CMNT_TITLE_CAS

A Government representative indicated that the Government had adopted sound policies in collaboration with regional and international organizations to promote the respect and protection of workers’ rights. It deployed every effort to protect the rights of migrant workers, as reflected in the country’s Constitution and national legislation. The Committee of Experts had expressed its trust that the new legislation on migrant workers would be enacted in the near future, and would be drafted in such a way as to provide them with the full enjoyment of their rights at work and protect them against any form of exploitation, tantamount to forced labour. The Committee of Experts had further expressed the hope that, to attain that objective, the legislation would make it possible to suppress the restrictions and obstacles that limit these workers’ freedom of movement and prevent them from terminating their employment relationship in case of abuse; authorize workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having been given reasonable notice; review the procedure of issuing exit visas; and guarantee access to rapid and efficient complaint mechanisms to enforce workers’ rights throughout the country. Corresponding recommendations had been made by the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI). The Government had taken them into account by preparing a bill on the termination of the sponsorship (kafala) system, and its replacement with an employment contract system. The bill authorized the transfer of migrant workers to other employers after the end of their contract of a specific duration, or after five years of a contract of unlimited duration. Amendments would also be made to allow workers to leave their employer after obtaining authorization from the competent government authority, without prior authorization by the employer. A new and efficient mechanism in managing complaints of migrant workers had been established that was easily accessible. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs settled complaints by convening employers and workers, and providing them with explanations in relation to the legislation, which helped to reach an agreement with the consent on both sides. This mechanism had contributed to an increase in the settlement of complaints without the need to refer to the courts. Workers also had the right to lodge their complaints through the responsible bodies at the regional branches of the Labour Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. These complaints could be submitted in Arabic and English and seven other languages thanks to the presence of interpreters. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had also set up a new hotline and a dedicated email address, as well as accounts on social media networks (on Facebook and Twitter) to receive workers’ complaints and address them promptly. The Ministry also held information symposia intended for employers and workers so as to raise awareness about their rights and obligations, in addition to distributing leaflets, including a manual on migrant workers, to the embassies of labour-supplying countries. A specialized team had also been set up, and had conducted more than 150 field visits to large companies to give guidance and advice on workers’ rights and employers’ obligations, as well as to receive complaints. A new mechanism to submit complaints to various authorities through a single window system had been established at the specialized labour departments of the Ministry. Furthermore, offices at the courts had been established in order to assist workers with legal proceedings, free of charge. These offices were equipped with the necessary technical means in addition to qualified staff, proficient in most of the common languages spoken by migrant workers. Regarding the measures taken to provide effective protection for domestic workers, the Government had carried out a study with a view to adopt regulations on the conditions of work of domestic workers, with a view to adapt the regulation to the special needs of that category of workers, taking into account the provisions of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). On the subject of labour inspection and the enforcement of laws, the number of labour inspectors had been increased from 150 to 294. Moreover, labour inspectors had been provided with modern handheld devices (tablets) to enable them to collect information electronically and save time in preparing reports, which previously had to be established upon their return to their offices. Labour inspectors had also been trained, both at the International Training Centre of the ILO and at the national level. He emphasized that the inclusion of this case in the list of individual cases discussed at the Committee was not justified, and that the progress made and the findings of the report of the high-level mission in February 2015 had not been taken into account in this decision. Sufficient time should be granted for the completion of the measures to strengthen the protection of migrant workers, and relevant information would be provided in the report to be submitted to the Governing Body in November 2015.

The Worker members stated that many migrant workers continued to be subjected to forced labour in Qatar, as borne out by numerous reports from different sources, including the United Nations. Workers were victims of practices including: the obligation to obtain an exit permit to be able to leave the country; the impossibility of changing employer under the kafala system; exorbitant recruitment costs imposed on migrants with a view to obtaining a visa in their country of origin; false promises with regard to wages and conditions of work; and the retention of passports; major obstacles encountered in having access to justice in the event of violations of their rights; and denial of the right to freedom of association. In 2013, a representation alleging non-observance by Qatar of the Convention had been made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The tripartite committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation had concluded that Qatar had indeed violated the Convention, considering that certain migrant workers in the country may find themselves in situations prohibited by the Convention. The committee had considered that the Government should take other measures to eliminate the use of all forms of forced labour. In the absence of measures by the Government, in June 2014 a number of worker delegates had presented a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to call for the setting up of a commission of inquiry. One year later, the promises made – which were already inadequate – had not been acted upon. Additional labour inspectors had been recruited and an electronic payment system had been established but there was still no evidence that the measures had had a real impact. On the contrary, recent reports and eyewitness accounts from workers provided damning evidence of the widespread persistence of forced labour practices. At the same time, foreign journalists investigating the situation had been detained, which amounted to intimidation by the Government. With regard to the kafala system which prevented workers from changing employer or leaving the country, the Government had long been announcing the possibility of abolishing it but there was little visible progress and no definite time frame had been established. Moreover, according to the information provided by the Government, the planned amendments would only allow workers to leave their employer after a period of five years. Another proposal provided for the possibility for a worker to obtain an exit visa within 72 hours for leaving the country, but the employer could still oppose it. It should be noted that despite the tragic circumstances experienced by Nepal as a result of the earthquake, numerous employers had refused to grant Nepalese workers permission to leave Qatar to attend family funerals and assist surviving family members.

