Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1980)

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

Article 2(a)(ii) of the Convention. Social security measures. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any new information concerning the proportion of seafarers excluded from social security measures taken under this Article of the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee had pointed out that, without prejudice to Article 1(5) of the Convention, its approach to social security was to ensure that the requirements of Convention No. 147 were fulfilled in good faith, which would not be the case if a large proportion of the seafarers working on ships registered in the United Kingdom, were in practice not covered. However, the Committee had also clarified that as the United Kingdom has ratified the Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56), there is no room for further examination of substantial equivalence with the Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55), and the Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130).

In its latest report, the Government indicates that it intends to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), very shortly and to fully implement the requirements of the Regulations and Standards, as well as some of the non-mandatory Guidelines. The Committee recalls that the main provisions of Convention No. 55 have been incorporated into Regulation 4.2 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006, while the provisions of Convention No. 130 are not included in the MLC, 2006. Under Standard A4.2(1)(a), shipowners are liable to bear the cost for all seafarers working on their ships in respect of sickness and injury, occurring between the date of commencing duty and the date upon which the seafarer is deemed to have been duly repatriated. Such liability is irrespective of the seafarer’s place of residence. Moreover, according to Standard A4.5(2), ratifying countries are under an obligation to ensure that the social security protection provided at the time of ratification includes at least three of the following nine branches: medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, old-age benefit, employment injury benefit, family benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit or survivors’ benefit. Guideline B4.5(1) suggests, in this connection, that the protection at the time of ratification should at least include the branches of medical care, sickness benefit and employment injury benefit. With regard to the Government’s earlier indication that it does not anticipate having to amend the national legislation as far as MLC, 2006, social security protection requirements are concerned, the Committee trusts that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that all seafarers working on ships flying the flag of the United Kingdom, irrespective of residence, are provided with sickness and injury benefits.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, with regard to the Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164), and the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166), the implementation of the Regulations, Standards and Guidelines of the MLC, 2006, will be carried out in such a way as to ensure that those aspects of Conventions Nos 164 and 166 that are currently not implemented in UK law will be included. Moreover, the Government indicates that any adoption of legislation will be preceded by public consultations, in order to ensure that every issue has been satisfactorily addressed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on steps taken with regard to the ratification and effective implementation of the MLC, 2006.

Part IV of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the detailed statistics contained in the Government’s report regarding port State control inspections, investigations into marine accidents and maritime training programmes in the period 2005–09. It also notes the information on the organization and principal functions of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information regarding the practical application of the Convention, including, for instance, the number of seafarers covered by the relevant legislation, statistics on flag State and port State inspections, the number and nature of any complaints considered and the action taken, copies of any standardized inspection checklist or inspection report form, as well as relevant extracts from official publications, such as MCA activity reports, notices, circulars or procedures.

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

The Committee notes the response of the Government to the observations submitted in 2005 by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), as well as the new observations submitted by the TUC in reply to the Government’s comments. At present, the Government does not wish to add further comments to its original response. It assures, however, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will directly take up the points raised with Nautilus UK and will seek to answer their concerns at national level.

The Committee had previously requested information on the assertions made by the TUC concerning the non-regulation of social conditions, including working conditions, of seafarers on United Kingdom ships trading wholly or mainly outside of the United Kingdom territorial waters or seafarers not residing in the United Kingdom.

The Government states that all regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, governing various aspects of ship operation, shipboard conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements are applicable to all seafarers on board United Kingdom ships, without restriction in terms of place of residence. As far as social security for seafarers serving on United Kingdom ships is concerned, the Government refers to Article 1, paragraph 2(d), of Convention No. 56, ratified by the United Kingdom, which places no obligation on Members to extend social security protection to persons not resident in its territory. As regards Conventions Nos 55 and 130, the Government takes the view that the social security measures in place are substantially equivalent to those Conventions. Furthermore, the Government points out that Conventions Nos 55 and 56 are listed in Article X of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and thus are to be revised on its coming into force. The Government does not anticipate having to amend national laws and regulations as far as MLC, 2006, social security protection requirements are concerned, to be in a position to ratify it in due course, considering that the United Kingdom’s current provisions are fully in accordance with the requirements of Conventions Nos 56 and 147 in this respect.

In light of the Government’s comments, the TUC acknowledges that Article 1, paragraph 2(d), of Convention No. 56, places no obligation on Members to extend social security protection to persons not resident in their territory. The TUC contests, however, the Government’s view that the measures currently in place are substantially equivalent to Conventions Nos 55 and 130, as required under Convention No. 147.

The Committee, having due regard to Article 1, paragraph 2(d), of Convention No. 56, is mindful that the exclusion of non-residents may be used with an exaggerated effect on the coverage of the persons who should be protected under Convention No. 147. Without prejudice to Article 1, paragraph 5, of Convention No. 147, the Committee’s approach to social security is to ensure that the requirements of Convention No. 147 are fulfilled in good faith, which would not be the case, if a large proportion of seafarers on nationally registered ships were actually not covered (see paragraph 50 of the Committee’s General Survey of 1990 on labour standards on merchant ships). The Committee thus asks the Government to indicate the proportion of seafarers excluded from social security measures taken under Article 2(a)(ii) of Convention No. 147. In this context, the Committee wishes to point out that the MLC, 2006, in its Title 4.5, places responsibilities on States with regard to all seafarers on board ships flying their flag.

Since the United Kingdom is bound by Convention No. 56, there is no further room for examining substantial equivalence with Conventions Nos 55 and 130. The Committee, however, draws the attention of the Government to the fact that both Conventions Nos 55 and 56 have been updated and consolidated in the MLC, 2006.

