILO technical assistance to bring the legislation into compliance with the Convention; and
• report in detail to the Committee of Experts for its upcoming session.

The Government representative expressed disagreement with the conclusions and reserved the right to analyse them and send his observations at a later stage.