With regard to access to justice, the number of inspectors had increased by 200 to a total of 294 but, contrary to the Government’s indications, that number was still insufficient in view of the large number of workplaces that required effective inspection. The Government had to intensify its efforts to ensure training and adequate resources with a view to having an effective inspection system. In a recent report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had issued a series of criticisms concerning access to justice for migrant workers in Qatar and had expressed her concern at the virtually insurmountable obstacles faced by vulnerable sectors of the population, such as migrant workers in construction or domestic workers. Those obstacles included lack of information, the language barrier, fear of the police, of institutions and of reprisals from employers, and prohibitive legal fees. With regard to the imposition of penalties, the Government had not supplied detailed information on the progress of the draft reform aimed at increasing penalties for violations of the labour legislation. Furthermore, it had still not supplied information on the number of fines imposed on employers. That information was essential for evaluating whether the law was being applied effectively in view of the countless complaints received from workers. The Government recognized the seriousness of the problem of confiscation of passports. However, the information supplied in March 2015 referred to just one complaint lodged on that subject, despite the fact that the workers continued to complain about the existence of that practice. There was also no information to prove that the provisions of the legislation criminalizing forced labour practices were being applied. However, as had been emphasized by the Committee of Experts, the absence of penalties for persons who imposed forced labour created a climate of impunity that was likely to perpetuate such practices. It was also essential for the Government to ensure that the police and prosecution authorities acted of their own accord, regardless of any action undertaken by victims. With regard to recruitment costs, a report prepared by the Qatar Foundation in 2014 showed that Qatari employment agencies passed on the costs of recruitment to the workers. The problem did not therefore derive solely from the country of origin of the workers and the Government should also be called upon to take action in that respect. The Government had indicated giving its support for a high-level tripartite mission during discussions in the Governing Body in March 2015, but no action had been taken to follow up on the proposal. The Government had long been stating its intention to carry out a series of reforms but they were slow to materialize. The Committee should make it quite clear to the Government that there was no more time to lose.

The Employer members indicated that the situation in Qatar was very complex and that the country had been under increasing international scrutiny with regard to its labour and human rights practices. In addition to the examination of the case in the framework of the ILO supervisory mechanism, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants had also dealt with the case, along with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They recalled that the Committee had examined the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), in 2014, and deplored that no conclusions had been adopted. The submission of a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning Conventions Nos 29 and 81 had led to a high-level mission in February 2015. The report of that mission had been examined by the Governing Body in March 2015, which had decided to postpone any further action until the next session of the Governing Body in November 2015. While they understood that the Government believed that the Committee of Experts and this Committee did not take account of the information in the mission report of February 2015, the Employer members emphasized that they had thoroughly read the report and agreed with its conclusions and recommendations. Despite the fact that the case of Qatar was already being dealt with under the article 26 procedure, it was nevertheless appropriate that this Committee dealt with it, as these were two separate mechanisms. Not wanting to minimize the seriousness of the case, they stated that media coverage was often one dimensional and did not take into account the complexity and context of the case. The reasons for the great attention received of the case were also linked to the exorbitant growth of the country since its independence in 1971 that was also fuelled by migrant workers, which made up the overwhelming majority of the population of the country. Since the ratification of the Convention, the population of the country had grown from about 100,000 people to 2 million, 1.7 million of which were migrant workers. Migrant workers were now represented in all parts of the economy and society, and could be found to be working as CEOs of companies and in domestic households, i.e. migrant workers were not only unskilled.

While the issues discussed in the framework of the article 26 complaint gave background to the discussion, the discussion in the Committee had in principle to be limited to the observations of the Committee of Experts. These observations related to the kafala system, access to the judiciary and adequate penalties for violations of the law. In this regard, both the legislation and its application in practice had to be considered. In this context, they also recalled that the Government had commissioned a private law firm to prepare a report that contained some interesting conclusions, including critical ones. With regard to the kafala system, they called on the Government to pace up the procedure for the amendment of the relevant legislation. It was not acceptable that the legislation provided that: each migrant worker had to have a sponsor (generally their employer) to arrange for their resident permit, which required the sponsor to hold the worker’s passport, even though it had to be returned as soon as possible; it was prohibited to change employer unless there was a pending lawsuit; and workers were not allowed to leave the country unless they had an exit permit issued by the employer. Concerning practical problems, they referred to the withholding of the worker’s passport and the additional requirement for an exit permit. In this regard, they recalled the suggestions made by the law firm in relation to the kafala system, which had suggested that the existing visa system be reformed, and the legislation be amended to grant migrant workers the right to apply to the relevant ministry to exit the country. They hoped that these suggestions would soon be implemented. Concerning access to justice, further measures had to be taken in practice. Language barriers remained an issue, even though the Government was to be commended on the measures taken, such as the possibility to submit complaints through single window offices in seven languages, and the possibility to make direct deposit payments in bank accounts. Concerning the imposition of penalties, while the law provided for adequate penalties, not much information was available on their application in practice. The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that the Government had to take the necessary actions in relation to the abovementioned issues. They concluded by stating that the Government had come a long way and they appreciated the measures taken, but that the Government still had a long way to go, and that it did not have time to lose in this regard.