With reference to the previous comments of the TUC that this Convention and its Protocol, as well as Convention No. 98, require the encouragement of collective bargaining, the Government considers that Article 4 of Convention No. 98 makes clear that measures to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of voluntary negotiation need only be taken where it is necessary and appropriate for national conditions to do so. The Government believes that there is nothing to prevent voluntary negotiations from taking place and that it is a matter to be left to the parties concerned to negotiate freely. The TUC reaffirms its view concerning the obligation emanating from Convention No. 147 and its Protocol as well as Convention No. 98. It contests the Government’s position regarding Article 4 of Convention No. 98 and questions the argument in the light of the Trade Union Consolidation Act adopted in 1992. The TUC believes that the provision of what is referred to as a “workforce agreement” is at variance with the principle of encouraging and promoting collective bargaining. Furthermore, the TUC considers the assertion that nothing prevents such voluntary negotiations from taking place to be incorrect, since contracts of employment have been found to expressly forbid individuals from contacting a recognized trade union or the regulatory authorities. The Committee recalls that Convention No. 98, which is listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, has been ratified by the United Kingdom. For further comments concerning the issues raised by the TUC with respect to collective bargaining, the Committee, therefore, refers to its comments under Convention No. 98.

The Committee had previously requested information on the Government’s position regarding the recommendation of the TUC to ratify Conventions Nos 164 and 166. The Government indicates that the provisions of these Conventions are consolidated in the MLC, 2006, which the Government is committed to ratifying. Since work towards ratification is currently ongoing, the Government sees no point in ratifying Conventions Nos 164 and 166 separately, when there is a greater advantage for all concerned in ratifying the MLC, 2006, as a whole. While accepting some legitimacy in the argument of the Government, the TUC fears that provisions of Conventions Nos 164 and 166 could get lost during the process of translating the MLC, 2006, into United Kingdom national law. The Committee stresses that the content of Conventions Nos 164 and 166 is incorporated in the MLC, 2006, albeit partly in Part B of the Code, to which the Member is still obliged to give due consideration. In view of the Government’s position regarding ratification of Conventions Nos 164 and 166, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information in its next report on further developments regarding the ratification of the MLC, 2006, which is the most up to date international instrument concerning minimum standards in merchant shipping and whose ratification would result in the automatic denunciation of the present Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted in 2005 by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in relation to the first report communicated by the Government of the United Kingdom on the application of the Protocol to this Convention.

In its observations, the TUC expressed concerns about the United Kingdom’s application of ratified ILO Conventions to United Kingdom ships. It asserted that the only body of primary legislation that applies to all UK merchant ships and all seafarers serving thereon is the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which contained little in the way of social or employment protection, particularly for non-resident seafarers. The TUC further claimed that the United Kingdom did not regulate the social conditions including working conditions of seafarers on UK ships trading wholly or mainly outside of UK territorial waters, nor of those seafarers not resident in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that Convention No. 147 (and its Protocol) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea require that this be done for all seafarers on ships registered in the United Kingdom, without providing for exemptions based on residence or geographic location of the vessel. The TUC also maintained that the Convention and its Protocol placed an obligation on the Government to encourage collective bargaining (which it was, in any case, bound to do by virtue of ratification of Convention No. 98), in particular, where the flag State is unable to exercise effective control over ships flying its flag, because it did not extend its legislation to cover seafarers working wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom or non-residents.

These observations have been transmitted to the Government for any comments it wished to make. In the absence of a reply, the Committee recalls that the Convention indeed applies to all persons employed on board ships registered in the member State’s territory and falling within the scope of Convention No. 147 as defined in Article 1, regardless of their area of operation. The exclusion, in law or in practice, of persons employed on board ship who are not resident in the country of the ship’s registration would normally not be compatible with the good faith application of Convention No. 147 in a country with an open register (including one with an off-shore or international register), where a large proportion of seafarers would actually not be covered (see, for the specific case of social security, paragraph 50 of the Committee’s General Survey of 1990 on labour standards on merchant ships). The Committee asks the Government to provide, having particular regard to the practical application of Article 2, paragraphs (a) and (b), of the Convention, information on the assertions made by the TUC concerning social and employment protection afforded to, and social conditions including working conditions in place for, seafarers on UK ships trading wholly or mainly outside of UK territorial waters or seafarers not resident in the United Kingdom.

As a general comment, the TUC advocated the ratification of the Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987 (No. 164), and the Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166). The Committee would appreciate information on the Government’s present position with regard to the recommendation of the TUC.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the detailed information and statistics supplied by the Government concerning inspection and training. In particular, it notes with interest the adoption of the Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations, 2002.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that Regulation 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations, 2002, as amended in 2004, entitled “General duty of company, person employing a seafarer, master”, which sets forth the standards of hours of rest applicable in non-emergency situations, no longer contains the flexible notion “so far as is reasonably practicable”. In this context, the Committee recalls the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), in 2001. For further comments concerning hours of work and manning, the Committee, therefore, refers to its comments under Convention No. 180.

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

The Committee notes with interest the detailed information and statistics in the Government's report as well as the reports of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and copies of the regulatory texts enacted in 1997-98.

In its report the Government has noted that Article 2 of the Convention does not specify either the form which laws or regulations should take, or the manner in which they should ensure the safety of life on board ship. The Committee recalls that while the means to be employed are left in large part to the ratifying State to decide, the wording of the Convention ("to ensure the safety of life on board ship") is unequivocal in placing compliance at the highest level. The Committee will now consider this having regard to paragraphs 80-84 of its 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships.

The Committee, therefore, recalls its previous comments concerning the enactment of laws or regulations laying down safety standards, including but not limited to those relating to hours of work, so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship.

The Committee recalls that Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning, Hours of Work and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1997 (hereinafter "Regulations") is entitled General duty of company, employers and masters, which sets forth the standards applicable in non-emergency situations. The Regulation requires that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the company shall ensure that the master, who in turn shall ensure that the seamen do not work more hours than is safe in relation to the safety of the ship and the master's and seamen's performance of their duties. The master's duty to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the hours of work specified in the schedule are not exceeded, is restated in Regulation 9(9), Schedules of duties and need to record. The Committee notes in particular that these Regulations concern normal circumstances, and that Regulation 7 is subordinated to Regulation 10 (Exception for emergencies). In its report the Government notes the Committee's comments and makes the point that there will be occasions "due to circumstances beyond control" when deviations from the schedule of duties will be necessary.

