Case of serious failure (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

Cambodia

(c) Failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts

The Employer members noted that, at this stage of the discussion, the Committee was addressing the issue of the substantive examination of reports which were unfortunately incomplete or unclear, or did not provide a response to the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts. They recalled that incomplete replies were a serious obstacle to the work of the supervisory bodies including this Committee. They therefore addressed a request to the governments concerned to take a careful look at the comments made by the Committee of Experts and to provide clear and precise replies. They also expressed the wish to hear from the governments concerned about the problems that they faced in this respect so that these problems could be overcome in the future.

The Worker members noted that incomplete or obscure reports, or late delivery of these reports, hindered the work of the Conference Committee and that of the Committee of Experts. In 325 cases (involving 37 countries), governments had not reacted at all to the comments of the Committee of Experts, which was unacceptable in the eyes of the Worker members.

A Government representative of Cambodia informed the Committee that by virtue of ILO's technical assistance, Cambodia succeeded in late 2003 to overcome a lack of human resources and build up the capacity of local staff to make reports. As a result, four reports had been prepared and already sent to the ILO. Although staff had been provided with the necessary skills in making reports through the ILO technical assistance, it was impossible to send all reports on time due to the backlog which went back a few years. He finally assured the Committee that all reports would be prepared by late 2004.

A Government representative of Cameroon observed that his Government had so far regularly supplied reports. Unfortunately, problems in the labour administration had not allowed for the timely fulfilment of this obligation. The Government committed itself to rectifying rapidly the consequences of this situation.

A Government representative of the Central African Republic emphasized that his country had been through recurring political and military crises, which had disrupted the functioning of its institutions. The labour administration had not been spared. The speaker assured the Committee that he had brought the report himself last November during his participation in a seminar on work in the chemical industry. Nevertheless, he would ensure that in the future his country would not fail to fulfil this obligation. The speaker requested that an expert from the Office be placed at the disposal of the Central African Republic in order to train the national staff on how to prepare reports on the application of ratified Conventions.

A Government representative of Chad noted the comments made by the Committee of Experts in its last report. The speaker explained the recent difficulties that had prevented his Government from fulfilling a part of its constitutional obligation to send reports. The Government undertook to communicate full information in writing to the Office in relation to its difficulties.

A Government representative of Denmark regretted that Greenland had not met the deadline this year for responding to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. She assured the Conference Committee that Denmark had made every effort to ensure that Greenland would fully meet its reporting obligations in due time, including through training of the person in charge of reporting to the ILO. However, due to a recent reorganization of the Ministry of Social Affairs in Greenland, the responsible desk officer had been transferred to other duties. As Greenland had a population of less than 60,000 inhabitants, it maintained a very small administration which was vulnerable to changes as regards its ability to undertake the burden of the reporting process. Moreover, the Government of Denmark could not instruct the home rule authorities in Greenland, or fulfil the reporting obligations on their behalf, as the home rule authorities had full autonomy in the area of social policy. She finally assured the Committee that Greenland was fully aware of its reporting responsibilities and that the home rule authorities were actively examining the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and endeavoured to respond as soon as possible.

A Government representative of the United Arab Emirates took note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1). The Government's response on this issue was delayed for several objective reasons including the fact that technical discussions were necessary in order to clarify the issues raised and consultations needed to take place with specialized authorities on those matters. He assured the Committee that the Government had already initiated the implementation of the Convention and would send the necessary information to the Office as soon as possible. This was also the case for the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). As for the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the response had been sent to the Office in January 2004.

A Government representative of Eritrea stated that the observations of the Committee of Experts were contributing to the harmonization of national laws with international labour standards and that every effort was being made to respond to them. He assured the Committee that the outstanding reports would be forwarded soon.

A Government representative of France indicated that the information required by the Committee had been supplied at the beginning of the week. He pointed out that New Caledonia, in this respect, was autonomous. The French Government had requested New Caledonia several times to present the information required to the Committee. The speaker added that this reply also applied to the situation with regard to the information already provided in respect of the French Southern and Antarctic Territories.

