Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1957)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee notes the adoption of the new Public Order Act of 2023, which introduces additional public order offences and amends certain provisions of the Public Order Act of 1998. In particular, the Committee notes the following offences, the violation of which is punishable by imprisonment, involving compulsory labour under Rule 31(1) of the Prison Rules 1999, which provides that a convicted prisoner shall be required to perform useful work:

• Section 1 (locking on) under which persons who attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land; attach a person to another person, to an object or to land; attach an object to another object or to land, and that act causes or is capable of causing serious disruption, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences.
• Section 7: (Interfering with use or operation of key national infrastructure) under which any person who does an act which interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure and intends that act to interfere with the use or operation of such infrastructure shall be liable to imprisonment or to a fine or to both.

The Committee notes that both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in their concluding observations of 2024 expressed concern about recent legislation, including the Public Order Act 2023, that imposes serious and undue restriction on the right of peaceful assembly, criminalizing various forms of protest, and also about the allegations of excessive use of the Act to restrict civic space. (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/8 and CERD/C/GBR/CO/24-26).

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 1 and 7 of the Public Order Act of 2023, in particular regarding situations in which no violence has been used, including information on court decisions and specific penalties imposed in such cases, with a description of the facts leading to the convictions.

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

Article 1, subparagraph c, of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. 1. The Committee notes the information on the application in practice of section 82(a) and other related provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act, 2003 (RATSA 2003), communicated by the Government with its report.

2. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, under which sanctions of imprisonment are applicable for certain offences by seafarers employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it has still not been possible to make progress towards repeal or amendment of that section, as a suitable legislative opportunity has not occurred. It has also noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that the failure to amend or repeal section 118 does not have any adverse effect on seafarers as the provision remains dormant and of no legal effect as an Appointed Day Order would be required to bring it into force. The Committee hopes that, on the occasion of the future revision of the legislation, section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 will be repealed or amended, so as to ensure compliance with the Convention, and that the Government will continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the progress made in this regard.

3. As regards section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, to which the Committee referred in its earlier comments, the Government states again that there have been no prosecutions under this section in recent times, and the likelihood of such a prosecution arising is considered to be small. The Government also reiterates its view expressed previously that the above section does not conflict with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that it has still not been possible to carry out the proposed consultations with the shipping industry on whether or not this section should be amended, but such consultations will nevertheless be undertaken when a suitable opportunity arises. The Government states that, following consultations, it will be in a position to assess the attitude of all sides of industry to the proposal to make changes to section 59 and will be able to come to a final decision on whether or not to proceed with such changes. The Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of the developments in this field.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 117 and 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, under which sanctions of imprisonment are applicable for certain offences (such as drunkenness on duty, possession of unauthorized liquor) by seafarers employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel. The Committee pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline are incompatible with the Convention, and only sanctions specifically relating to acts tending to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons would not be covered by the Convention.

The Committee has noted the adoption of the Railways and Transport Safety Act, 2003 (RATSA 2003). It has noted with interest that section 87 of the Act repeals section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, referred to above. The Committee has also noted the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that RATSA 2003 does not repeal section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, but the powers contained in section 118 cannot be utilized unless an Appointed Day Order is made to bring it into force, and therefore prosecutions under this section are not currently possible. The Government also expresses its intention to give further consideration to the revocation or amendment of section 118, as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. The Committee reiterates its hope that section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, will be repealed or amended, so as to bring the merchant shipping legislation into compliance with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee has noted, however, that section 82(a) of RATSA 2003 provides for similar sanctions as the repealed section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, for similar offences connected with alcohol and drugs, as defined in sections 78 and 81 of RATSA 2003.

The Committee recalls in this connection that, in its previous direct request, it noted the Government’s clarifications relating to prosecution of seafarers under the repealed section 117, in which the Government indicated that, where the actions of a seafarer impaired by alcohol or drugs are considered to have serious actual or potential circumstances (e.g. where danger to the vessel or risk to the health and safety of persons is or could have been caused), prosecution in a higher court may be considered appropriate either at the outset, or as a result of a referral from a magistrate’s court; conviction by such a court (conviction on indictment) can attract a penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine, the level of penalty to be applied depends upon the seriousness of the offence and is at the discretion of the judge.