The Committee with regard to this matter considers that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between standards to ensure safety in non-emergency situations, such as those covered in Regulation 7, and the exceptional measures which may be taken in emergencies (Regulation 10).

The Committee, moreover, takes note that the Regulations appear to recognize this distinction; however, the more flexible notion of reasonable practicability appears not in the Regulation on emergencies, but in the Regulation on general duties. Thus the requirement under Article 2 of the Convention to ensure safety is not met when a general duty is held only to a standard of "so far as is reasonably practicable".

The Committee considers that the applicable legal standard which may justify deviating from schedules of duties set to ensure the safety of life on board ship is that of force majeure: events which are unforeseeable, irresistible, and external. Force majeure effectively suspends the obligation for the duration of the emergency. The Committee recalls, in particular, that the concept of force majeure is circumscribed: emergencies caused in whole or in part by human factors (acts or omissions) do not fall within its scope. For these reasons, the Committee considers that any diminution of standards set to ensure safety fails to fully apply Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government's report draws the Committee's attention to the existence of sanctions set forth in Regulations 16 and 17 for any company, master or seaman who is found to be in breach of specified Regulations. The Committee considers, however, that since Regulation 17(10) incorporates the standard of reasonable practicability as a defence in proceedings for failure to comply with a duty or requirement under these Regulations, the penalties provisions suffer from the same defect as the rest of the text with regard to ensuring the safety of life on board ship. Therefore, the Committee hopes that the Government will review these Regulations with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee has taken note that representative organizations of United Kingdom seafarers and shipowners have been consulted concerning the ratification of the Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), and that following tripartite consultations in 1998 the Government will announce its proposed course of action with regard to the Convention.

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

Article 2(a) (Conventions listed in the appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom), Convention No. 73, Articles 1(3)(a) and 5(1). Further to its previous comments, the Committee recalls from the Government's 1994 report that even though proposals regarding medical examination of seafarers on vessels below 1,600 gross register tons have not yet been put for consultation, consideration will be given to undertaking a consultation exercise as part of an internal Department of Transport review of arrangements for the medical examination and training of seafarers. Such review will also cover the frequency at which seafarers are required to be medically examined. At that time, the Committee recalled the Government's assurance that it would keep the Committee informed of any developments which may take place, and hoped that the review would enable the Government in the near future to take the necessary measures to ensure implementation of these Articles of the Convention.

From the Government's 1997 report the Committee notes that the Government has no specific developments to report at the present time, however, the general questions of medical standards, examination and training for seafarers are being kept under review.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether this question is currently under active review, and to provide full information concerning progress made or measures under active consideration with a view to implementing the above-mentioned Articles.

Article 2(f) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning verification by inspection or other means that ships registered in its territory comply with international labour Conventions which it has ratified, with the laws and regulations required by subparagraph (a) of this Article and, as may be appropriate under national law, with applicable collective agreements.

Article 2(g) of the Convention. The Committee notes that since the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) was established in 1989 there have been 13 Inspector's Inquiries and that the Report of the Chief Inspector has been published in nine cases. It further notes that as a result of investigation, the MAIB has made 97 recommendations on a wide variety of subjects. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the published accident reports and recommendations.

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

For a number of years the Committee has been commenting on the implementation of the requirement under Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention that there should be laws or regulations for ships registered in the territory laying down safety standards, including hours of work, so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship. The Committee notes from the Government's report that this matter is now governed by the Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning, Hours of Work and Watchkeeping) Regulations, 1997.

The Committee notes that, while Regulations Nos. 7, 8 and 9 do address the issue of hours of work on board ship, they do not appear to ensure the safety of life on board ship, as required by the Convention, since they are subject to the proviso so far as is reasonably practicable. On the other hand, Regulation No. 11 does provide that watchkeeping arrangements must be at all times adequate for maintaining safe navigational and engineering watches.

The Committee recalls the particular importance attached to this requirement of the Convention, as indicated in its earlier observations and in the comments of the Trades Union Congress. The safety requirement calls for legislation in respect of hours of work relating not only to watchkeepers (see paragraph 96 of the 1990 General Survey of the Convention). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information enabling it to determine whether, in law and in practice, the Regulations can be regarded as adequate to that purpose, and if it would indicate any further measures taken or proposed in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. Article 2(a) (Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom). Convention No. 73. Articles 1(3)(a) and 5(1). Further to its previous comments, the Committee recalls from the Government's 1994 report that even though proposals regarding medical examination of seafarers on vessels below 1,600 gross register tons have not yet been put for consultation, consideration will be given to undertaking a consultation exercise as part of an internal Department of Transport review of arrangements for the medical examination and training of seafarers. Such review will also cover the frequency at which seafarers are required to be medically examined. The Committee recalls the Government's assurance that it will keep the Committee informed of any developments which may take place, and hopes that the review will enable the Government in the near future to take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of these Articles of the Convention.

2. Article 2(e) of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's position that the level of recruitment of seafarers for employment on UK ships and the nationality of those recruits are commercial matters for the owners of those ships and will also be subject to the numbers of individuals seeking such employment. It further notes that the Government considers it cannot with any justification require employers to engage UK seafarers nor can it exercise any influence on the number of persons seeking employment at sea.

However, the Committee notes the continued support for recruitment and retention of UK seafarers through the Government Assistance for Training (GAFT) and Development of Certified Seafarers (DOCS) schemes, and that the GAFT scheme has not been oversubscribed. The Committee would appreciate receiving future statistics concerning the training of British seafarers.