The Employer member of Qatar observed that the modernity and speed of Qatar’s economic growth had attracted a large number of migrant workers seeking to take advantage of the fact that workers were well received in the country and that Qatar had good working conditions to offer. Their presence had induced the authorities to revise its immigration laws and regulations so as to ensure that their labour rights were respected and that they were protected against abusive treatment. Qatari employers were aware of all that the Government had done to that end. However, certain problems had already arisen in the migrant workers’ country of origin, specifically regarding the substantial fees charged by placement agencies, which was both unacceptable and illegal. For employers and the national authorities, it was however not easy to take appropriate action. Since the Governing Body had examined the case in March 2015 on the basis of the report of the mission that visited the country in February 2015, it would be preferable not to discuss the matter at the present session of the Conference. That said, the Qatari employers would continue to do everything they could to co-operate with the authorities in protecting the rights of migrant workers.

The Worker member of South Africa explained that migrant workers represented over 90 per cent of the workforce of Qatar, that is, roughly 1.5 million workers and that the number continued to rise. These workers were drawn into a highly exploitative system that facilitated the exaction of forced labour by employers. Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the kafala system was among the most restrictive in the Gulf and made it almost impossible for migrant workers to leave abusive employers as they enjoyed almost total control over workers’ movements. Workers were often afraid of reporting abuses, being paid far lower wages than promised or not even being paid at all; moreover, they were often found living in abysmal conditions. In particular, migrant workers could not freely seek better employment conditions elsewhere without the consent of their employer, which was rarely granted. Those who nevertheless quit their job without permission had to be reported to the authorities as having absconded. Under the law regulating the kafala system the fact that an employer had committed abuse or failed to pay wages was not an excuse for workers fleeing from their employers. Furthermore, migrant workers were forbidden to leave the country without the consent of the employer, even if they had the means to do it. Recalling that no action had been taken on the issue, he stated that both the Committee of Experts and the tripartite committee had raised several concerns on this system and had urged the Government to amend it immediately. Despite the fact that the Government proposed to annul the kafala system and replace it with a contract system, it appeared that workers would still be tied to the employer for up to five years. Furthermore, while the Government promised to enact a release permit, it did not explain under what circumstances the permits could be obtained. The possibility for workers to obtain an exit visa and leave the country within 72 hours was also mentioned, but the modalities of implementation were not explained. Depending on the details of the new legislation, it might well be that workers would not be better off than under the kafala system. Finally, as trade unions were not allowed, no tripartite negotiations with representatives of workers were possible on these issues.

The Government member of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Republic of Moldova, stated that the EU supported the universal ratification and implementation of the eight fundamental Conventions as part of the EU Strategy on Human Rights. The EU attached great importance to human rights, including the abolition of forced labour, and recognized the important role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards. Compliance with the fundamental Conventions was essential for social and economic stability in any country and an environment conducive to dialogue and trust between employers, workers and governments contributed to creating a basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies. The EU was ready to work with the Government in its implementation efforts regarding ILO Conventions. She recalled that the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to take measures to strengthen the capacity of migrant workers to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal; and to strengthen mechanisms monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers. The EU shared the Committee of Experts’ view that the application of effective and dissuasive penalties to perpetrators of forced labour were necessary to prevent a climate of impunity. Welcoming the Government’s commitment to replace the kafala system by work contracts in 2015, the EU expected the Government to enact the relevant bill and draft it in such a way as to provide effective protection for migrant workers. More information would be welcomed in this regard on the measures taken, both in legislation and in its implementation. Noting that the number of inspection visits had increased in recent years, the Government was encouraged to continue strengthening the labour inspectorate. The Government’s announcement of electronic payment measures to be implemented by August 2015 was also welcomed. The EU expected the Government to continue its efforts in securing the fundamental rights of migrant workers and in fully applying the Convention. The EU encouraged the Government to cooperate with the Office in this regard.

The Employer member of the United Arab Emirates commended the Government on its commitment to pursuing constructive dialogue and cooperation with the ILO and the other parties concerned. That positive attitude indicated that it should be possible to reach a solution. The Government was working hard to strengthen the promotion and protection of the rights of migrant workers, and the report of the mission that had visited Qatar in February 2015 to examine the complaint made against the country under article 26 of the ILO Constitution confirmed their positive approach. That being so, the Governing Body had decided to postpone examination of the issue until November 2015, in order to give the Government time to introduce the necessary legislative amendments. It was therefore too early to evaluate the impact of the measures taken. The Committee had to take into account the progress made by the Government and the discussion that had taken place in the Governing Body in March 2015. The employers of the United Arab Emirates were committed to supporting any efforts to guarantee adequate working conditions for migrant workers, but the placement agencies should also act fairly and transparently so as to ensure decent conditions for their migration.