Having taken due note of these clarifications, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 82(a) of RATSA 2003 in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, which provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time when the ship is at sea to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (which involves compulsory prison labour) or a fine or both. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that section 59 is applicable to seafarers who withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that it has not been possible to carry out the proposed consultations with the shipping industry on whether or not section 59 should be amended, as a result of the need to progress legislative measures of a higher priority. The Government also states that, in deciding the priority to be afforded to the proposed changes to this section, the Government has had regard to its view expressed previously, that the above section does not conflict with the Convention.

The Committee recalls in this connection, referring also to the explanations given in paragraphs 179–181 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline are incompatible with the Convention, and only sanctions specifically relating to acts tending to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons would not be covered by the Convention.

The Committee has noted the Government’s intention expressed in the report to carry out consultations to assess the attitude of all sides of industry to the proposal to make changes to section 59, as well as the Government’s repeated indication that, in order to incorporate the proposed changes to this section, it will be necessary to proceed with an Order under the Regulatory Reform Act, 2001, which is an extremely time-consuming process and is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee expresses the firm hope that section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, will be amended, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered, so as to bring the merchant shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Noting also the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that there have been no prosecutions under section 59 in recent times, the Committee hopes that the Government will supply copies of the relevant court decisions, if and when such prosecutions are instituted.

The Committee is again addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 117 and 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, under which sanctions of imprisonment are applicable for certain offences (such as drunkenness on duty, possession of unauthorized liquor) by seafarers employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel. The Committee pointed out, referring also to the explanations given in paragraphs 117-119 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline are incompatible with the Convention, and only sanctions specifically relating to acts tending to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons would not be covered by the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s clarifications in the report relating to prosecution of seafarers under section 117. The Government states that, where the actions of a seafarer impaired by alcohol or drugs are considered to have serious actual or potential circumstances (e.g. where danger to the vessel or risk to the health and safety of persons is or could have been caused), prosecution in a higher court may be considered appropriate either at the outset, or as a result of a referral from a magistrate’s court. Conviction by such a court (conviction on indictment) can attract a penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine, the level of penalty to be applied depends upon the seriousness of the offence and is at the discretion of the judge.

The Committee takes due note of these clarifications and requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

The Committee also notes with interest the Government’s indication in the report that Part 4 of the Railways and Transport Bill, if passed by Parliament, will repeal sections 117 and 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, and replace them with a new statutory regime. The Committee hopes that the proposed Bill will soon be adopted and the merchant shipping legislation will be brought into compliance with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, which provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time when the ship is at sea to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its 1997 report that section 59 is applicable to seafarers who withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute. It also noted the Government’s indication in its 1999 report that consultations took place with the shipping industry on whether or not section 59 should be repealed or amended so that it applied only to mutinies but not strikes, and it was concluded that other parts of the Act and other legislation existed to deal effectively with actions arising from mutinies, if section 59 was repealed.

The Committee notes the Government’s explanations in the report concerning the procedure applicable in case of prosecution under section 59. The Government states that, where the actions of a seafarer are considered to have had serious actual or potential circumstances (e.g. where danger to the vessel or risk to the health and safety of persons is or could have been caused), prosecution in a higher court may be considered appropriate either at the outset, or as a result of a referral from a magistrate’s court. Conviction by such a court (conviction on indictment) can attract a penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine; the level of penalty to be applied depends upon the seriousness of the offence and is at the discretion of the judge.

The Committee takes due note of this information, as well as of the Government’s indication that there have been no prosecutions under this section in recent times. However, it would appreciate if the Government would supply copies of the relevant court decisions, if and when such prosecutions are instituted.

As regards the proposed amendment to section 59, referred to by the Government in its 2001 report, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in order to incorporate the proposed changes to this section, it will be necessary to proceed with an order under the Regulatory Reform Act, 2001, which is an extremely time-consuming process, which is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and will require widespread and detailed consultation with industry and other interested parties.

Having noted the above information, the Committee reiterates its hope that the proposed amendment will be adopted so as to bring the merchant shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is again addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that sanctions of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years are provided for in sections 117 and 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, for certain offences (drunkenness on duty, possession of unauthorized liquor) by seafarers employed or engaged on a United Kingdom fishing vessel. The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that section 118 ("possession of unauthorized liquor") had never been brought into effect and would require an order to be made by the Government before it could come into effect. As regards section 117 ("drunkenness on duty"), the Government reiterates its view that any member of the crew who is so affected by drink or drugs that he is unable to perform his duties effectively endangers the ship or the life or health of the persons on board. The Government states that actions of a person incapacitated by drink or drugs could of themselves be a danger to the vessel and those on board, including the person concerned.

