Case of serious failure (CAS) - Discussion: 2001, Publication: 89th ILC session (2001)

Liberia

(b) Failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions

The Employer members stressed the importance of first reports and noted the emphasis placed on first reports by the Committee of Experts. They pointed out that only where a first report was submitted on a ratified Convention could the Committee of Experts determine whether the country was complying with its newly acquired obligations under that Convention. Submission of a first report should not present an insurmountable obstacle. The Employer members cautioned member States against considering ratification as an automatic procedure and noted that careful examination and deliberation were necessary to determine whether a country could ratify a Convention. This examination of national legislation and practice was the basis for the first report. Therefore, once the decision to ratify was made, it presupposed that all the prerequisites for the first report existed, and countries should comply with that obligation. To do otherwise would indicate that the ratification process had been carried out without careful consideration of the consequences. It was therefore surprising to the Employer members that countries ratified Conventions and then failed to submit first reports. They regretted this and called upon member States to submit their first reports. In conclusion, they invited governments to reply to the comments of the Employer members on this point.

The Worker members expressed their agreement with the Employer members that first reports on the application of ratified Conventions were particularly important, as they represented the basis on which the Committee of Experts could review the law and practice of countries. First reports also prevented errors of interpretation regarding the Conventions. The Worker members recalled that the submission of first reports constituted an indispensable element of the supervisory system and they called on the member States concerned to comply with their obligation to submit first reports on ratified Conventions.

A Government representative of Liberia indicated that his country had communicated with the Committee of Experts concerning the first report due on Convention No. 133. He informed the Committee that his Government's lateness in supplying a first report on Convention No. 133 was due to the fact that the relevant government agencies responsible for maritime issues had not provided the necessary information. However, prior to the meeting of the Conference Committee, meetings had been held and the relevant information had been provided. The first report on that Convention was therefore now being prepared and it would be submitted in the near future.

A Government representative of Mongolia apologized for Mongolia's late submission of first reports, noting that these had been sent to the ILO on all 12 Conventions mentioned by the end of May 2001. She explained that Mongolia's delay in submitting the first reports had been due to institutional changes that had taken place in July 2000, when the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare had been split into two entities: the Ministry of Social Welfare and Labour and the Ministry of Health. It had taken some time to re-establish the Ministry of Social Welfare and Labour and most of the staff was still new and inexperienced; however, she assured the Committee that her Government would provide timely reports in the future.

A Government representative of Botswana indicated that the preparation and submission of detailed reports on Conventions Nos. 111 and 151 had taken a long time due to the extensive consultations held with other government ministries and departments and the social partners. She informed the Committee that she was in possession of the two outstanding reports and would submit them during the course of the Conference. She apologized for the delay in submitting the reports and reaffirmed her country's commitment to abide by its obligations.

A Government representative of Burkina Faso stated that with regard to the failure to supply first reports on the application of Conventions, his Government welcomed the pertinence of the comments of the Committee of Experts, the objective of which was to strengthen the effectiveness of the supervisory system. The reports in question related to Conventions Nos. 141, 161 and 170, ratified by Burkina Faso in 1997, and were among a list of around 20 Conventions for which reports had been requested for the period ending 31 May 1999. The reports had been sent to the ILO in October 2000, with an indication that those on Conventions Nos. 141, 161 and 170 would be sent at a later date. Due to administrative constraints, these reports had unfortunately not been sent in due time. The Government wished to apologize for the inconveniences caused by this delay to the Conference Committee and supervisory system and undertook to take all the necessary measures to submit reports in accordance with the ILO's constitutional provisions.

The Worker members emphasized the fact that only four countries had provided explanations concerning the failure to comply with the obligation to supply the first report on ratified Conventions. They noted that the same reasons were often given and stated that it was unacceptable that the first report had not been provided by certain countries since 1992. If a country was experiencing a problem, it should inform the Office as early as possible so that it could benefit from technical assistance. They expressed the hope that the Office would contact these countries with a view to identifying the causes of the delay.

The Employer members agreed with the Worker members' comments that the explanations provided by the Government representatives had referred to difficulties of an administrative nature that they should be able to overcome. As no government had replied to the Employer members' question, they would repeat this question next year, as they had done in previous years. They therefore reiterated that the ratification of Conventions called for a thorough examination to determine whether the country was in a position to ratify the Convention. As the results of such an examination should serve as the basis of the first report, the Employer members failed to understand how governments could ratify Conventions and then be unable to supply first reports on those instruments.

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

The Worker members emphasized that failure to supply information in reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts hindered the work of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The comments made by the Committee of Experts needed to be taken seriously and countries needed to fulfil their obligations.

