Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, under which seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience (or continued wilful disobedience) to any lawful command. It also referred to section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, under which deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It therefore hoped that measures would be taken to re-examine the above-mentioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline. The Committee also refers in this connection to paragraph 179 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the above-mentioned provisions of the Shipping Act had been never applied in practice. However, as regards the revision, the Government indicates in its latest report that no measures have been taken to amend the shipping legislation.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, under which seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience (or continued wilful disobedience) to any lawful command. It also referred to section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, under which deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It therefore hoped that measures would be taken to re-examine the above-mentioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline. The Committee also refers in this connection to paragraph 179 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the above-mentioned provisions of the Shipping Act had been never applied in practice. However, as regards the revision, the Government indicates in its latest report that no measures have been taken to amend the shipping legislation.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also recalled that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also recalled that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also referred to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also referred to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also referred to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b) of the same Act, deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

The Committee recalled that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. It also referred to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention. The Committee therefore requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act in accordance with the above considerations, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act have never been applied in practice. It also notes the Government’s statement that the number of active seafarers in the country is negligible.

While noting these indications, and noting also that the above provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will at last be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

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

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b), deserting seafarers or a seafarer absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work. It requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its report received in June 1998 that the Shipping Act was under review as regards its conformity with the Convention. However, in its latest report received in September 1999 the Government states that it has seen no evidence of any penalties involving compulsory labour which may be imposed for violation of labour discipline under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act 1994-15.

The Committee recalls in this connection that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. As was pointed out in paragraphs 117 to 119 of the Committee’s 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention.

Since the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15 and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee hopes that measures will soon be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b), deserting seafarers or a seafarer absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work. It requested the Government to re-examine the abovementioned sections of the Shipping Act with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report received in June 1998 that the Shipping Act was under review as regards its conformity with the Convention. However, in its latest report received in September 1999 the Government states that it has seen no evidence of any penalties involving compulsory labour which may be imposed for violation of labour discipline under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act 1994-15.

The Committee recalls in this connection that, since Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, the punishment of breaches of labour discipline with sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) is incompatible with the Convention. As was pointed out in paragraphs 117 to 119 of the Committee's 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by this provision of the Convention.

Since the abovementioned provisions of the Shipping Act, 1994-15 and corresponding provisions of earlier legislation have been the subject of comments for a considerable number of years, the Committee hopes that measures will soon be taken to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to this end.

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

The Committee notes the Government's reports received in June and September 1998.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, seafarers may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command, and that under section 149(a) and (b), deserting seafarers or seafarers absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee also noted that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work. It requested the Government to re-examine the above-mentioned sections of the Shipping Act with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline.

The Government indicates in its report received in June 1998 that the Shipping Act is under review as regards its conformity with the Convention. However, in its latest report received in September 1998 the Government states that the safety of crew and ship must be paramount and that criminal sanctions are the most effective way of ensuring compliance, given the peculiar circumstances of employment on board ship. It also refers to United Kingdom legislation on the subject and concludes that it is not necessary to amend the Shipping Act.

The Committee wishes to recall in this connection that Article 1(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, thus making incompatible with the Convention sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline. It points out, with reference to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that only cases where the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board are endangered would not be covered by the Convention.

As regards the Government's reference to United Kingdom legislation, the Committee recalls that it noted with satisfaction in its report to the 57th (1972) Session of the Conference that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, abolished the penalty of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) provided for in sections 221 and 225 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for breaches of discipline by seafarers except in cases of offences endangering the ship or persons on board. It also noted with satisfaction in its report to the 83rd (1996) Session of the Conference that the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, 1988 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1994, has brought into force the provisions of the 1988 Act repealing section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, which provided for the forcible return of deserting seafarers on board ship under reciprocal arrangements with other countries.

The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report on measures taken or contemplated with a view to bringing the shipping legislation into full conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee has noted the provisions of the Prisons Act, Cap. 168 of the Laws of Barbados, the Prison Rules, 1974 and the Shipping Act, 1994-15, copies of which were supplied by the Government.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 148(1)(b) and (c) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, a seaman may be imprisoned for one month and three months, respectively, if he is guilty of wilful disobedience to any lawful command and that under section 149(a) and (b), a deserting seaman or a seaman absent without leave may be imprisoned for three and two months, respectively. The Committee notes that under section 64 of the Prison Rules, 1974, prisoners are required to work.

Referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, the Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine section 148(1)(b) and (c) as well as section 149(a) and (b) of the Shipping Act, 1994-15, with a view to ensuring that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for violations of labour discipline, and that it will soon report on measures taken or contemplated in this regard to bring the shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Prison labour. The Committee previously noted that the Prisons Act, 1890, was no longer in force. It requests the Government to supply with its next report a copy of the 1985 Prisons Act.

2. Forcible return on board ship. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 150 of the Shipping Act, 1981, under which deserting seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Committee noted the Government's view that the provisions of the Shipping Act dealing with desertion did not in themselves create a forced labour situation.

As the Committee pointed out in paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline may consist of measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service in the form of physical constraints. The forcible return of a deserting seaman on board ship at the request of the master of the vessel falls within this category.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that as part of a wider exercise to amend the Shipping Act, consideration is being actively given to repealing section 150 of the Shipping Act.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on any progress made.

As regards section 145(1)(b), (c) and (e) and 146(a) and (b) of the Shipping Act, 1981, the Committee again defers further comments pending examination of the prisons legislation (see point 1 above).

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. Prison labour. The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for the period ending 30 June 1989 that the Prisons Act, 1890, was no longer in force. It again requests the Government to supply with its next report a copy of the statutory instrument which superseded the 1890 Prisons Act.

2. Forcible return on board ship. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 150 of the Shipping Act, 1981, under which deserting seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Committee noted the Government's view, expressed in its report, that the provisions of the Shipping Act dealing with desertion do not in themselves create a forced labour situation. Under section 150(2) and (3), deserting seamen shall, on an application by the master of the vessel, be conveyed on board the vessel or delivered to the master or mate of the vessel, or to its owner or his agent, to be so conveyed.

As the Committee pointed out in paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline may consist of measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service in the form of physical constraints. The forcible return of a deserting seaman on board ship at the request of the master of the vessel falls within this category. The Committee accordingly again expresses the hope that section 150 of the Act will be repealed, as were corresponding provisions in other countries.

As regards section 145(1)(b), (c) and (e) and 146(a) and (b) of the Shipping Act, 1981, the Committee again defers further comments pending examination of the prisons legislation (see point 1 above).

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

1. Prison labour. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the Prisons Act, 1890, is no longer in force. It requests the Government to supply with its next report a copy of the statutory instrument which superseded the 1890 Prisons Act.

2. Forcible return on board ship. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 150 of the Shipping Act, 1981, under which deserting seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Committee notes the Government's view, expressed in its latest report, that the provisions of the Shipping Act dealing with desertion do not in themselves create a forced labour situation. Under section 150(2) and (3), deserting seamen shall, on an application by the master of the vessel, be conveyed on board the vessel or delivered to the master or mate of the vessel, or to its owner or his agent, to be so conveyed.

As the Committee pointed out in paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline may consist of measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service in the form of physical constraints. The forcible return of a deserting seaman on board ship at the request of the master of the vessel falls within this category. The Committee accordingly again expresses the hope that section 150 of the Act will be repealed, as were corresponding provisions in other countries.

As regards section 145(1)(b), (c) and (e) and 146(a) and (b) of the Shipping Act, 1981, the Committee defers further comments pending examination of the prisons legislation (see point 1 above).