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

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 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

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

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952, under which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (which involves an obligation to perform labour) (section 2(1) and (3)–(5)). The Committee has been also referring to section 1 of the same Act and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 242) (consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), which stipulate that foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring to the explanations in paragraph 179 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons. However, provisions imposing such sanctions which relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline (such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience), often supplemented by provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship, are incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that numerous requests concerning the Committee’s comments had been communicated to the Department of Transport, which is responsible for administering and applying the above legislation, with a view to amending these provisions. However, the Government indicates in its latest report that no positive response has been communicated by this Department as feedback to the observation made by the Committee.

While noting the Government’s renewed commitment to review national provisions and to ensure compliance with the ratified Conventions, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future with a view to bringing the above provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act and the Merchant Shipping Act into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress achieved in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952, under which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment which involves an obligation to perform labour (section 2(1), (3), (4) and (5)). The Committee also referred to section 1 of the same Act and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (chapter 242) (consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), which stipulate that foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraph 179 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that numerous requests concerning the Committee’s comments have been communicated to the Department of Transport, which is responsible for administering and applying the above legislation, with a view to amending these provisions. It also notes the Government’s renewed commitment to review these provisions in connection with the overall revision of the labour legislation being undertaken with ILO technical assistance, as well as the Government’s indication that it is hopeful the amendment of these provisions will take place in 2005–06.

While noting these indications, the Committee expresses firm hope that the above provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act and the Merchant Shipping Act will soon be brought into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to report the progress achieved in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952, under which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment which involves an obligation to perform labour (section 2(1), (3), (4) and (5)). The Committee also referred to section 1 of the same Act and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (chapter 242) (consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), which stipulate that foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraph 179 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that numerous requests concerning the Committee’s comments have been communicated to the Department of Transport, which is responsible for administering and applying the above legislation, with a view to amending these provisions. It also notes the Government’s renewed commitment to review these provisions in connection with the overall revision of the labour legislation being undertaken with ILO technical assistance, as well as the Government’s indication that it is hopeful the amendment of these provisions will take place in 2005–06.

While noting these indications, the Committee expresses firm hope that the above provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act and the Merchant Shipping Act will soon be brought into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to report the progress achieved in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952, under which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment which involves an obligation to perform labour (section 2(1), (3), (4) and (5)). The Committee also referred to section 1 of the same Act and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (chapter 242) (consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), which stipulate that foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraph 179 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that numerous requests concerning the Committee’s comments have been communicated to the Department of Transport, which is responsible for administering and applying the above legislation, with a view to amending these provisions. It also notes the Government’s renewed commitment to review these provisions in connection with the overall revision of the labour legislation being undertaken with ILO technical assistance, as well as the Government’s indication that it is hopeful the amendment of these provisions will take place in 2005–06.

While noting these indications, the Committee expresses firm hope that the above provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act and the Merchant Shipping Act will soon be brought into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to report the progress achieved in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. Penal sanctions applicable to seafarers for various breaches of labour discipline. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952, under which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment which involves an obligation to perform labour (section 2 (1), (3), (4) and (5)). The Committee also referred to section 1 of the same Act and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (chapter 242) (consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), which stipulate that foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations in paragraphs 117-119 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that numerous requests concerning the Committee’s comments have been communicated to the Department of Transport, which is responsible for administering and applying the above legislation, with a view to amending these provisions. It also notes the Government’s renewed commitment to review these provisions in connection with the overall revision of the labour legislation being undertaken with ILO technical assistance, as well as the Government’s indication that it is hopeful the amendment of these provisions will take place in 2005-06.

While noting these indications, the Committee expresses firm hope that the above provisions of the Seamen (Foreign) Act and the Merchant Shipping Act will soon be brought into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to report the progress achieved in this regard.

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

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, 1952 (now section 2(1), (2), (4) and (5)), according to which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). It also noted that, under section 8 of the same Act (now section 1(2)) and section 161 of the revised Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 242) (Consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated indication that the Committee’s comments have been communicated to the Department of Transport with a view to amending these provisions. It has also noted the Government’s renewed intention to ask the ILO for technical assistance in this respect, under the ILO programme of activities for Papua New Guinea for 2004.

The Committee trusts that the abovementioned provisions will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate the progress achieved in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following points.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, according to which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). It also noted that under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

The Committee pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the abovementioned section 165 had been amended. It notes, however, that section 161 of the revised text of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 242) (Consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), supplied by the Government, still contains a provision similar to that of the former section 165 and allows a forcible return of a deserting foreign seafarer on board ship, which is not compatible with the Convention.