3. Article 4. The Committee notes the statement in the Government's comments of 22 November 1996 that the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) has achieved or surpassed the 25 per cent target level of inspections laid down in the European Directive on Port State Control. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning the resources allocated for the MSA in its future Business Plan (after 1996-97) when this has been determined.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending 31 May 1996, as well as the Trades Union Congress (TUC) comments of 8 November 1996 on the Government's report, and the Government's reply of 22 November 1996 to the TUC's comments. The Committee has taken into consideration, in this observation and in a request addressed directly to the Government, the comments by the TUC and the reply by the Government.

In its comments, the TUC considers that the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 1995 are unclear and unenforceable. It further notes that the Government has recently published a consultation paper on the proposed implementation of the revised International Convention for the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW), and that in the draft Safe Manning and Watchkeeping Regulations, the Government has given notice that it intends to revoke the Regulations and replace them with revised guidelines.

The TUC states its position that all seafarers should enjoy ten hours' daily rest. It refers to regulations currently in force providing for a minimum of seven hours rest per 24-hour period but notes that, if for operational reasons this were not practicable, the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) has advised that the operator should ensure an aggregate 16 hours rest in a 48-hour period (as provided under Regulation 5(c)). The TUC notes that this arrangement has often resulted in seafarers working for 48 hours - four hours on and four hours off - thus permitting employers to ensure breaks totalling 16 hours within a 48-hour period, but without the guarantee of a rest period of sufficient length to ensure proper rest and recovery.

1. Safety standards and hours of work

The Committee refers to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 1995 (hereinafter "Regulations") which came into force on 28 February 1995.

The Committee notes, in particular, the requirement in Regulation 2(1) and (2) that every operator or employer, and every master of a ship, respectively, has a duty to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable (italics added) that seamen do not work more hours than is safe in relation to the safety of the ship and the seamen's performance of their duties.

The Committee notes that these Regulations form part of the statutory instruments concerning merchant shipping safety, and as such are in the purview of Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention concerning safety standards, including standards of competency, hours of work and manning, so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship.

In this regard, the Committee observes that the operative criterion with regard to hours of work throughout the Government's Regulations is that of reasonable practicability, thus qualifying the standard of safety which, as set forth in Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention, is unqualified.

The Committee recalls that the International Convention for the Standards of Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW), under section A-VIII/1 (Fitness for duty), requires that (i) all persons who are assigned duty as officer in charge of a watch or as a rating forming part of a watch shall be provided a minimum of ten hours of rest in any 24-hour period, and (ii) the hours of rest may be divided into no more than two periods, one of which shall be at least six hours in length. The Committee notes that in subsection 3 of the same section of the STCW, the only permissible derogations from the required rest periods are emergencies, drills or overriding operational conditions. The Committee further refers to the Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), adopted at the 84th (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference. This Convention adopts rest period requirements comparable to those of the STCW, subject to emergency conditions where a master may require a seafarer to perform any work necessary for the immediate safety of the ship or for the assistance of persons in distress at sea. The Committee notes that Convention No. 180 has been included in Part A of the Supplementary Appendix to the Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147).

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that it would be both unreasonable and unrealistic to impose rigid hours of work requirements on shipowners, and it therefore intended that the owners and masters of individual ships should be responsible for ensuring that the hours worked comply with their assessment of what is safe for a particular shipping operation.

In this regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention for each Member to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards; that this obligation is incumbent on the State and cannot be delegated to individuals, including professionals, to be dealt with according to their assessment of what is safe on an ad hoc basis under non-emergency conditions. The Convention requires that the State assume the primary responsibility in this regard, and the Committee considers that the use of subjective and imprecise safety criteria such as reasonable practicability and normally available rest periods in order to achieve operational flexibility cannot be considered as meaningful safety standards and as fulfilling the State's responsibility under Article 2 of the Convention.

In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in what manner it considers the duty to ensure safety standards, as set forth in Regulations adopting a threshold criterion of reasonable practicability and periods of rest normally available, would be commensurate with the unqualified undertaking set forth in Article 2 of the Convention to have laws or regulations laying down safety standards, including standards of competency, hours of work and manning, so as to ensure the safety of life on board ship.

The Committee further notes from the Government's comments that it will be giving careful consideration to the new Seafarers' Hours of Work and Manning of Ships Convention in the context of overall Government policy on working time to ensure that it is justified in terms of benefit to safety and counter pollution effort and that it can be applied in a manner compatible with the implementation of the International Maritime Organization's revised Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention. The Government has indicated that its consideration of the Convention will include consultation with representative organizations of UK seafarers and shipowners in due course. The Committee hopes the Government will provide information concerning these tripartite consultations.

2. Standard of duty

The Committee further notes with some concern that under Regulation 5, in any proceedings for an offence under any of these Regulations consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is reasonably practicable, it shall be for the accused to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement. Thus, the traditional burden of proof of guilt, normally borne by the accuser, is here, in the case of disciplinary proceedings, shifted to a burden of proof of innocence, borne by the accused, and judged according to varying interpretations of what was reasonably practicable at the moment. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any comments which would shed light on this point, notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 7(6), listed under Penalties, that it shall be a good defence for a person charged with an offence involving contravention of Regulation 4 to prove that he took all reasonable steps to avoid commission of the offence.

3. Fitness for duty

In this regard, the Committee recalls from the Government's report that the Regulations place an onus on every master and seaman to ensure that he is properly rested before commencing duty.

Thus, it is unclear to the Committee whether the notion of aggregate hours of rest is in practice compatible with the safety of life on board ship in general and, in particular, whether the seafarer can, under such conditions, fulfil his obligation under Regulation 3 to ensure that he is properly rested when commencing duty on a ship and that he obtains adequate rest during periods when he is off duty.

In this regard, and in the event of proceedings resulting from an offence under the Regulations, the Committee recalls the seafarer's rebuttable presumption of guilt under Regulation 5.

The Committee requests the Government to forward copies of the consultation paper on the implementation of the STCW and the draft Safe Manning and Watchkeeping Regulations as soon as possible, as well as any comments concerning the points raised in this observation.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on a number of other matters.