The Employer members stated that the cases listed in paragraph 198 of the General Report formed part of the general obligation of member States to report on ratified Conventions. Reports might often be difficult to understand or be incomplete, thereby requiring the Committee of Experts to ask additional questions. Accordingly, the obligation to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts went hand in hand with States' general reporting obligations. They noted that there were 389 such cases of failure to reply concerning 42 countries noted in the report. This was a substantial number which, when compared with 411 cases concerning 46 countries last year, did not indicate much improvement. These cases were mentioned individually in the Committee of Experts' report. The Employer members reminded States that, to ensure the proper functioning of the supervisory system, it was important for governments to supply information, including responses to the additional questions raised by the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Algeria explained that the information requested by the Committee of Experts had been prepared with the assistance of a number of relevant ministerial departments and sent to the International Labour Standards Department last May. He regretted that the documents had not been received in time, which would have avoided his Government being called upon in this context. He reiterated the will and commitment of his Government to comply rigorously with the constitutional obligations of the ILO, particularly in relation to standards, and requested the Conference Committee to take account of his comments on this subject.

A Government representative of Cameroon, with reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts, said that, following a seminar on international labour standards organized in Yaoundé with the assistance of the ILO and the MDT, reports had started to be sent to the ILO in a gradual manner. Although some reports might not arrive in time, the situation would be resolved soon.

A Government representative of the Czech Republic informed the Committee that his Government had already complied with its reporting obligations. The information which had been provided was contained in a written communication submitted to the Committee.

A Government representative of Congo indicated that his Government had already provided all the requested information to the Committee of Experts, as indicated in a written communication submitted to the Committee. He regretted that the information had not been received in time and stated that his Government would take all the necessary measures to ensure that this would not be repeated in the future.

A Government representative of Côte d'Ivoire assured the Conference Committee that his country would not shirk its obligations and that the failure to supply information in time had been due to the difficulties faced by his country during 2000. Indeed, the year 2000 had been a black period in the history of Côte d'Ivoire, a time of military transition in which everything had functioned in slow motion and many changes had taken place in the various sectors. Côte d'Ivoire undertook to supply the reports due to the Committee of Experts as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Denmark referred to his previous statement concerning the Faeroe Islands. With regard to Greenland, he said that it was regrettable that it had not reported on the Conventions it had ratified and replied to the direct requests made by the Committee of Experts. In the past, Greenland had usually supplied the reports due. However, due to a change in staff in the Ministry of Social Affairs in Greenland, nobody had the necessary experience in reporting. Denmark had therefore started to train the new staff on reporting on Conventions.

A Government representative of Slovakia emphasized his country's commitment to providing meaningful information to the ILO supervisory bodies. He therefore regretted that it had not been possible to supply in due time some of the reports requested in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts, due to staffing problems. The requested reports and information had now been prepared and elaborated and would be supplied to the Office during July and August 2001 in accordance with articles 22 and 23 of the ILO Constitution and by virtue of Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of Convention No. 144, which had been ratified by Slovakia. He apologized for this shortcoming. With regard to Convention No. 87, he said that the report and relevant information would be supplied to the Office in July or August 2001. Amendments to the Act on Collective Bargaining had been adopted on 18 May 2001 and would be covered in the report and information in relation to the Convention concerned. With regard to Convention No. 89, he said that his country would denounce the Convention this year and the relevant information would be supplied to the Office. For Convention No. 95, the report had been supplied to the Office in April 2001, and the report on Convention No. 155 had been supplied to the Office in May 2001. He added that the reports on Conventions Nos. 115, 122, 148 and 159 would be provided to the Office in August 2001.

A Government representative of Fiji provided information to the Committee regarding the current situation in his country. He noted that the Government had been unable to fulfil its constitutional obligations to the ILO due to the consequences of the unsuccessful coup which had taken place on 19 May 2000. The attempted coup had resulted in a political crisis which had greatly damaged the economy and the social fabric of the society. This crisis had not yet been successfully resolved and had led to the breakdown of the relationship between the social partners, and particularly between the Interim Government and the national trade union centre, the Fiji Trade Union Congress. This crisis had delayed Fiji's compliance with its reporting obligations. The Government had been in the process of submitting all outstanding reports, as well as instruments for the ratification of the fundamental human rights Conventions, to the Labour Advisory Board when the attempted coup had taken place.