A Government representative of Israel informed the Committee that the report on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), had already been sent to the ILO, while those on the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the Social Policy (Basic Aims and Standards) Convention, 1962 (No. 117), were under preparation. With regard to Convention No. 100, the speaker stated that the required statistical data was currently being prepared. The delays were due to changes in the Government and other technical obstacles. All efforts were made to supply the outstanding replies before the next session of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that his country accorded great importance to the comments of the Committee of Experts. However, due to a lack of human resources the Government had not been able to reply to all comments. The Government set up a special tripartite committee to deal with the issue of reporting to the ILO and established a training programme to improve reporting. It was hoped that the Government would be able to submit the outstanding reports by the end of the year.

A Government representative of Malawi stated that the reports in question had not been submitted due to a lack of capacity to produce them. The ILO had provided assistance to train the labour officer in charge of reporting, who unfortunately left the position subsequently. Report forms had been requested but were not received in time. The speaker gave assurances that the matter would be dealt with upon return of his delegation to the country.

A Government representative of Mali explained that her Government had not been able to meet its constitutional obligations because of lack of budget funds and changes in the administration. The Government nevertheless undertook to do everything possible to continue to meet its obligations in future.

A Government representative of Paraguay regretted the delays in submission of reports and declared that the new authorities had completed the work to send the required information and were making every effort to complete the appendices in order to forward them to the Committee as soon as possible.

A Government representative of the United Kingdom responded to the comments concerning Montserrat, apologizing that the territory had not met the timetable for responding to the Committee of Experts. While the United Kingdom went to great lengths to try to ensure that all non-metropolitan territories met their reporting obligations, the situation in Montserrat was exceptional. Difficulties following volcanic eruptions had a severe impact on the country, leading to a stretch of resources. Montserrat would respond to the issues raised as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Serbia and Montenegro stated that his country had not been able to respond to the comments of the Committee of Experts because of numerous internal problems, mainly of an administrative nature. He said that, following the recent adoption of a constitutional charter, Serbia and Montenegro were henceforth fully competent in this area. A full internal reorganization process was in hand but everything would be done to ensure that the required information was supplied to the Committee as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Swaziland reaffirmed his country's commitment to the ILO's principles and objectives. With regard to paragraph 62 of the General Report, the speaker stated that the problems were of administrative nature and undertook to send a report to the ILO within 30 days. Technical assistance might be requested from the ILO in this regard.

The Employer members noted that the list of countries that had not provided substantive reports in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts was again very long. As a consequence, there was no meaningful dialogue between these countries and the Committee. Although lack of resources was an understandable reason for an absence of replies, the Employer members insisted that member States had to comply with this obligation. With regard to the reports submitted during the Conference, they doubted whether these reports contained the information requested by the Committee of Experts. While these countries would not be mentioned in the report of the Conference Committee this time, they probably would again appear on the list next year.

The Worker members regretted having to listen to practically the same explanations as in the past as to why governments had not replied to comments from the Committee of Experts. A majority of governments had not provided explanations on this point. The Worker members noted that among the defaulting countries, some certainly had or should have the required technical capacity.

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards

Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first reports on Conventions Nos. 105, 111 and 150.

The Committee took note of the information and explanations given by the Government representatives who appeared before it. It insisted on the vital importance of the continuation of dialogue, and of the communication of clear and full information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee recalled that this was part of the constitutional obligation to supply reports. In this respect, it expressed its deep concern over the very high number of cases of failure to supply information in response to the Committee of Experts. It recalled that governments could ask the ILO for assistance in order to overcome any difficulties they might face. The Committee urged the governments concerned, namely, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark (Greenland), Eritrea, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Haiti, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Mali, Paraguay, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom (Montserrat), to do everything in order to provide the requested information as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the corresponding section of the General Report.

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards

Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first reports on Conventions Nos. 105, 111 and 150.