The Government member of Swaziland noted that the Government had introduced a number of significant measures to improve the rights of workers in the country. These measures included allowing workers to transfer from one employer to another; establishing a hotline at the Ministry of Labour to deal with complaints; holding information seminars to advise workers of their rights; distributing manuals to migrant workers; setting up a guidance and counselling team and making field visits and increasing the number of labour inspectors from 150 to 294. The Committee had to take note of these measures and provide more time to the Government to fully meet the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom indicated that despite the existence of a number of complaint mechanisms, the reality for workers in Qatar fell well short of ensuring that all complaints were properly examined by the appropriate authorities. Barriers to justice were numerous, including, for example, the requirement of a compulsory expert’s report, which typically involved the victim paying a fee of around 600 Qatari riyals. Resolutions were often taking a year or more and during that time workers might be subjected to retaliation from their employer, while wages remained unpaid, or workers were evicted from accommodation, without being able to work elsewhere due to the kafala restrictions. Independent reports showed examples of workers being forced to borrow money, receive support from sending countries’ embassies or work illegally in order to – literally – survive the legal process. Given that many labour complaints were in response to systematic non-payment of wages, this placed an intolerable burden on those seeking redress. The various departments and organizations involved in handling remedy for victims of forced labour, as well as the Labour Court itself, were clearly under-resourced in the face of the scale of labour disputes. This not only placed workers making complaints at risk of continued exploitation, but also discouraged other victims from seeking redress. Even if the Government had demonstrated some commitment to improving access to justice by providing the appropriate resources to this process, a number of issues remained unresolved, as set out in the law firm’s report commissioned by the Government and released in 2014. Most notably, these included widespread accusations from sponsors as retaliation, particularly of workers “absconding” from employment – punishable by detention and eventually deportation – with insufficient cross-referencing by the authorities to establish the connection with the submission of labour complaints. That, along with sponsors’ ability to deploy “no objection certificates” and exit visas as effective bargaining chips to pressure workers into dropping claims, contributed to a crippling imbalance of power that the court system was failing fundamentally to redress. It also appeared that the Government had done very little to rectify the negative assessment in this law firm’s report concerning information available to workers about their existing rights. Since the Government’s refusal to allow migrant workers to join trade unions denied them the obvious route to educating a workforce about its rights, more was needed to bring the regulations to the knowledge of those requiring the protection of the law.

The Government member of Mauritania noted that this discussion had provided an opportunity to objectively examine the legislative changes that Qatar needed to make and to recognize the Government’s efforts to improve the situation of migrant workers and the law on the kafala system. Significant progress had been made and the authorities should be commended on the measures taken to strengthen the rights of migrant workers, improve their living and working conditions and provide them with access to complaint mechanisms. The Committee should take into account the commitment and willingness of the Government.

The Worker member of New Zealand recalled that, even though Article 25 of the Convention provided for an obligation on ratifying States to ensure that penalties for forced labour were adequate and strictly enforced, migrant workers in Qatar continued to face high hurdles in their access to justice. While welcoming the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the labour inspectorate, he emphasized that much more had to be done, including the further recruitment and training of labour inspectors and the provision of interpretation services. As the Committee of Experts pointed out in its last comments under Convention No. 81, the failure to enforce adequate penalties created a climate of impunity, which perpetuated forced labour. It was therefore deeply concerning that Qatar had not supplied any information on prosecutions for the exaction of forced labour under the 2009 Act prohibiting trafficking in persons. He therefore concurred with the Committee of Experts in calling on the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that effective and dissuasive penalties were actually applied and that the police and prosecution authorities acted of their own accord, irrespective of any action taken by the victims. Taking into account the 2014 comments of the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, he further pointed out that a key weak link in the enforcement system might be the Qatari justice system, which was influenced by high-level persons and powerful businesses and completely arbitrary as to whether cases had to be pursued. Significant allegations also related to lack of impartiality, bias and improper behaviour by judges, including allegations of discrimination against migrants in favour of Qataris. He therefore called on the Government to reform the judicial system as recommended by the Special Rapporteur. Finally, publically naming employers convicted of forced labour might assist in dispelling a climate of impunity, as it was observed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants regarding the Government’s initiative to blacklist employers who committed multiple workers’ rights violations.

The Government member of Thailand appreciated the efforts of the Government to promote and protect the rights of expatriate labour and recognized its willingness to engage and cooperate in a constructive manner with the ILO and relevant stakeholders in this regard. The progress made and the measures taken to review laws and adopt new ones had to be welcomed. The Government should be encouraged to continue working closely with the social partners to further promote and ensure the rights of migrant workers. Since the Governing Body would consider this case in November 2015, the Government should be given appropriate time to continue its efforts and report back at that moment.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries, as well as Estonia and Poland, regretted that a great number of migrant workers were exploited in the country, many of whom were victims of forced labour pursuant to the Convention. In some cases, migrant workers were offered different contractual conditions upon arrival to the country than those promised in the country of origin and the Government had not taken any measures in this regard. Furthermore, while acknowledging that the national legislation prohibited recruitment agencies registered and based in the country from charging fees to workers for their recruitment, she deplored that foreign firms affiliated to these agencies were not accountable for this practice. In this regard, she quoted the findings of a 2014 report of the Qatar Foundation, and regretted that the Government considered this problem as concerning the countries of origin only. Moreover, she deplored that the Government did not increase the fine for the confiscation of migrant workers’ passports, which was a serious and widespread problem in the country, and was concerned about the restriction on freedom of movement of migrant workers, due to the refusal of some employers to provide residence visas. She noted that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO–Norway) and the Norwegian Football Association urged the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) to cooperate with the international trade union movement in order to improve the working conditions in the construction sites for the 2022 World Cup. In this regard, she mentioned the agreement between LO–Norway and the Norwegian sports associations concerning the 2022 Olympic Games in Oslo. Finally, she urged the Government to cooperate with the ILO, the ITUC and the global unions to ensure appropriate and effective labour inspections.