While noting these indications, the Committee considers that the danger to the ship or the life or health of persons depends on the actual duties of the crew member unable to perform them. It refers once again to the explanations given in paragraphs 117-119, of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline are incompatible with the Convention, and only sanctions specifically relating to acts tending to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons would not be covered by the Convention. The offences punishable under section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, do not necessarily jeopardize the safety of the vessel, so that punishment is compatible with the Convention only where it is a fine or some other sanction not involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that it is currently considering the introduction of a safety bill, which may, inter alia, amend the current requirements relating to alcohol and drugs on ships, including those contained in section 117. The Committee hopes that the proposed amendments will bring sections 117 and 118 of the Act into compliance with the Convention, and that the Government will be in a position to provide in its next report information on progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its earlier comments. It also notes the comments made by the TUC concerning the Government’s report on the application of the Convention, received in November 2001.

Article 1 (c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time while the ship is at sea to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. According to section 59(2), a ship is treated as being at sea at any time when it is not securely moored in a safe berth. The Government stated in its 1997 report that section 59 is applicable to seafarers who withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute.

The Committee noted from the Government’s 1999 report that consultations took place with the shipping industry on whether or not section 59 should be repealed or amended so that it applied only to mutinies but not strikes, and it was concluded that other parts of the Act and other legislation existed to deal effectively with actions arising from mutinies, if section 59 was repealed.

The Government indicates in its latest report that, following consultation with the UK shipping industry, further negotiations were undertaken with some respondents to ascertain whether a compromise solution could be reached that would address concerns expressed. The Committee notes with interest that, as a result of these consultations, the decision was taken to seek to amend section 59, so that it is linked to actions which are not only committed while a ship is at sea, but also cause or could have caused loss or destruction of, or serious damage to, any ship or the death of or serious injury to any person (subsection (2)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the draft amendment to section 59). The Committee notes that the Government considers it necessary to undertake further consultation with the shipping industry. Noting also the Government’s statement in the report that the amendment of section 59, as a part of UK primary legislation, requires the approval of Parliament, the Committee hopes that the proposed amendment will be adopted so as to bring the merchant shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is again addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that sanctions of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years are provided for in sections 117 and 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, for certain offences (drunkenness on duty, possession of unauthorized liquor) by seafarers employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that section 118 ("unauthorized liquor") has never been brought into effect and would require an Order to be made by the Government before it could come into effect; this provision cannot therefore be used. As regards section 117 ("drunkenness on duty"), the Government takes the view that any member of the crew who is so affected by drink or drugs that he is unable to perform his duties effectively endangers the ship or the life or health of the persons on board.

While noting these indications, the Committee observes that offences punishable under section 117 may not jeopardize the safety of the vessel in certain cases (e.g. when the ship is not at sea, but securely moored in a safe berth). Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee points out once again that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline are incompatible with the Convention, and only sanctions relating to acts tending to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the abovementioned provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, will be re-examined with a view to ensuring the observance of the Convention, e.g. by restricting their application to cases in which the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons is in danger. It requests the Government to provide in its next report information on any measures taken or envisaged to this end.

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

The Committee notes the Government's reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. The Committee previously noted that section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time while the ship is at sea to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. According to section 59(2), a ship is treated as being at sea at any time when it is not securely moored in a safe berth. The Government stated in its report received in October 1997 that section 59 is applicable to seafarers who withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute.

The Committee notes the Government's indications in its latest report concerning consultations which took place with the shipping industry on whether or not section 59 should be repealed or amended so that it applied only to mutinies but not strikes. It notes with interest that it was concluded that other parts of the Act and other legislation existed to deal effectively with actions arising from mutinies, if section 59 was repealed. Noting the Government's indication that further negotiations are ongoing with a view to commencing the repeal process as soon as possible, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

The Committee is addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government further to its previous observation and direct request.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 59(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time while the ship is at sea to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. According to section 59(2), a ship is treated as being at sea at any time when it is not securely moored in a safe berth. The Government indicates in its report received in October 1997 that section 59 is applicable to seafarers who withdraw their labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute. It also states that it proposes to consult the shipping and fishing industry, as a matter of priority, on whether or not section 59 should be repealed or amended so that it only applies to mutinies and not strikes. The Committee notes that sanctions of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years are also provided for in sections 117 and 118 of the Act for certain offences (drunkenness on duty, possession of unauthorized liquor) by seafarers employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel.