He explained that the Labour Advisory Board was the main tripartite body dealing with labour and industrial relations matters. He added that, on 18 May 1998, his Government had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Labour Advisory Board was the highest tripartite consultative body under the provisions of that Convention. Following the attempted coup, the most representative workers' organization, the Fiji Trade Union Congress, had become involved in the political process by opposing the Interim Government's attempts to guide Fiji back to parliamentary democracy, and had refused to participate in the meetings of the Labour Advisory Board as well as of other tripartite bodies. Most recently, it had refused to form part of the Fiji delegation to the ILO Conference, in the light of its refusal to recognize the Interim Government. The Fiji delegation wished to highlight that challenges to the legality of the Interim Government were currently before the country's courts of appeal. Therefore, he considered that any pronouncement in this regard would be premature and would challenge the jurisdiction of the appellate court. In the meantime, the Interim Government had charted a course for the restoration of parliamentary democracy, with general elections scheduled for 12 August 2001. This plan had been supported by the relevant international bodies, who had agreed to monitor the election process. He stressed that it was fundamentally important in this time of crisis that workers' rights remain protected under the national legislation. Moreover, the Government did not wish to breach article 23 of the ILO Constitution and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), by sending its reports directly to the ILO without the required tripartite consultations. The Government called for the full cooperation of the social partners, to enable it to proceed towards economic recovery and comply fully with its reporting obligations. He could not give the Committee a definite time frame within which his Government would be able to comply with its obligations in this regard, but noted that it should be able to do so after the general elections in August 2001. At that time, the Government hoped to re-establish responsible and productive relationships with the social partners. In the meantime, he thanked the ILO and the member States, particularly the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the Conference Committee, for their continued cooperation and support. He indicated that his comments constituted Fiji's reply to the comments contained in paragraphs 198 and 230 of the General Report.

A Government representative of France expressed his regret for the failure to supply information and repeated his Government's willingness to fulfil its obligations relating to the submission of reports and replies to comments made by the Committee of Experts. France had opted for a broad, often systematic, policy of extending ratified Conventions to its non-metropolitan territories under article 35 of the ILO Constitution. He emphasized that, for this reason, his country easily held the absolute record for the number of reports due. This resulted in a significant administrative burden and sometimes in coordination difficulties which, in turn, had an impact on the dialogue with the Committee of Experts and replies to its comments. Out of a total of 2,943 reports requested this year from all member States, 275 had been requested from his country, or 10 per cent of the total. This was not an excuse, of course, but began to explain the problem. He emphasized that France would evidently continue the dialogue and make every effort to meet the deadlines more closely.

The Worker member of France stated that he endorsed the comments made by the Worker and Employer members in general terms. He noted the comments made by the Government representative of France and wished to make it clear that Réunion was a French Department and not an overseas territory. He recalled the importance of the Conventions in question, which concerned the life and health of workers. These Conventions were therefore absolutely fundamental. He therefore hoped that the reports requested would be submitted the following year.

A Government representative of Guatemala indicated that his Government shared the Committee of Experts' criteria regarding the importance of supplying information and reports in reply to the Committee's comments, since the supervision of standards constituted an essential activity and was the basis of the ILO's activities to guarantee the rights of workers and employers and the development of societies. Therefore, he considered that any explanation could appear to be an excuse, which should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment by his Government. He indicated that Guatemala had ratified 71 Conventions, which represented a great amount of work. However, he added that the necessary efforts had been made for Guatemala to fulfil its obligations. These had included restructuring the Ministry of Labour and strengthening the administrative department responsible for the submission of reports by employing more personnel and appointing a new director. He hoped that these measures would allow the Government to fulfil its obligations towards the supervisory bodies of the ILO more efficiently and rapidly. He regretted not having been able to submit in a timely manner the information required by the Committee of Experts and added that the above information would soon be submitted since the reports were already being prepared by the International Affairs Unit in the Ministry of Labour.

A Government representative of Jamaica explained that his Government had been unable to submit all the reports due because of administrative difficulties, including staff turnover and the late submission of information by the various government agencies. He informed the Committee that these problems had now been resolved. He confirmed that Jamaica was conscious of its obligations to the Committee and undertook to submit the outstanding reports by September 2001.

A Government representative of Liberia indicated that his Government had replied to most of the comments of the Committee of Experts over the past two years. However, his Government's failure to respond in detail was due to its need for technical assistance. He noted that the ILO Dakar Office had begun providing the requested assistance, which would soon enable the Government to provide the requested reports. He indicated that, apart from the issue of the maritime Conventions, to which he had previously responded, he wished to note that regarding Convention No. 87, the relevant provisions which were not in conformity with the instrument had been effectively repealed. With regard to Convention No. 29, he noted that forced labour did not exist in Liberia, even in its mildest forms. During the last four years, the civilian authorities had implemented the provisions of the Convention and there was now no trace of any use of forced labour, coercion or harassment, as mentioned in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya noted, with reference to paragraph 198 of the report of the Committee of Experts, that his country had paid special attention to the report, indicating the benefits drawn from its working methods and the bringing of national legislation into conformity with the international labour standards. In response to the Committee of Experts' comments, the General People's Committee, which served as the Council of Ministers, had promulgated Order No. 259 of 1999, which provided for the setting up of a Standing Technical Committee to prepare the requested replies. The Technical Committee was composed of experts in the field of labour legislation, human resources and international labour standards. Section 2 of the same Order specified that the Technical Committee was responsible for the following tasks: bringing national legislation into conformity with international labour standards and their submission to the General People's Committee; the preparation of periodic reports and replies to the various requests and observations made by the Committee of Experts; and the submission of all the Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference at its previous sessions to the General People's Committee for ratification. The same section of the Order required all relevant bodies to collaborate with the Technical Committee to fulfil its work and provide it with the necessary information in accordance with the legal provisions. The Technical Committee had started its work the previous year when it had submitted its report for the year 2000 to the Director of the International Labour Standards Department. After examining the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Technical Committee had divided its work into three segments relating to the following: the segment relating to Conventions requiring an amendment of national legislation; that relating to Conventions requiring the preparation of periodic reports, including various statistical information; and that relating to Conventions requiring submission to the competent authority, pursuant to article 19 of the ILO Constitution. He referred to the Conventions under the first segment, namely Nos. 1, 29, 52, 53, 95, 100, 103, 105, 111 and 138. The Technical Committee had also drafted bills to amend the legislation concerning the above Conventions to bring it into conformity with the comments made by the Committee of Experts. These bills had been sent to the General People's Committee, which had in turn submitted them to the General People's Conference for their consideration by the Basic People's Conferences which had the final say in deciding on the promulgation of laws or their amendment.