The Government member of Sri Lanka commended the considerable efforts made by the Government to protect the rights of the workers. Therefore, he stated that the case should not have been discussed again by the Committee. He concluded by encouraging the Government to enhance the rights of migrant workers in the country.

The Worker member of Libya denounced the conditions suffered by domestic workers in Qatar. As they were excluded from the scope of labour legislation, there were no regulations protecting them in terms of working time or minimum wages. Deprived of their passports and freedom of movement and often victims of physical and verbal assault, many were subjected to forced labour and slavery. In that regard, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had expressed serious concern over the cases of physical and sexual violence affecting female domestic workers. Some five to ten female domestic workers came forward every day seeking refuge in the Indonesian Embassy in Qatar. Despite the promises that the Government had made in previous years, no bill on the issue had yet been passed. In these circumstances, the Government should reform its legislation to introduce a legal framework covering all aspects of the employment relationship of female domestic workers and allow them access to effective means of recourse, all of which was also set out in Convention No. 189. It was due to this legal vacuum, in which chauffeurs, gardeners, cooks and other categories of workers found themselves, that work was often rendered vulnerable. It was high time for the Government to move from promises to genuine reform.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed appreciation for the commitment the Government had shown to upholding international labour standards, including the Convention. The Government had indicated that it was amending its legislation and improving its labour inspection system. The Committee of Experts had formulated comments on some legislative initiatives under way. The Government had mentioned the drafting of a bill to abolish the kafala system and replace it with contracts of employment. Bearing in mind the Government’s goodwill and its efforts to safeguard workers’ rights and interests, she considered that the Committee should keep in mind the positive aspects apparent from the explanations that the Government had given. She trusted that the Committee’s conclusions resulting from its discussion would be objective and balanced, which would doubtless enable the Government to consider and evaluate them as it applied the Convention.

The Worker member of France, speaking also on behalf of the trade unions of the Netherlands and the International Transport Workers’ Federation, stated that while it was of course incumbent on States to respect ratified Conventions, companies, too, possessed the duty of respecting standards agreed upon at the international level. This duty was one of the three pillars of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – the so-called “Ruggie Principles” – and of the OECD guidelines on multinationals. Moreover, it was not just parent companies, but all parties implicated in the global supply chain that bore this responsibility, including subsidiaries, subcontractors, business partners and financial institutions. Aside from the Government of Qatar, then, companies involved in infrastructure projects for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar may also have perpetrated forced labour practices against migrant workers on building sites. For instance, a French NGO had brought a complaint before the French courts against a French construction company and its Qatari subsidiary, alleging forced labour offences committed against migrant workers employed on their building sites. The complaint also referred to indecent working conditions, accommodation and pay. This was just one example of corporate malfeasance among many, and it was important for parent companies to realise that they were accountable, under several international and national legal instruments, not only for their own actions but those of their subsidiaries abroad as well. She observed in this regard that States were increasingly requiring companies to report on non-financial matters, and France had passed a law on the extraterritorial responsibility of multinational corporations. Furthermore, the 21 November 2013 resolution of the European Parliament on Qatar and the situation of migrant workers was “calling for the responsibility of European construction companies involved in the building of stadiums and other infrastructure in Qatar in order that they offer work conditions which respect international standards on human rights”. Trade unions and civil society groups had taken note of these developments, and the Qatari construction industry, in which thousands of migrant workers were employed by, among others, large state-owned companies of international repute, presented ample opportunity for utilizing these means in order to hold companies accountable. She concluded by recalling that the ILO supervisory bodies’ comments had also highlighted violations of freedom of association principles and other Conventions in Qatar.

The Government member of Namibia recalled that at its 323rd Session, in March 2015, the ILO Governing Body had requested the Government to provide information on the actions taken to address all the issues regarding non-observance of the Convention for consideration at its 325th Session, in November 2015. Noting that the information provided by the Government demonstrated that progress had indeed been achieved, including in the area of legislative reform, she urged that engagement between the ILO and the Government on these issues continue.