[The Government is requested to report in detail in 1997.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Governments replies to its observations of 1994 and to the comments made earlier by the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The Committee also notes that additional comments from the TUC regarding related questions have been received too late to be examined fully at this session. The Committee will examine all these elements, including any replies given by the Government, at its next session.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending June 1994, containing the Government's reply to the Committee's 1994 observation which had referred to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) comments of 1993. It also notes the comments made by the TUC which were received on 13 February 1995, and the Government's reply received on 15 February 1995. The Committee recalls its 1995 observation in which it indicated that it would examine these questions at this session.

Article 2(a)(ii) of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction from the Government's 1994 report and the February 1995 TUC comments that the Government had announced in 1994 that work in ships' engine-rooms would, from October 1994, be a prescribed occupation for occupational deafness, as was recommended by the Government's Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, and the implementation of which had been demanded by the maritime unions and the TUC for many years.

Article 2(a)(i). Hours of work. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the TUC's 1994 observations that the maritime unions and the TUC consider the absence of proper hours of work regulations in the United Kingdom merchant shipping industry (according to the TUC the only transport industry in the United Kingdom without safe controls on hours of work) continues to have serious implications for marine safety. In early 1995, at the time the Government was presenting before Parliament the Statutory Instrument on Hours of Work, the TUC had indicated that neither it nor the maritime unions had seen the text, and that if the regulations closely resembled the draft which had been published by the Department of Transport in late 1993, they would oppose it. It also contests the Government's reply to the Committee's 1994 observation that there was general acceptance of the 1993 draft regulations as the maritime unions had disputed key elements of the draft. While the TUC welcomes the possibility that the regulations may outline minimum rest periods, it considers the 1993 draft regulations to have the following serious shortcomings: the failure to set out strict limits on working periods; general duties will be placed on employers, owners and masters to ensure that seafarers did not work unsafe hours; unsafe hours are not defined; goal-setting approach is unsatisfactory because it did not take adequate account of modern reality of the shipping industry which frequently involves unreasonable and increasing workloads and working hours, resulting mainly from reduced manning, new shift patterns, tighter schedules, multinational manning, and increased commercial pressures. The TUC considers that the goal-setting approach will permit and encourage long and unsafe working hours. The TUC also fears that the regulations will not cover catering ratings, who are the majority of the crew on many passenger vessels. It and the maritime unions consider that all officers and ratings have a safety responsibility and they should be included within the scope of the regulations.

The Committee notes from the Government's reply of 15 February 1995 and the enclosed text of the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations, 1955, that these regulations were adopted following a consultation exercise held in 1993 when written comments were received from 25 organizations, and following the meetings held in 1994 by officials from the Maritime Safety Agency in the Department of Transport, with the Chamber of Shipping, the British Tugowners' Association, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST). The Government indicates that on 25 January 1995 the Marine Safety Agency informed NUMAST and RMT of the changes to the preceding version resulting from the representations received and of the fact that the revised version would not be circulated for further comments to avoid additional delay in the introduction of the regulations.

The Committee notes from the Government's reply and the text of the regulations that the said regulations entrust owners and masters of individual ships with the responsibility for ensuring that hours worked comply with their assessment of what is safe for a particular shipping operation. It further notes that the working hours and rest periods of masters, seamen whose work includes regular watch-keeping duties or ship handling, and chief engineer, chief officer and second engineer officer on board the vessel are to be laid down in a schedule of duties to be produced and displayed on all vessels. General duties are also placed on all masters and seamen to use their best endeavours to be adequately rested. While the Government acknowledges its obligations under Convention No. 147 to make regulations on hours of work, it indicates that it has made efforts to arrive at a system of regulation that would, on the one hand, seek to improve safety through the avoidance of excessive working hours and fatigue and ensuring provision for adequate periods of rest, and on the other be flexible enough to cater for all classes of shipping operation and not create unworkable requirements.

The Committee welcomes the acceptance by the Government of the need to have regulations laying down hours of work, as required by Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. It however draws the Government's attention to paragraph 96 of its 1990 General Survey on labour standards on merchant ships, which indicates that the essential requirements of this Article may be satisfied at a minimum by legislation laying down, in light of safety demands, a reasonable level of normal daily hours of work at sea for all officers and ratings, and not limited just to watch-keepers. The Committee none the less indicated its recognition of the need for flexibility in this regard when it stated in the same paragraph that such normal hours may be defined differently for near-trade ships than for distant-trade ships. Furthermore, it also acknowledges that where safety is at issue it would be for national laws or regulations to determine the duties, the time spent on which should be included in normal hours of work, and to regulate other aspects of hours of work than merely setting a daily or weekly norm such as daily rest periods or maximum overtime allowable. The Committee notes however that, except for section 4(5)(c) of the regulations which provides for schedules of duties to comply with the requirement, that there be a minimum uninterrupted period of seven hours off-duty in each 24-hour period or periods of rest, aggregating at least 16 hours off-duty in each 48-hour period, there are no minimum safety standards on hours of work laid down in the said regulations. It remains up to the operators and masters of individual ships to set these standards even if they have to take into account certain considerations and follow specified procedures in doing so. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it ensures that questions other than those on minimum rest periods are laid down by laws or regulations or by collective agreements that are given general application by laws (paragraph 97 of its 1990 General Survey).

Article 2(a). (Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom.)

Convention No. 73, Articles 1(3)(a) and 5(1). Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's 1994 report that even though proposals regarding medical examination of seafarers on vessels below 1,600 gross register tons have not yet been put for consultation, consideration will be given to undertaking a consultation exercise as part of an internal Department of Transport review of arrangements for the medical examination and training of seafarers. Such review will also cover the frequency at which seafarers are required to be medically examined. The Committee notes the Government's assurance that it will keep the Committee informed of any developments which may take place, and hopes that the review will shortly permit the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of these Articles of the Convention.