With regard to Conventions Nos. 81, 121, 122, 128, 130 and 152, he indicated that the comments of the Committee of Experts had been taken into account in preparing the reports which were submitted to the Director of the International Labour Standards Department in its consolidated report for the year 2000. He noted that Libya had ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 182. In doing so, it had completed the ratification of all the fundamental human rights Conventions (Nos. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138), relevant to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. He concluded by assuring the Committee that Libya was ready to take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and to cooperate in strengthening labour standards, as well as protecting workers' fundamental rights.

A Government representative of Mongolia indicated that her comments regarding paragraph 198 of the General Report applied equally to paragraph 194, regarding Mongolia's failure to supply a first report on the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A Government representative of Nigeria explained that his Government had failed to provide the requested information due to communication problems. He assured the Committee, however, that Nigeria would respond as quickly as possible to the requests of the Committee of Experts. Turning to the issue of Nigeria's ratification of ILO Conventions, he noted that his Government had ratified five of the eight fundamental Conventions. The ratification process for the three remaining Conventions (Conventions Nos. 111, 138 and 182) had been initiated. He indicated that the relevant tripartite institution, the National Labour Advisory Council, had examined Conventions Nos. 111, 138 and 182 and submitted them to the Government for ratification, in accordance with national legislation. With regard to the application of Convention No. 87, he reminded the Committee that Nigeria had experienced problems in implementing the Convention while the country had been under military rule. With the advent of the civilian administration in Nigeria, the problem had now been resolved and trade unions could now operate independently, without government intervention, for the promotion of industrial peace and harmony. In addition, with regard to the application of Convention No. 29, he noted that his Government had recently established the Women Trafficking and Child Labour Eradication Foundation. In conclusion, he reiterated the commitment of his country to comply with its reporting requirements.

A Government representative of the Netherlands recalled that the Kingdom of the Netherlands was divided into three parts, namely a European part and two separate Caribbean parts, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, which could perhaps be better termed "countries" within a federal association. According to the Charter, which was the highest Constitution in the Kingdom, each country was autonomous with regard to reporting to the ILO. Consequently, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles were themselves responsible for fulfilling their constitutional obligations. The partner in Europe could not do much to affect this situation. Nevertheless, the European partner had on several occasions in the spring made requests at the ministerial level to the other partners to fulfil their ILO obligations. The Netherlands Antilles had that morning handed in to the Secretariat the requested document. He regretted to note that there had not yet been any positive result in so far as Aruba was concerned. He assured the Committee that the European partner in the Kingdom would do its utmost to redress the failure of Aruba as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Papua New Guinea reaffirmed his country's commitment to the objectives of the ILO and recognized the importance of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the eight fundamental Conventions, which had been ratified by his country. He also emphasized his Government's commitment to meaningful dialogue with the ILO's supervisory bodies and to continuing to improve its compliance with reporting obligations. He regretted that his country had not been able to supply in good time the reports due in reply to the direct request made by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos. 29 and 122. This had been due to the sudden departure from the Department of Labour and Employment of the officer responsible for drafting ILO reports. However, detailed reports had now been prepared and would be supplied before 1 September 2001 for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session.

A Government representative of the United Kingdom apologized for the fact that Anguilla and Jersey had not met the deadline for responding to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. He assured the Conference Committee that the United Kingdom made every effort to endeavour to ensure that its non-metropolitan territories met their reporting obligations in full and in due time. However, the territories in question were largely autonomous administrations. Moreover, the administrative burden of the reporting process on small territories could be onerous. He confirmed that the territories concerned were fully aware of their reporting responsibilities and were actively examining the issues raised by the Committee of Experts with a view to responding as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Belize said that, although his country had made progress in its compliance with other obligations, such as providing the reports due under article 22 of the Constitution, some of its replies to the comments made by the Committee of Experts were still outstanding. In that respect, he informed the Conference Committee that, in keeping with his Government's commitment to the modernization of the Ministry of Labour, the Cabinet had recently approved a significant increase in the number of labour officers and secretaries to the Labour Department. New members of staff were currently being recruited, and the Ministry of Labour had recently appointed a new ILO Desk Officer. His country had requested assistance from the ILO to train the new person.

