Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1992, Publicación: 79ª reunión CIT (1992)

Convenio sobre la marina mercante (normas mínimas), 1976 (núm. 147) - Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte (Ratificación : 1980)

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.