The Committee wishes to point out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes are not compatible with the Convention. Only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that appropriate measures will be taken by the Government in order to amend or repeal the above-mentioned sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, in order to ensure full compliance with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide in its next report information on any progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted the Government's reports and the appended text of Merchant Shipping Notice No. M.1498 which contains copies of standard crew agreements.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the sanctions that may be applied to a seaman who puts himself in breach of his contract by withdrawing his labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute while his vessel is elsewhere than in or approaching a port in the United Kingdom or the Limited European Trading Area.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1994, has brought into force the provision of the 1988 Act repealing section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, which provided for the forcible return of deserting seamen on board ship under reciprocal arrangements with other countries.

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

1. In its previous comments the Committee noted that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Commencement No. 1), Order 1988 brought into force on 4 July 1988 many provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but excluded from coming into force of Schedule 5, the provision concerning the omission of section 89 from the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. Section 89 provides for the forcible return of seamen to ships registered in other countries.

The Government has previously indicated that section 89 could not be repealed while reciprocal arrangements, allowing for the forcible return of seafarers deserting their ships, remained in force with Portugal, Italy and Nicaragua.

The Committee notes the Government's information in its report for the period ending June 1991 that negotiations with Portugal were concluded with the termination of article 19 of the United Kingdom/Portugal Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, 1914, of which the aforementioned reciprocal agreement formed part. The Government further indicates that in Italy the internal procedures to modify the United Kingdom/Italian Consular Convention of June 1954, which included provision for the reciprocal agreement, were completed and that the modification was to enter into force on 29 July 1991. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the provisions having modified the agreements with Portugal and Italy, respectively.

As concerns Nicaragua the Committee notes that at the time of the report negotiations remained suspended. The Committee hopes that negotiations have since been resumed and that the Government will report on progress made.

2. The Committee notes that section 42(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, was repealed by the Merchant Shipping Act (Commencement No. 1), Order 1988. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that this repeal ends any differentiation in criminal law between seafarers taking industrial action in a United Kingdom port or overseas and places them on the same footing as workers in shore-based industries.

3. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that if a seafarer wishes to withdraw his labour in furtherance of an industrial dispute and his vessel is in or approaching a port in the United Kingdom or the Limited European Trading Area he may do so (without committing an offence under the Merchant Shipping Act) by giving the notice required by the appropriate clause in the crew agreement. If the vessel is elsewhere in the world, it will not normally be possible for the seafarer to terminate his agreement unilaterally without putting himself in breach of his contract of employment. The Committee would appreciate that the Government provide copies of standard forms of crew agreements.

4. The Committee notes the Government's information that if a seafarer's employment is terminated for any reason outside the country in which he was recruited, the employer is under an absolute obligation to secure the seafarer's repatriation to the appropriate place of return. This applies even if the employment is terminated because of a breach of contract on the part of the seafarer, but in such cases the employer may recover the repatriation costs (and also the cost of sending out a replacement) from any wages then owed to the seafarer, subject to a limit of L200.

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

1. Referring to its earlier comments on section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which provides for the forcible return of seamen to ships registered in other countries, the Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that the United Kingdom provided for the repeal of this section of the Act in May 1988 by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988. The Committee observes, however, that while the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988 (Commencement) (No. 1), Order, 1988 brought into force on 4 July 1988 many provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988, the Order specifically excludes from the coming into force of Schedule 5, the provision concerning the omission of section 89 from the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report that the repeal of section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970 has come into force.

2. As regards progress made by the Government in its negotiations with other governments with a view to ending reciprocal arrangements for the forcible return of seamen on board ship the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that agreement for the ending of arrangements was reached with Italy but had not yet come into effect; negotiations continued with Portugal, but remained suspended with Nicaragua at the time of the report. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report the termination of all arrangements under section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970.

3. The Committee notes that under section 42(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, a seaman may not terminate his employment in a ship registered in the United Kingdom by leaving the ship in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, even after giving the required 48 hours' notice of his intention to do so, unless, at the time notice is given, the ship is in the United Kingdom. The Committee asks that the Government provide information on the implications of this provision. In particular, the Government is asked to indicate how seamen on ships registered in the United Kingdom may terminate their employment while their ship is not in the United Kingdom, and what remedies are available to the master or shipowner if a seaman attempts to terminate his employment by leaving the ship in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute while the ship is not in the United Kingdom.