The Employer members noted that a number of explanations had been provided by government representatives to explain their failure to reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies. Many of the explanations had not been new. The speakers had pointed to a number of problems, including administrative difficulties, the workload involved in reporting obligations, and the problems experienced by central governments with their autonomous non-metropolitan territories. In that respect, they considered that the problem could not be resolved at the higher ministerial level, but rather by sending experts to remind the federal governments of the need for solidarity with the central government, deriving from the obligation of mutual commitment at the governmental level. While they did not wish to condemn countries which had failed to reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies, they nevertheless noted the situation with concern. The problems which arose in this respect gave grounds for reflecting on the manner in which standards policy could be improved, but not abolished. They emphasized that the communication of information and reports was a principal part of the supervisory system which needed not only to be maintained, but also improved.

The Worker members noted that similar reasons had been given in the past for the failure of governments to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. Many promises had been made, but several governments had not spoken despite the opportunity given to them. In view of the importance of the requirement to submit reports, it was necessary to urge governments to take all the necessary measures to reply in due time to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, among the countries that had not complied with this obligation, some had or should have the necessary technical capacities and, to this end, should reinforce their system of labour administration.

The Committee noted the information supplied and the explanations given by the Government representatives who took the floor. It reiterated the crucial importance of submitting first reports on the application of ratified Conventions. The Committee decided to mention these cases, namely since 1992: Liberia (for Convention No. 133); since 1995: Armenia (for Convention No. 111), Kyrgyzstan (for Convention No. 133); since 1996: Armenia (for Conventions Nos. 100, 122, 135 and 151), Grenada (for Convention No. 100), Uzbekistan (for Conventions Nos. 47, 52, 103 and 122); since 1998: Armenia (for Convention No. 174), Equatorial Guinea (for Conventions Nos. 68 and 92), Mongolia (for Convention No. 135), Uzbekistan (for Conventions Nos. 29 and 100); since 1999: Burkina Faso (for Conventions Nos. 141, 161 and 170), Cyprus (for Convention No. 175), Turkmenistan (for Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 and 111) and Uzbekistan (for Conventions Nos. 98, 105, 111, 135 and 154), in the appropriate section of the General Report.

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

The Worker members emphasized that failure to supply information in reply to the comments made by the Committee of Experts hindered the work of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The comments made by the Committee of Experts needed to be taken seriously and countries needed to fulfil their obligations.

The Employer members stated that the cases listed in paragraph 198 of the General Report formed part of the general obligation of member States to report on ratified Conventions. Reports might often be difficult to understand or be incomplete, thereby requiring the Committee of Experts to ask additional questions. Accordingly, the obligation to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts went hand in hand with States' general reporting obligations. They noted that there were 389 such cases of failure to reply concerning 42 countries noted in the report. This was a substantial number which, when compared with 411 cases concerning 46 countries last year, did not indicate much improvement. These cases were mentioned individually in the Committee of Experts' report. The Employer members reminded States that, to ensure the proper functioning of the supervisory system, it was important for governments to supply information, including responses to the additional questions raised by the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of Algeria explained that the information requested by the Committee of Experts had been prepared with the assistance of a number of relevant ministerial departments and sent to the International Labour Standards Department last May. He regretted that the documents had not been received in time, which would have avoided his Government being called upon in this context. He reiterated the will and commitment of his Government to comply rigorously with the constitutional obligations of the ILO, particularly in relation to standards, and requested the Conference Committee to take account of his comments on this subject.

A Government representative of Cameroon, with reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts, said that, following a seminar on international labour standards organized in Yaoundé with the assistance of the ILO and the MDT, reports had started to be sent to the ILO in a gradual manner. Although some reports might not arrive in time, the situation would be resolved soon.

A Government representative of the Czech Republic informed the Committee that his Government had already complied with its reporting obligations. The information which had been provided was contained in a written communication submitted to the Committee.

A Government representative of Congo indicated that his Government had already provided all the requested information to the Committee of Experts, as indicated in a written communication submitted to the Committee. He regretted that the information had not been received in time and stated that his Government would take all the necessary measures to ensure that this would not be repeated in the future.

A Government representative of Côte d'Ivoire assured the Conference Committee that his country would not shirk its obligations and that the failure to supply information in time had been due to the difficulties faced by his country during 2000. Indeed, the year 2000 had been a black period in the history of Côte d'Ivoire, a time of military transition in which everything had functioned in slow motion and many changes had taken place in the various sectors. Côte d'Ivoire undertook to supply the reports due to the Committee of Experts as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Denmark referred to his previous statement concerning the Faeroe Islands. With regard to Greenland, he said that it was regrettable that it had not reported on the Conventions it had ratified and replied to the direct requests made by the Committee of Experts. In the past, Greenland had usually supplied the reports due. However, due to a change in staff in the Ministry of Social Affairs in Greenland, nobody had the necessary experience in reporting. Denmark had therefore started to train the new staff on reporting on Conventions.

A Government representative of Slovakia emphasized his country's commitment to providing meaningful information to the ILO supervisory bodies. He therefore regretted that it had not been possible to supply in due time some of the reports requested in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts, due to staffing problems. The requested reports and information had now been prepared and elaborated and would be supplied to the Office during July and August 2001 in accordance with articles 22 and 23 of the ILO Constitution and by virtue of Article 5, paragraph 1(d), of Convention No. 144, which had been ratified by Slovakia. He apologized for this shortcoming. With regard to Convention No. 87, he said that the report and relevant information would be supplied to the Office in July or August 2001. Amendments to the Act on Collective Bargaining had been adopted on 18 May 2001 and would be covered in the report and information in relation to the Convention concerned. With regard to Convention No. 89, he said that his country would denounce the Convention this year and the relevant information would be supplied to the Office. For Convention No. 95, the report had been supplied to the Office in April 2001, and the report on Convention No. 155 had been supplied to the Office in May 2001. He added that the reports on Conventions Nos. 115, 122, 148 and 159 would be provided to the Office in August 2001.

A Government representative of Fiji provided information to the Committee regarding the current situation in his country. He noted that the Government had been unable to fulfil its constitutional obligations to the ILO due to the consequences of the unsuccessful coup which had taken place on 19 May 2000. The attempted coup had resulted in a political crisis which had greatly damaged the economy and the social fabric of the society. This crisis had not yet been successfully resolved and had led to the breakdown of the relationship between the social partners, and particularly between the Interim Government and the national trade union centre, the Fiji Trade Union Congress. This crisis had delayed Fiji's compliance with its reporting obligations. The Government had been in the process of submitting all outstanding reports, as well as instruments for the ratification of the fundamental human rights Conventions, to the Labour Advisory Board when the attempted coup had taken place.

He explained that the Labour Advisory Board was the main tripartite body dealing with labour and industrial relations matters. He added that, on 18 May 1998, his Government had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Labour Advisory Board was the highest tripartite consultative body under the provisions of that Convention. Following the attempted coup, the most representative workers' organization, the Fiji Trade Union Congress, had become involved in the political process by opposing the Interim Government's attempts to guide Fiji back to parliamentary democracy, and had refused to participate in the meetings of the Labour Advisory Board as well as of other tripartite bodies. Most recently, it had refused to form part of the Fiji delegation to the ILO Conference, in the light of its refusal to recognize the Interim Government. The Fiji delegation wished to highlight that challenges to the legality of the Interim Government were currently before the country's courts of appeal. Therefore, he considered that any pronouncement in this regard would be premature and would challenge the jurisdiction of the appellate court. In the meantime, the Interim Government had charted a course for the restoration of parliamentary democracy, with general elections scheduled for 12 August 2001. This plan had been supported by the relevant international bodies, who had agreed to monitor the election process. He stressed that it was fundamentally important in this time of crisis that workers' rights remain protected under the national legislation. Moreover, the Government did not wish to breach article 23 of the ILO Constitution and the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), by sending its reports directly to the ILO without the required tripartite consultations. The Government called for the full cooperation of the social partners, to enable it to proceed towards economic recovery and comply fully with its reporting obligations. He could not give the Committee a definite time frame within which his Government would be able to comply with its obligations in this regard, but noted that it should be able to do so after the general elections in August 2001. At that time, the Government hoped to re-establish responsible and productive relationships with the social partners. In the meantime, he thanked the ILO and the member States, particularly the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the Conference Committee, for their continued cooperation and support. He indicated that his comments constituted Fiji's reply to the comments contained in paragraphs 198 and 230 of the General Report.

A Government representative of France expressed his regret for the failure to supply information and repeated his Government's willingness to fulfil its obligations relating to the submission of reports and replies to comments made by the Committee of Experts. France had opted for a broad, often systematic, policy of extending ratified Conventions to its non-metropolitan territories under article 35 of the ILO Constitution. He emphasized that, for this reason, his country easily held the absolute record for the number of reports due. This resulted in a significant administrative burden and sometimes in coordination difficulties which, in turn, had an impact on the dialogue with the Committee of Experts and replies to its comments. Out of a total of 2,943 reports requested this year from all member States, 275 had been requested from his country, or 10 per cent of the total. This was not an excuse, of course, but began to explain the problem. He emphasized that France would evidently continue the dialogue and make every effort to meet the deadlines more closely.

The Worker member of France stated that he endorsed the comments made by the Worker and Employer members in general terms. He noted the comments made by the Government representative of France and wished to make it clear that Réunion was a French Department and not an overseas territory. He recalled the importance of the Conventions in question, which concerned the life and health of workers. These Conventions were therefore absolutely fundamental. He therefore hoped that the reports requested would be submitted the following year.

A Government representative of Guatemala indicated that his Government shared the Committee of Experts' criteria regarding the importance of supplying information and reports in reply to the Committee's comments, since the supervision of standards constituted an essential activity and was the basis of the ILO's activities to guarantee the rights of workers and employers and the development of societies. Therefore, he considered that any explanation could appear to be an excuse, which should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment by his Government. He indicated that Guatemala had ratified 71 Conventions, which represented a great amount of work. However, he added that the necessary efforts had been made for Guatemala to fulfil its obligations. These had included restructuring the Ministry of Labour and strengthening the administrative department responsible for the submission of reports by employing more personnel and appointing a new director. He hoped that these measures would allow the Government to fulfil its obligations towards the supervisory bodies of the ILO more efficiently and rapidly. He regretted not having been able to submit in a timely manner the information required by the Committee of Experts and added that the above information would soon be submitted since the reports were already being prepared by the International Affairs Unit in the Ministry of Labour.

A Government representative of Jamaica explained that his Government had been unable to submit all the reports due because of administrative difficulties, including staff turnover and the late submission of information by the various government agencies. He informed the Committee that these problems had now been resolved. He confirmed that Jamaica was conscious of its obligations to the Committee and undertook to submit the outstanding reports by September 2001.

A Government representative of Liberia indicated that his Government had replied to most of the comments of the Committee of Experts over the past two years. However, his Government's failure to respond in detail was due to its need for technical assistance. He noted that the ILO Dakar Office had begun providing the requested assistance, which would soon enable the Government to provide the requested reports. He indicated that, apart from the issue of the maritime Conventions, to which he had previously responded, he wished to note that regarding Convention No. 87, the relevant provisions which were not in conformity with the instrument had been effectively repealed. With regard to Convention No. 29, he noted that forced labour did not exist in Liberia, even in its mildest forms. During the last four years, the civilian authorities had implemented the provisions of the Convention and there was now no trace of any use of forced labour, coercion or harassment, as mentioned in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

A Government representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya noted, with reference to paragraph 198 of the report of the Committee of Experts, that his country had paid special attention to the report, indicating the benefits drawn from its working methods and the bringing of national legislation into conformity with the international labour standards. In response to the Committee of Experts' comments, the General People's Committee, which served as the Council of Ministers, had promulgated Order No. 259 of 1999, which provided for the setting up of a Standing Technical Committee to prepare the requested replies. The Technical Committee was composed of experts in the field of labour legislation, human resources and international labour standards. Section 2 of the same Order specified that the Technical Committee was responsible for the following tasks: bringing national legislation into conformity with international labour standards and their submission to the General People's Committee; the preparation of periodic reports and replies to the various requests and observations made by the Committee of Experts; and the submission of all the Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference at its previous sessions to the General People's Committee for ratification. The same section of the Order required all relevant bodies to collaborate with the Technical Committee to fulfil its work and provide it with the necessary information in accordance with the legal provisions. The Technical Committee had started its work the previous year when it had submitted its report for the year 2000 to the Director of the International Labour Standards Department. After examining the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Technical Committee had divided its work into three segments relating to the following: the segment relating to Conventions requiring an amendment of national legislation; that relating to Conventions requiring the preparation of periodic reports, including various statistical information; and that relating to Conventions requiring submission to the competent authority, pursuant to article 19 of the ILO Constitution. He referred to the Conventions under the first segment, namely Nos. 1, 29, 52, 53, 95, 100, 103, 105, 111 and 138. The Technical Committee had also drafted bills to amend the legislation concerning the above Conventions to bring it into conformity with the comments made by the Committee of Experts. These bills had been sent to the General People's Committee, which had in turn submitted them to the General People's Conference for their consideration by the Basic People's Conferences which had the final say in deciding on the promulgation of laws or their amendment.

With regard to Conventions Nos. 81, 121, 122, 128, 130 and 152, he indicated that the comments of the Committee of Experts had been taken into account in preparing the reports which were submitted to the Director of the International Labour Standards Department in its consolidated report for the year 2000. He noted that Libya had ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 182. In doing so, it had completed the ratification of all the fundamental human rights Conventions (Nos. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138), relevant to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. He concluded by assuring the Committee that Libya was ready to take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and to cooperate in strengthening labour standards, as well as protecting workers' fundamental rights.

A Government representative of Mongolia indicated that her comments regarding paragraph 198 of the General Report applied equally to paragraph 194, regarding Mongolia's failure to supply a first report on the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A Government representative of Nigeria explained that his Government had failed to provide the requested information due to communication problems. He assured the Committee, however, that Nigeria would respond as quickly as possible to the requests of the Committee of Experts. Turning to the issue of Nigeria's ratification of ILO Conventions, he noted that his Government had ratified five of the eight fundamental Conventions. The ratification process for the three remaining Conventions (Conventions Nos. 111, 138 and 182) had been initiated. He indicated that the relevant tripartite institution, the National Labour Advisory Council, had examined Conventions Nos. 111, 138 and 182 and submitted them to the Government for ratification, in accordance with national legislation. With regard to the application of Convention No. 87, he reminded the Committee that Nigeria had experienced problems in implementing the Convention while the country had been under military rule. With the advent of the civilian administration in Nigeria, the problem had now been resolved and trade unions could now operate independently, without government intervention, for the promotion of industrial peace and harmony. In addition, with regard to the application of Convention No. 29, he noted that his Government had recently established the Women Trafficking and Child Labour Eradication Foundation. In conclusion, he reiterated the commitment of his country to comply with its reporting requirements.

A Government representative of the Netherlands recalled that the Kingdom of the Netherlands was divided into three parts, namely a European part and two separate Caribbean parts, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, which could perhaps be better termed "countries" within a federal association. According to the Charter, which was the highest Constitution in the Kingdom, each country was autonomous with regard to reporting to the ILO. Consequently, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles were themselves responsible for fulfilling their constitutional obligations. The partner in Europe could not do much to affect this situation. Nevertheless, the European partner had on several occasions in the spring made requests at the ministerial level to the other partners to fulfil their ILO obligations. The Netherlands Antilles had that morning handed in to the Secretariat the requested document. He regretted to note that there had not yet been any positive result in so far as Aruba was concerned. He assured the Committee that the European partner in the Kingdom would do its utmost to redress the failure of Aruba as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Papua New Guinea reaffirmed his country's commitment to the objectives of the ILO and recognized the importance of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the eight fundamental Conventions, which had been ratified by his country. He also emphasized his Government's commitment to meaningful dialogue with the ILO's supervisory bodies and to continuing to improve its compliance with reporting obligations. He regretted that his country had not been able to supply in good time the reports due in reply to the direct request made by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos. 29 and 122. This had been due to the sudden departure from the Department of Labour and Employment of the officer responsible for drafting ILO reports. However, detailed reports had now been prepared and would be supplied before 1 September 2001 for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session.

A Government representative of the United Kingdom apologized for the fact that Anguilla and Jersey had not met the deadline for responding to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. He assured the Conference Committee that the United Kingdom made every effort to endeavour to ensure that its non-metropolitan territories met their reporting obligations in full and in due time. However, the territories in question were largely autonomous administrations. Moreover, the administrative burden of the reporting process on small territories could be onerous. He confirmed that the territories concerned were fully aware of their reporting responsibilities and were actively examining the issues raised by the Committee of Experts with a view to responding as soon as possible.

A Government representative of Belize said that, although his country had made progress in its compliance with other obligations, such as providing the reports due under article 22 of the Constitution, some of its replies to the comments made by the Committee of Experts were still outstanding. In that respect, he informed the Conference Committee that, in keeping with his Government's commitment to the modernization of the Ministry of Labour, the Cabinet had recently approved a significant increase in the number of labour officers and secretaries to the Labour Department. New members of staff were currently being recruited, and the Ministry of Labour had recently appointed a new ILO Desk Officer. His country had requested assistance from the ILO to train the new person.

The Employer members noted that a number of explanations had been provided by government representatives to explain their failure to reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies. Many of the explanations had not been new. The speakers had pointed to a number of problems, including administrative difficulties, the workload involved in reporting obligations, and the problems experienced by central governments with their autonomous non-metropolitan territories. In that respect, they considered that the problem could not be resolved at the higher ministerial level, but rather by sending experts to remind the federal governments of the need for solidarity with the central government, deriving from the obligation of mutual commitment at the governmental level. While they did not wish to condemn countries which had failed to reply to the comments of the supervisory bodies, they nevertheless noted the situation with concern. The problems which arose in this respect gave grounds for reflecting on the manner in which standards policy could be improved, but not abolished. They emphasized that the communication of information and reports was a principal part of the supervisory system which needed not only to be maintained, but also improved.

The Worker members noted that similar reasons had been given in the past for the failure of governments to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. Many promises had been made, but several governments had not spoken despite the opportunity given to them. In view of the importance of the requirement to submit reports, it was necessary to urge governments to take all the necessary measures to reply in due time to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, among the countries that had not complied with this obligation, some had or should have the necessary technical capacities and, to this end, should reinforce their system of labour administration.

The Committee took due note of the various information provided and explanations given by the Government representatives who took the floor. It insisted upon the great importance, for the continuation of an essential dialogue, of communicating clear and complete information in response to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that this was an aspect of the constitutional obligation to report. In this connection, it expressed its profound concern at the high number of cases of failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. It reiterated that assistance from the ILO could be requested by Governments in order to overcome any difficulties they may be facing.

The Committee urged the governments concerned, namely, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark (Faeroe Islands and Greenland), Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France (Réunion), Gabon, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands (Aruba), Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, United Republic of Tanzania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom (Anguilla and Jersey) and Viet Nam to spare no effort to provide the information requested as soon as possible. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report.