Article 2(e). The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's 1994 report replying to its previous comments that recalled the 1993 TUC comments regarding the adequacy of funding for training for seafarers. It draws the Government's attention to paragraphs 203 to 208 of its 1990 General Survey on the Convention and hopes the Government will continue to provide details of the measures it takes to promote the proper training and qualification of seafarers employed on ships registered in its territory.

Article 2(f). The Committee recalls its previous comments referring to the 1993 TUC observations and the 1994 government reply regarding the adequacy of inspection of ships. It also notes the TUC's comments and the Government's reply of February 1995 regarding the need to provide adequate resources for staffing of the UK's complement of full-time professional government inspectors and surveyors, in order to effectively carry out the inspection and control obligations undertaken under the Convention, including port state control inspections. The TUC expresses its opposition to an initial government proposal of 20 per cent cut from the budget of the Maritime Safety Agency (MSA), which it said can only hamper the country's ability to carry out proper and detailed ship inspection. The TUC also objects to the Government's plans to "delegate" to various classification societies certain survey work presently carried out by the independent MSA surveyors. It considered this work to be the function of independent government employees.

The Committee notes from the Government's reply that, contrary to the concerns expressed by the TUC, the MSA was actually planning to increase the number and extent of inspections it carries out on UK and foreign registered ships by better use of its resources and improved targeting, particularly of port state control inspections. It adds that port state control will be strengthened further with the adoption of the European Union Directive which will widen the scope of inspections, but that the United Kingdom will continue to inspect 30 per cent of individual foreign ships entering its ports, which, when combined with those of the other signatories of the Memorandum, ensures inspection of 85 per cent of all foreign ships calling at the ports covered by the Memorandum. With respect to the TUC's comments regarding proposals to delegate certain survey work to various classification societies, the Government states that there is provision in the relevant International Maritime Organization Convention for survey and certification work to be delegated to the private sector. The Government further indicates that its current proposals only extend the scope of existing delegation and will be subject to parliamentary approval, and all proposals to delegate survey work will incorporate safeguards to ensure that safety standards are always maintained.

The Committee welcomes the information that the Government intends to increase the number and extent of inspections it carries out by better use of its resources and improved targeting. It would be grateful if the Government would also indicate its intentions regarding the concerns expressed by the TUC on any possible future budgetary cuts at the MSA. With respect to possible delegation of certain survey work to classification societies, the Committee points out that while Convention No. 147 leaves the organization and functioning of the inspection services to the State's discretion, it is clear that the manner in which the State fulfils its undertaking in Article 2(f) is through action by a competent authority (paragraphs 246 to 256 of its 1990 General Survey). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide full particulars on any developments in this regard, taking into account the concerns expressed by the TUC regarding the need for these functions to be carried out by independent government officials, and considering the evident difference in the nature of inspections for standards on working and living conditions of seafarers as opposed to inspections for other technical maritime standards. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the organization, staffing, functioning of the inspection and other arrangements, numbers and results of inspections, including the percentage of home-registered vessels inspected and investigations of complaints, and penalties imposed.

Article 2(g). 1. With respect to the Government's decision not to hold a public inquiry into the 1989 "Marchioness" disaster referred to by the TUC in its 1995 comments and in which 51 people had died, the Committee notes the Government's reply that Article 2(g) of the Convention, while requiring the Government to hold an official inquiry into any serious marine casualty, does not, however, require that the inquiry be a formal investigation within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Government adds that a formal investigation was found unnecessary at the time, given the full, thorough and comprehensive inquiry carried out by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) under the then new investigation procedures contained in the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations, 1989. This continues to be the Government's view today, which considers that a formal investigation would be unlikely to add to the inspector's findings, or to the 27 safety recommendations made in the MAIB report. The Government also indicates that the Hayes report on river safety had made no suggestion that a further inquiry into the accident was needed. The Government recalls that even though the MAIB is part of the Department of Transport, it operates as an independent unit and the Chief Inspector reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Committee points out that, to the extent the vessel in question was not seagoing, the matter is not covered by the Convention.

2. With respect to the cuts in the budget of the MAIB, initially set at 20 per cent in 1994 but eventually reduced to 7 per cent, the Committee notes the TUC's views that such cuts will have an adverse impact on the UK's ability to carry out proper accident and casualty investigations. In its reply the Government maintains that a cut of 7 per cent could be achieved without any impairment when the savings are made through improved efficiency and the loss of only one post, which is not that of an inspector. The Committee hopes the Government will keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

Article 4. The Committee refers to the 1993 TUC comments, the Government's reply of 1994 and the reiteration by the TUC of the same comments in 1995 regarding the Government's decision not to investigate or take action on the seafarers' and trade unions' complaints about the de-recognition of two British seafarers' unions in the case of Geest Line Limited and their resulting inability to take part in free collective bargaining. The Government indicates that there is no evidence that the said de-recognitions have resulted in any kind of complaint to the United Kingdom which could be held to come within the terms of Article 4 of the Convention. It considers that nothing in the provisions of Convention No. 147 or those of any of the ratified appendix Conventions would require the United Kingdom to establish arrangements such that a trade union would be able to force an unwilling employer to bargain (or continue to bargain) with the union about terms and conditions of work of employees. The Government states that this voluntary approach to recognition of trade unions by employers is in line with the views of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which has always accepted that to place a duty on a government to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means with a given organization is not appropriate and would clearly alter the nature of bargaining. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide all particulars of any complaint or information it might have received in this particular case, from a member of the crew of the ship in question, a professional body, an association, a trade union or, generally, any person with an interest in the safety of the ship or the safety and health hazards to the crew.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

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

The Committee notes the information provided in reply to its previous comments.

Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. Hours of Work. The Committee notes that, in the light of comments received in an earlier consultation, revised draft regulations for the United Kingdom registered seagoing ships have recently been circulated for full public consultation. These regulations will require the working hours and rest periods of masters engaged in watchkeeping and of seafarers and senior officers to be laid down by shipowners in a schedule of duties to be produced and displayed on all vessels. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has referred to the urgent need to legislate in respect of hours of work in order to comply with the Convention; moreover, it considers the draft regulations seriously flawed in that they do not set maximum hours of work, or define what is safe; nor do they lay down the necessary support and protection for safety officers and masters taking action to avoid fatigue, or apply to ratings other than watchkeepers. The TUC recommends a 12-hour day and guaranteed eight hour rest period for all ratings, and calls also for legislation on paid leave. The Committee recalls that Article 2(a)(i) requires each ratifying Member to have laws or regulations for ships registered in its territory on safety standards, including hours of work. It recalls the need for the regulations in the light of safety demands to lay down reasonable levels of normal daily hours of work and the maximum length of overtime at sea for all officers and ratings (not only watchkeepers) (see paragraph 96 of its General Survey of the Convention of 1990). The Committee does hope that all these factors will be taken into consideration and the Government will supply full details.

Article 2(a) (Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom.)

- Convention No. 73, Article 1(3)(a). The Committee notes that the Government continues to hold that the provisions of Convention No. 73 specifying application of medical examination to seafarers on ships larger than 200 GRT are not relevant to Convention No. 147. The TUC also states that there are no practical difficulties in the exclusion of vessels of up to 1,600 GRT as regards masters and officers - who are issued certificates in any event - although stricter requirements should be accepted for ratings. The Committee notes with interest that in May 1993 the Merchant Shipping (Local Passenger Vessels) (Masters' Licences and Hours, Manning and Training) Regulations 1993 were introduced, and that consideration is now being given to undertaking another consultation with the industry with a view to requiring seafarers on seagoing vessels below 1,600 GRT to carry medical certificates. The Committee hopes these consultations will have due regard to its earlier comments as to the significance of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147, in relation to the large discrepancy between the Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations of 1983 (excluding vessels below 1,600 GRT) and the provision of Convention No. 73 permitting exclusion of vessels below 200 GRT only, and that the Government will supply full details.

- Convention No. 73, Article 5(1). The Committee notes that the Government continues to consider that raising the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in any way (from every five years) would be tantamount to full compliance with the requirement of the unratified Convention No. 73 (every two years). The Government states that there has been no pressure from employers or seafarers to make any change in this respect, and that there is no evidence that the practice is medically unsound. The Committee has earlier observed that Convention No. 147 does not require literal compliance with every provision of Convention No. 73, but that closer conformity (substantial equivalence) with Article 5(1) of the Convention is called for. The Committee hopes the Government will keep the matter under review with the relevant employers' and workers' organizations and supply information on further developments.

Article 2(f). The Committee notes the TUC's statement that 70 per cent of vessels are not inspected and that the adequacy of 17 full-time staff of inspectors is questionable. The TUC remarks that if Convention No. 147 is to have meaning it must be better accepted in principle and enforced. The Committee welcomes the information again provided by the Government - especially regarding food and catering - and hopes further details will be sent with future reports.

Article 2(a)(ii). The Committee notes the TUC's statements that the levels of social security benefits in the United Kingdom are lower than in other European Union countries; and that the Government has not implemented the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that work in ships' engine rooms should be added to the list of prescribed occupations. No doubt the Government will deal with these questions in its next report.

Article 2(e). The Committee notes the TUC's view that, despite the continued decline of the United Kingdom fleet, funding made available for training is wholly inadequate. It hopes the Government will deal further with this question in its next report, having regard to the Convention's requirements.

Article 4. The Committee notes the TUC's reference to the derecognition of two British seafarers' unions in the case of Geest Line Ltd., depriving them of the ability to take part in free collective bargaining; it states that the United Kingdom Government took no action in that case. The Committee recalls the Convention's provisions as to port state action in cases where foreign-registered vessels fail to comply with minimum standards. It hopes the Government will provide all due information.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]

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

Further to its previous observations, the Committee has noted the detailed report provided by the Government including information on inspection (Article 2(f) of the Convention).

Article 2(a)(i). The Committee notes that, as a result of the report of the commissioned study on hours of work and fatigue on board ship, draft regulations and a code of practice for sea-going ships, dealing with hours of work, have been prepared and sent out to a limited group of organisations representing the industry for preliminary comment and discussion, prior to full public consultation. The Committee hopes the regulation will be issued soon and a copy provided with the next report.

Article 2(a) (Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom.)

- Convention No. 73, Article 1(3)(a). In its earlier observations, the Committee pointed out that the Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations, 1983, only apply to ships of over 1,600 gross registered tons (GRT), whereas Convention No. 73 allows the exclusion of vessels of less than only 200 GRT. The Committee has taken full note of the Government's views that important IMO Conventions all apply different conditions to vessels above or below this critical size and, as a result, the majority of vessels engaged in coasting and near coastal voyages are operated to a different regime from larger vessels. The Government does not consider it appropriate to apply all the requirements of Convention No. 147 to vessels below this break point. It further states its belief that it is the right of any contracting State to determine its own definition of "small vessels" when the Convention itself does not do so and that, even if some Appendix Conventions have specific lower limits, ratification of Convention No. 147 does not require a State automatically to apply the restrictive requirements. It also states that the Government does not hold information on the number of seafarers employed on vessels between 200 and 1,600 GRT.

The Committee would refer to its observation of 1990 which in its pertinent parts reads as follows:

The Committee would refer to the explanations in paragraphs 43-45 of its 1990 General Survey of Convention No. 147, in which it has indicated that the exclusion of vessels of up to 1,600 GRT from provisions for the medical examination of seafarers is not consistent with the notion of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) of the Convention. The Committee has earlier indicated that in determining, under Article 1(4)(c) of Convention No. 147, which are the "small vessels" which may be excluded from the requirements of that Convention, regard must be had to the provisions as to scope in the respective Appendix Conventions, so that the discretion to exclude "small vessels" is not an unlimited one.