As regards section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) and section 8 of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that, although necessary steps had been taken with the Department of Transport towards amending these provisions, no amendments had taken place due to continuous staff changes and movements. The Committee also noted the Government’s intention to ask for ILO technical assistance in this respect. The Government’s latest report contains no new information on this point.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the abovementioned provisions will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate the measures taken to this end.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, according to which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). It also noted that under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

The Committee pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) would only be compatible with the Convention where they are clearly limited to acts endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board, but not where they relate more generally to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience; similarly, provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its previous report that the abovementioned section 165 had been amended. It notes, however, that section 161 of the revised text of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 242) (Consolidated to No. 67 of 1996), supplied by the Government, still contains a provision similar to that of the former section 165 and allows a forcible return of a deserting foreign seafarer on board ship, which is not compatible with the Convention.

As regards section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) and section 8 of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that, although necessary steps had been taken with the Department of Transport towards amending these provisions, no amendments had taken place due to continuous staff changes and movements. The Committee also noted the Government’s intention to ask for ILO technical assistance in this respect. The Government’s latest report contains no new information on this point.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the abovementioned provisions will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate the measures taken to this end.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, according to which a seafarer belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). It also noted that under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

The Committee pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience or provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship, are not compatible with the Convention. On the other hand, breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be protected by the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its report that section 165 of the original Seamen (Foreign) Act has been amended. It requests the Government to communicate copies of the Merchant Shipping Act now applicable (in particular, sections 141 to 149, Division 7, of the Act), to which the Government referred as being enclosed with its report, but which have not been received, as well as the Crewmen Regulations (Part IX, sections 35 to 38, concerning disciplinary matters) referred to in the report.

As regards section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) and section 8 of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, the Government indicates that, although necessary steps have been taken with the Department of Transport towards amending these provisions, no amendments have taken place due to continuous staff changes and movements. The Committee notes the Government's intention to ask for ILO technical assistance in this respect.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the very near future in order to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments it has been making since 1978, the Committee has been referring to section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, according to which a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). It also noted that under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seafarers deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship.

The Committee noted the Government's repeated indications in the reports that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act would be considered when reviewing the Act. The Government indicates in its latest report received in August 1997 that a submission has been made to the administering authority (Department of Transport) advising them of the provisions of the Convention, and measures have been taken to prepare a joint submission with this Department towards amending those provisions in order to be compatible with the Convention.

The Committee wishes to point out once again that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience or provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention. On the other hand, breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be protected by the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to adopt the necessary measures, in the very near future, in order to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide in its next report information on any progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated previously that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act would be considered when reviewing the Act.

The Committee has pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience or provisions under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention. Only breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee again expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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) and (d), of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated previously that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act would be considered when reviewing the Act.

The Committee has pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobediance or provisions under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention. Only breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

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

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) and (d), of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Chapter 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated previously that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act would be considered when reviewing the Act.

The Committee has pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobediance or provisions under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention. Only breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no answer to its previous direct request. 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:

Article 1(c) and (d), of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Ch. 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated previously that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act would be considered when reviewing the Act.

The Committee has pointed out that sanctions of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour) relating to breaches of labour discipline, such as desertion, absence without leave or disobediance or provisions under which seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship are not compatible with the Convention. Only breaches of labour discipline endangering the safety of the ship or the life or health of the persons on board would not be covered by the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted to bring the above-mentioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

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 pevious direct request:

Article 1(c) and (d), of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Ch. 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act were noted and would be considered during review of the Act. The Committee noted the Government's information in its report for the period ending 30 June 1989 that it was the intention of the Department of Labour and Employment to recommend to the Department of Transport the changes required to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary measures have been taken.

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

Article 1(c) and (d), of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 7(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the Seamen (Foreign) Act, Ch. 177, a seaman belonging to a foreign ship who deserts or commits certain other disciplinary offences is liable to imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform work). Under section 8 of the same Act and section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act, foreign seamen deserting their ship may be forcibly returned on board ship. The Government had indicated that the Seamen (Foreign) Act was in the process of being repealed and the comments regarding section 165 of the Merchant Shipping Act were noted and would be considered during review of the Act. The Committee notes the Government's information in its latest report that it is the intention of the Department of Labour and Employment to recommend to the Department of Transport the changes required to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary measures have been taken.