The Worker member of Switzerland said that the case of Qatar was more tragic than complex. The working conditions on sites where stadiums were being built were simply appalling. Construction workers and employees in other sectors were deprived of the most elementary labour rights, and deaths on construction sites were a frequent occurrence. The situation had deteriorated after FIFA had decided to confer the hosting of the World Cup to Qatar. It showed that the way the hosting of international sporting events was assigned needed to be changed. The Government asserted that it was changing the kafala system, but that was insufficient. It was the situation of workers’ rights in the country that needed to be reformed, and migrant workers should be given complete autonomy. It was unacceptable that they should be obliged to work for five years for the same employer. He requested the Government to provide a timetable of the reforms it was carrying out. The lesson to be learned from this historic case was that the criteria for selecting the countries to which the organization of world events was attributed should include respect for the human and labour rights embodied in the ILO’s standards.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, recalled that human rights were universal and encouraged the universal ratification and implementation of the eight ILO fundamental Conventions. She expressed deep concern for the numerous and well-documented cases of unacceptable working and living conditions of migrant workers in the country, especially with regard to exploitation and forced labour associated with the kafala system. She deplored the practices of contract substitution, limitation of the possibility of resignation, non-payment of wages, threat of retaliations and she emphasized the difficult situation of women domestic workers. She recalled that, during the discussion on the complaint against the Government at the Governing Body’s 323rd Session in March 2015, her Government supported the appointment of a commission of inquiry because of the seriousness and urgency of the matter. She noted that the present discussion of the case regrettably confirmed the persistence of the problem. She called on the Government to guarantee the respect of fundamental principles and rights at work of the workers recruited for the preparation of the 2022 World Cup. While acknowledging the existence of a draft legislation to abolish the kafala system, she urged the Government to enact the new law in the near future so as to protect workers from any form of exploitation and to provide them with the full enjoyment of their rights at work, in particular access to justice, freedom of association and collective bargaining. She also called on the Government to cooperate with the recruitment agencies and the countries of origin to secure a rights-based migration process. Finally, she strongly encouraged the Government to cooperate with the ILO.

The Employer member of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the group of Arab Employers, said that consideration had to be given to the special situation of foreign workers in the Gulf States, most of which followed the kafala system. Employers, who generally resorted to private placement agencies, naturally incurred certain recruitment fees, and that could pose problems when workers who had cost the employers money wanted to change jobs. Consequently, a balanced solution had to be found that respected the rights of both workers and employers. Unlike Egypt, which employed far fewer migrant workers, 70 to 80 per cent of foreign workers in the Gulf States were not allowed to join trade unions. Although between 350,000 and 500,000 Egyptians were employed in Qatar, he had never heard of any complaints, which suggested that there were no particular problems. Moreover, Qatar had granted most of the major building projects for the 2022 World Cup to foreign enterprises. A lot of Egyptian construction companies were present in Qatar, and they had never run up against any particular problem. Finally, since the Governing Body had decided to allow the Government enough time to take the necessary measures, it would be appropriate to await the next Governing Body session and see what steps had been taken then.

The Government member of the United States observed that almost 94 per cent of Qatar’s workforce consist of migrant workers, mainly from Asia and the Pacific. Many of them were engaged in forced labour, a situation that was facilitated by the legal framework governing migrant work in the country. According to the Committee of Experts, the abusive practices migrant workers were subjected to included contract substitution, high recruitment fees and restrictions on the freedom to terminate the employment relationship. While the Government had pledged to address those issues, no significant progress had been made. She urged the Government to intensify the pace of its reform efforts in this regard. Although withholding workers’ passports was prohibited by the 2009 Sponsorship Law, it was not really enforced. According to recent studies by Qatar University’s Social and Economic Survey Research Institute, 86 to 90 per cent of workers’ passports were in the employers’ possession. As regards the kafala system under which labour migration was at present organized, she recalled the Government’s indication that it was working to replace the system with a contract-based governance framework and expressed the hope that this system would soon be established and would, inter alia, grant migrant workers full freedom of movement and work mobility, particularly when subjected to workplace abuse or threats of retaliation. She urged the Government to immediately undertake the measures to combat forced labour enumerated in the comments of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies, including the enactment of new legislation, the imposition of dissuasive penalties for forced labour practices, the conducting of public awareness-raising campaigns on forced labour, and the initiation of partnerships with governments of migrant-sending countries to prevent exploitative practices in the labour recruitment process. Until adequate changes were made to both law and practice in Qatar, this case ought to continue to receive urgent attention from the Committee and the other supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Worker member of Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Sudan, Bahrain and Kuwait, said that during the discussion the positive measures adopted by the Government had been examined, such as the introduction of modern employment contracts, the establishment of a modern salary protection system which included the payment of workers’ salaries via bank transfer, the establishment of mechanisms to facilitate the submission of complaints by workers to the Ministry of Labour without additional costs, and the strengthening of the labour inspection system, including sanctions for perpetrators of crimes against workers. The Government had fulfilled the recommendations of the high-level mission, and this case should therefore be removed from the list of cases to be examined, and the Government should be afforded time to put into practice the new measures adopted.

The Government member of Pakistan stated that his Government agrees with the Government member of Kuwait. He was fully satisfied, judging from the information submitted by the Government, that the latter was making significant progress towards fulfilling the requests of the Committee of Experts, and expressed the hope that these efforts would receive due credit from the Governing Body at its 325th Session in November 2015.