The Committee has taken full note of the Government's earlier indications that small ships were defined for the purposes of Convention No. 147 as those below 1,600 GRT, and that shipowners' and seafarers' organisations were consulted in this respect. However, it would be grateful if the Government would consider entering into further consultations with those organisations, in order to decide in the light of the Committee's comments whether the scope of the Regulations in question might not be extended in order to bring them more into line with the provisions of Convention No. 73.

In this respect, the Committee stresses that, in exercising the discretion to exclude small vessels, in the first place substantial equivalence to the definition in Convention No. 73 should be ensured; and in the second place there is a requirement as to consultations. It would also draw the Government's attention to paragraph 37 of the General Survey, regarding the question of "sea-going" ships.

- Convention No. 73, Article 5(1). The Committee recalls its previous observations with regard to the discrepancy between the requirements as to the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in the 1983 Regulations (every five years for those under 40) and those in the Convention (every two years for all seafarers covered by the Convention): this was found to be too wide for the Regulations to be considered substantially equivalent for the purposes of Convention No. 147. The Government states that one of the purposes of Convention No. 147 was to allow States which could not or did not wish to meet the detailed provisions of the associated Conventions to agree to comply with the requirements of this Convention (No. 147). It therefore avers that to require moves towards compliance with the earlier Conventions as essential is at variance with the purpose behind the adoption of Convention No. 147. The Government states that there has been no pressure from employers or seafarers to reduce the period of validity of medical certificates, and there have been no cases to demonstrate that the adoption of the five-year period for younger seafarers is medically unsound. It therefore concludes that its custom and practice, which might not be in strict compliance with Convention No. 73, as it has not ratified it, continues to guarantee strict adherence to the provisions of Convention No. 147.

The Committee has taken due note of the Government's views. It would once again express its agreement that Convention No. 147 does not require literal compliance with every provision of Convention No. 73. It nevertheless considers that closer conformity (substantial equivalence) with Article 5(1) of the Convention is essential under Article 2(a)(i) of Convention No. 147 (see paragraph 115 of the 1990 General Survey).

The Committee once again suggests that the Government might consider examining this question in a study to be commissioned by it. It will be grateful if the next report includes information on any measures taken or proposed on this matter.

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

1. Further to its previous observations, the Committee has noted with interest the detailed report provided by the Government, including information on a variety of social security measures (such as unemployment, old-age, family, maternity and invalidity benefits, and in some cases co-operation with other countries in this respect), in connection with Article 2(a)(ii) and (b)(ii) of the Convention. It has also noted in particular the information as to inspection (Article 2(f)). The Committee hopes the Government will pursue its efforts in these directions and continue to supply details.

2. As regards the arrangements for official inquiries into serious marine casualties (Article 2(g)), the Committee would be grateful further if the Government would indicate the measures taken as a result of the formal investigation referred to in the report and any such subsequent investigations.

3. The Committee refers to its earlier observations, in connection also with the comments received from the Trades Union Congress, concerning the need for laws or regulations laying down safety standards including hours of work, as a matter of ensuring the safety of life on board ship (Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention). It has noted with interest the Government's indication that it commissioned a study of hours of work and fatigue on board ship, and that it would consider introducing regulations on the subject after the study was completed. The Committee understands that that study has now been completed and that it has reached a conclusion in favour of the regulation of hours of work at sea. The Committee hopes the next report will contain full details.

4. Article 2(a) (Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 but not ratified by the United Kingdom).

- Convention No. 73, Article 1(3)(a). In its earlier observations, the Committee pointed out that the Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations, 1983, only apply to ships of over 1,600 gross registered tons (GRT), whereas Convention No. 73 allows the exclusion of vessels of less than only 200 GRT.

The Government's view is that there is nothing in Article 1(4)(c) of Convention No. 147 to require or allow the definition of "small vessels" to be varied in its application to different parts of the Convention or its Appendix; but that the scope to exclude "small vessels" should be unlimited. It therefore states that it cannot agree with the Committee in this respect.

The Committee would refer to the explanations in paragraphs 43-45 of its 1990 General Survey of Convention No. 147, in which it has indicated that the exclusion of vessels of up to 1,600 GRT from provisions for the medical examination of seafarers is not consistent with the notion of substantial equivalence in Article 2(a) of the Convention. The Committee has earlier indicated that in determining, under Article 1(4)(c) of Convention No. 147, which are the "small vessels" which may be excluded from the requirements of that Convention, regard must be had to the provisions as to scope in the respective Appendix Conventions, so that the discretion to exclude "small vessels" is not an unlimited one.

The Committee has taken full note of the Government's earlier indications that small ships were defined for the purposes of Convention No. 147 as those below 1,600 GRT, and that shipowners' and seafarers' organisations were consulted in this respect. However, it would be grateful if the Government would consider entering into further consultations with those organisations, in order to decide in the light of the Committee's comments whether the scope of the Regulations in question might not be extended in order to bring them more into line with the provisions of Convention No. 73. It would also be grateful if, in the meantime, the Government would indicate the appropriate numbers of seafarers employed on ships of between 200 and 1,600 GRT.

- Convention No. 73, Article 5(1). In its earlier observations, the Committee indicated that the discrepancy between the requirements as to the frequency of medical examinations for seafarers in the 1983 Regulations (every five years for those under 40) and in the Convention (every two years for all seafarers covered by the Convention) is too wide for the Regulations to be considered substantially equivalent for the purposes of Convention No. 147.

The Government states that it has seen no evidence to suggest that any benefit would accrue to either employers or workers by reducing the frequency of medical examinations of such seafarers from five years to two.

Whilst the Committee would agree with the Government that Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147 does not require literal compliance with every provision of Convention No. 73 (amongst others), it nevertheless considers that closer conformity with Article 5(1) is essential (as indicated in the 1990 General Survey, particularly paragraph 115). The Committee suggests that the Government might consider examining this question in a study of the kind referred to above. It hopes the next report will include information on any steps taken or proposed in this matter.