The Employer member of Algeria said that this case, which had already been examined by the Governing Body at its March 2015 session, had seen a great deal of progress. The Government had replied to several inquiries and was consolidating and improving its labour laws. In that regard, it would be best to await the decision of the Governing Body, which had deferred further consideration of the case to November 2015.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomed the information provided by the Government on its positive achievements, which demonstrated its commitment to improving working conditions in the country. In March 2015 the Governing Body had decided to defer to November 2015 the analysis of the complaint against the Government concerning the Convention, in order to allow for the implementation of the measures and legislative amendments it had initiated. In this regard, he emphasized that sufficient time should be granted to the Government, which he encouraged the Government to continue with its efforts. He called on the Office to provide technical assistance.

The Government member of Switzerland encouraged the Government to continue to increase the number of labour inspectors, to train them to identify abusive practices that exposed migrant workers to forced labour, and to bring cases of abuse before the courts. The Government of Switzerland supported a major ILO programme aimed at protecting vulnerable migrant workers, which included exchanges of information on good practices to adopt between countries of origin and countries of destination. Migrant workers, including domestic workers, should be entitled to the same protection as all other workers; their working conditions should be improved and their freedom of movement guaranteed. He noted the intention of the Government to take measures in that regard, and encouraged it to continue implementing the measures that had already been adopted. It was also important, as highlighted by the Committee of Experts, to raise public awareness of the issue. While welcoming the decision to gradually abolish the kafala system, he requested the Government to demonstrate its determination to achieve that objective, and said that the implementation of the new legislation to that end would be closely examined.

The Government member of Cuba said that his Government rejected forced labour in all its forms and encouraged its eradication. The tripartite committee that had examined the complaint against the Government concluded that it should adopt additional measures. The Government had reported that it had drafted a bill to repeal Act No. 4 of 2009, which provided solutions that should address the issues raised by the tripartite committee. He trusted that the Government would continue to make efforts to adopt the necessary measures.

The Government member of Sudan said that Qatar received a substantial flow of migrant workers who benefited from the attractive employment opportunities offered by the country’s ever-expanding economy. This in turn represented a challenge for the Government in terms of providing decent working conditions. In that regard, the Government was receiving technical assistance from the ILO to build capacity to implement fundamental principles and rights at work. It was surprising that the Committee had begun to discuss the case, given that the Governing Body had requested Qatar to submit information on the measures taken in response to the complaint concerning the application of the Convention at its session in November 2015. There was a strong political will to strengthen mechanisms for workers to submit complaints, to raise awareness among workers and employers of their rights and duties, and to encourage more efficient labour inspection. All this contributed significantly to the promotion of international labour standards in pursuit of decent working conditions for all residents of the country without discrimination.

The Government member of Kuwait, speaking also on behalf of the Governments of Bangladesh, Bahrain, China, India, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and United Arab Emirates, welcomed the positive steps and measures taken by the Government to address the forced labour situation, as well as the high degree of cooperation the latter had demonstrated in engaging with the ILO and other concerned parties. Recalling that the Governing Body had deferred consideration of the complaint brought against Qatar to its 325th Session, in order to grant the Government adequate time to implement the measures recommended by the Committee of Experts, he considered this to be too brief a period of time in which to achieve meaningful progress. He hoped that the Government’s efforts so far would be taken into consideration by the Committee and the other ILO supervisory bodies, and he invited the Government to continue its engagement with the ILO to address the issue of forced labour in Qatar.

The Government member of Morocco welcomed the action taken by the Committee to draw attention to the issue of migrant workers’ rights. He expressed satisfaction with the improvements made to labour legislation and with the various reforms that the Government had undertaken in the area of labour relations, which would soon enable workers wishing to leave the country to do so without any difficulty. The Government had increased its efforts to ensure that migrant workers were able to keep their passports, and sanctions were planned to punish employers who broke the rule. He considered that technical cooperation would enable reforms to be undertaken that satisfied all actors in the world of work.

The Government member of the Russian Federation regretted that, although the Government provided information on the intention to protect worker rights, he remained concerned with regard to the modalities and time frame for the implementation of the improvements still needed in several areas, such as insufficient labour inspections, access to justice and the possibility for workers to change jobs and employers. He hoped that the Government would comply with international labour standards, as well as continue to provide information on the implementation of the Convention.

The Government member of Canada expressed concern over the situation of labour rights in Qatar, particularly those of low-income migrant workers. While noting that the Government was considering changes to the labour law to address violations of migrant workers’ rights, he observed that these changes had yet to be implemented. Moreover, while other protective legislation existed, such as Act No. 14 of 2004 providing for maximum working hours, paid annual leave, and safety and health standards, further measures were clearly necessary as reports of abuses continued to mount. Reform of the kafala system was especially necessary, as this system tied migrant workers’ legal residency status to their employer. The kafala system was at the centre of many abuses suffered by migrant workers, including the late payment or non-payment of wages, restrictions on mobility, usurious levels of debt, and inhumane working and living conditions. He urged the Government to implement the reforms envisaged so as to establish a legal framework offering strong protection for migrant workers and hold accountable those individuals and companies responsible for violating the law.

The Government member of Bangladesh noted that the Government had made substantial progress in drafting amendments to the legislation governing migrant workers. He encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to address the forced labour situation, and invited the ILO to extend technical assistance in this regard.

The Government member of Algeria welcomed the forthcoming permanent replacement of the kafala system with a contractual mechanism. The Government was making efforts to improve the remedies available to migrant workers in cases of disputes and to ensure that conflicts were settled in a transparent and open manner. Furthermore, initiatives had been taken to provide migrant workers with easier access to information concerning their rights. These various elements demonstrated the Government’s goodwill regarding the application of the Convention. This progress should be noted by the Committee which should afford the Government the time needed for the reforms to bear fruit.

The Government representative was convinced that the observations voiced during the discussion would help to improve relations between the social partners and would make it easier for the Government to protect the rights of anyone working in the country. When it decided to join the ILO, the Government’s objective had been to develop its labour market and, contrary to what had been said, to maintain a balance between the social partners. Some labour practices were indeed irregular and needed to be corrected, but there was no point harping on the fact. On the contrary, emphasis should be placed on the Government’s achievements, which had been confirmed by the high-level mission that had visited the country earlier in the year. As to the observations that had been heard in connection with the complaint that had been made against the Government, they had been treated quite seriously, and steps had accordingly been taken to introduce a wage protection system, to suspend the kafala system and replace it by modern employment contracts. The speaker called on all the members of the Committee to recognize the progress that had been made in a short time rather than focus on isolated incidents and claim that they were the rule. The allegations contained in the complaint did not take into account the conclusions of the high-level mission’s report, which in essence were no different from those of the Committee of Experts. He concluded by reasserting the Government’s promise to submit a detailed report on the subject to the Governing Body in November 2015.

The Employer members appreciated the robust discussion. While acknowledging the annoyance of the Government to deal with two procedures concerning substantially the same case, they noted that the ILO Constitution allowed for this to happen. They commended the Government for the concrete steps taken to address a number of issues. However, enacting legislation was not enough and they expressed concern with regard to the law’s implementation. In that regard, several elements of the report of the ILO mission of February 2015 referred to the amendment of the labour code, the labour complaints mechanisms and the effective enforcement of labour laws. While commending the Government for the initiatives taken so far, notably the reform of the legislation, they called on the Government to do more and without further delay. They expected that the improvements in the legislation and practice would lead to social progress and economic development in the country.

The Worker members noted that the forced labour situation in Qatar was widely acknowledged to be a serious problem, not only by the ILO supervisory bodies but by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants and various human rights organizations as well. Forced labour in Qatar, moreover, resulted from a system which deprived migrant workers of their fundamental rights and access to justice. The Government could not claim a lack of resources or of access to technical assistance in addressing this issue. Steps to address the forced labour situation could have been taken a long time ago; indeed Qatar had the potential, and still did, to be a model of humane labour migration management. Instead, it remained a model for all that was wrong and deplorable about labour migration today. They welcomed the commitments the Government had made to address the various factors contributing to forced labour, but stressed that these commitments had to be urgently realised. The Government had done far too little, far too slowly, particularly in view of the sheer magnitude of the forced labour problem that continued to exist. The kafala system had yet to be eliminated, for instance, although the Government had promised to do so in 2014.

As concerned the proposed contract-based system that was to replace the kafala system, they remained concerned that the former would do little to address the exaction of forced labour in practice. Employers would still have the power to restrict workers from moving to another job for up to five years, and the proposed exit visa system raised questions as to whether workers would, in practice, actually be able to leave, given that employers could still raise objections to their leaving on grounds that were not sufficiently clear or precise. Additionally, migrant workers remained outside the scope of the labour law, in spite of promises to soon enact legislation providing for their inclusion. Burdensome recruitment fees remained a serious and widespread problem, as did the confiscation of passports and the substitution of contracts. Also, there was little evidence of augmented enforcement measures, whether in the form of increased arrests and prosecutions or of heavier fines levied. Significant obstacles continued to deny migrant workers access to legal aid and the justice system, including lengthy processes, fees and the language barrier. In this regard, they added that although an electronic complaints system was said to have been introduced, they had not been informed of any workers familiar with this system. They noted that, although the decision had been taken to establish an electronic payments system intended to protect wages, the system had yet to be implemented, and they urged that this be done as soon as possible. Also, once put in place it was necessary to monitor the results secured by the system in addressing the problem of non-payment of wages. Many of the problems noted could have been addressed by migrant workers themselves, were it not for the fact that they were prohibited from forming trade unions under the present legislation. Stressing once again that forced labour remained a serious problem in Qatar and that the Government had yet to act on most of the commitments it had made, they urged the Government to immediately enact all the measures previously recommended by the supervisory bodies, including: the abolition of the kafala system and its replacement with an open, regulated labour market; the abolition of the exit permit system; the enforcement of the laws on passport confiscation; putting an end to contract substitution and the charging of illegal recruitment fees; facilitating access for migrant workers to the justice system; reinforcing criminal investigations and prosecutions against those suspected of engaging in exploitative labour practices; reviewing the applicable penalties for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, to ensure their adequacy; and adopting the necessary amendments to extend to domestic workers the labour rights guaranteed by law.

They concluded by calling on the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission to review the present forced labour situation and initiate discussions on how best to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE