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

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Ireland (Ratification: 2014)

Other comments on C186

Direct Request

2021
2018

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2016 and 2018 entered into force for Ireland on 8 January 2019 and on 26 December 2020, respectively. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 October 2020 and 26 October 2020 and on 4 October 2021 respectively, alleging that ratifying states have failed to comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue. In this regard, the Committee notes that according to Marine Notice 14 of 2020, expiring on 31 December 2021, “where a seafarer’s employment agreement has expired and a seafarer has reached the maximum period of service and/or repatriation of the seafarer is difficult due to travel restrictions, the Seafarer’s Employment Agreement may be extended until six months from the date of expiry with the agreement of the seafarer. In this situation, the same terms and conditions as originally agreed will continue to apply. Any Agreement to such an extension, must be signed by the seafarer and witnessed by a person not party to the Agreement.” The Committee recalls that the extreme fatigue of seafarers who have been on board beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board not only constitutes a situation clearly hazardous for the safety and health of the seafarers concerned, but also profoundly endangers the safety of navigation in general. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on how it ensures in practice that seafarers on board Irish-flagged ships are not requested to continue working beyond the default 11 months maximum period of service on board.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2, 3 and 7, of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. National determination. The Committee previously noted that the national provisions giving effect to the Convention contain different definitions of “seafarer” and refer to a person who is employed, engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship and “whose normal place of work is on the ship”. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it has given effect to Article II, paragraph 3, including the adoption of precise criteria to define the categories of persons which have not to be regarded as seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the definition of “seafarer” set out in the various implementing instruments was agreed upon following a full public consultation process, including with shipowner and seafarer representative organizations. It further states that there have been no issues raised to date around the determination of a person as a seafarer and that should any doubt arise as to whether a category of person is to be regarded as a seafarer for the purpose of the Convention, and in line with those requirements, a determination will be made by the Marine Survey Office (MSO) following consultation with shipowner and seafarer organizations. While noting this information, the Committee observes however that the Government does not provide information on the criteria that will be used to determine which are the categories of workers whose normal place of work is not on board a ship and who are therefore not to be considered seafarers for the purpose of the Convention. The Committee observes that specific categories of persons have been defined as seafarers in Marine Notice No. 34 of 2020 on Medical and Eyesight Standards and List of Approved Doctors but have not been determined in a general provision. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the requested information.

Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4. Definitions and scope of application. Ships. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide clarification about the definition of “seagoing Irish ships” and indicate how it ensures that the national provisions implementing the Convention apply to all ships covered by its provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the various implementing instruments were developed following a public consultation including shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Government further indicates that the definition of “ship” is aligned with the requirements of Article II, paragraphs 1(i) and 4 and that the additional definitions provided for “seagoing” is merely to provide further clarity to the definition in that the Convention is not applied in Ireland to vessels navigable for its small inland waterway system. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article II, paragraphs 6 and 7. Definitions and scope of application. Ships under 200 gross tonnage. Noting that that S.I. No. 375/2014 – Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Shipowners’ Liabilities and Repatriation) Regulations (hereinafter, S.I. 375/2014) do not apply to seagoing Irish ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it has given effect to Article II, paragraph 6, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it was decided not to apply S.I. 375/2014 to Irish ships of less than 200 gross tonnage engaged only in domestic voyages following public consultation including shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Government further indicates that the reason for this exclusion, in line with Article II, paragraph 6 of the Convention is that such vessels in the Irish context generally return home each evening and as such the application of the Convention was deemed impractical. The Government states that all of the general health, safety and welfare at work national legislation, as well as national employment legislation apply to such vessels. The Committee further notes that S.I. 88/2020 Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Shipowners’ Liabilities and Repatriation) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (hereinafter, S.I. 88/2020) has amended S.I. 375/2014 to introduce the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention on financial security to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment and financial security for shipowners’ liability to assure compensation for the death and long-term disability of seafarers, and that those new provisions are also not applicable to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that are not engaged in international voyages. Noting that S.I. 375/2014 gives effect to various provisions of the Convention, and more specifically to Regulations 2.5, 4.1 and 4.2 and their corresponding provisions of the Code, the Committee is bound to recall that the flexibility provided for in Article II, paragraph 6, for ships under 200 gross tonnage only concerns “certain details of the Code”, i.e. Standards and Guidelines, and it only applies “to the extent that the subject matter is dealt with differently by national laws or regulations or collective bargaining agreements or other measures”. Recalling that ships under 200 GT not engaged in international voyages may not be excluded from the requirements established in Regulations and that any such exclusion has to be limited to “certain details of the Code” (Standards and Guidelines), the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government to: (i) indicate the specific provisions of the MLC, 2006 that do not apply to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage not engaged in international voyages; and (ii) provide detailed information on the alternative national provisions that apply to this category of ships for each Standard of the MLC, 2006 which is not applicable to them.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. Noting that Regulation 6A(2) of S.I. No. 245/2014, European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Organization of Working Time) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, (hereinafter S.I. 245/2014) allows for exceptions to the strict compliance with the night work restriction, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that any exception to night work is not detrimental to the health or well-being of young workers and whether it has consulted the social partners before authorizing the abovementioned exceptions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that following a public consultation including with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, it was considered appropriate to provide for Regulation 6A(2) of S.I. 245/2014 to allow for the exemption with regard to night work for young persons, in line with the tight parameters of Standard A1.1, paragraph 3. The Government further indicates that Regulation 4(A) of those regulations is also relevant as it stipulates that, “No seafarer under the age of 18 years shall be employed or engaged in duties on board a ship to which these Regulations apply that are likely to cause a risk to his or her health or safety.” In addition, the Government indicates that Regulation 144 of S.I. 299/2007, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 (hereinafter S.I. No. 299/2007) requires an employer to carry out a risk assessment to determine the risk to the safety or health to a young person and to take the necessary preventive and protective measures. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee previously noted that in connection with the determination of the types of work likely to jeopardize the health or safety of seafarers under 18 years of age, the Government refers to Regulation 145 of S.I. No. 299/2007. Observing that these provisions do not deal expressly with work on board ships, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the list of types of hazardous work for seafarers under 18 years which has been determined by the competent authority taking into account the specific conditions of work and risks on board ships for young seafarers under 18 years of age, including information on consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no specific list on the types of hazardous work for seafarers under the age of 18 has been developed besides the list contained in Regulation 145 of S.I. No. 299/2007, which is of general nature. The Committee notes that the Government refers to Regulation 4A(2) of S.I. 245/2014 which prevents seafarers under the age of 18 from being engaged in duties on board a ship to that are likely to cause a risk to his or her health or safety, and to Regulation 144 of S.I. 299/2007, which requires each employer to carry out a risk assessment for each young person employed aboard the ship and put in place preventative and protection measures. The Committee recalls that the responsibility to determine the types of work which are potentially hazardous and likely to jeopardize the health and safety of young seafarers under the age of 18 years does not lie with the employer and that the types of such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with relevant international standards. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to adopt a list of types of hazardous work to take into account the specific conditions of work on board ships for young seafarers under 18 years of age, after consultation with the seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations concerned, as required under Standard A1.1, paragraph 4.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 5. Medical certificate. Right to have a further examination. Noting that Regulation 10(c) of S.I. No. 246/2014, Merchant Shipping (Medical Examinations) Regulations 2014 provides a restriction for seafarers, who have had their medical fitness certificates suspended for a period under three months, to the right to have a further examination by another independent medical practitioner or by an independent medical referee, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A1.2, paragraph 5. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulation 10(a) where a seafarer has been refused a medical certificate and (b) where a seafarer has had limitations imposed on their medical certificate align entirely with this requirement of the Convention whereby a seafarer can, without any restriction, apply for a review by a medical referee. The Government further indicates that beyond the circumstances provided for under Regulation 10(a) and (b) which are in compliance with Standard A1.2, paragraph 5, an additional circumstance has been added under Regulation 10(c) where a seafarer seeks a review by an independent medical referee where her/his certificate has been temporarily suspended for more than three months. The Government states that going through the review process for any suspension less than three months is impractical, particularly given such a suspension is temporary and will only be given in circumstances to protect the health and safety of the seafarer and fellow crew members where the seafarer is medically unfit to undertake their role in the short term. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the criteria of the suspension of the certificate for a period of more than three months is not in full conformity with Standard A1.2, paragraph 5, which provides for the right of appeal without any restrictions. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to fully implement this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. Noting that there was no public or private recruitment services authorized to operate in the country, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how seafarers resident in Ireland are generally recruited for working on ships flying the Irish flag and on ships flying the flags of other countries. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are two maritime employment agencies licensed to operate. The Committee observes that the website of the Irish Maritime Development Office also refers to a number of international maritime recruitment agencies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that agencies are required to obtain a licence from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in accordance with the Employment Agency Act, 1971 to carry out the business of an employment agency in the State. While noting that this Act establishes a system of licensing of recruitment agencies, the Committee observes that it is not specific to the maritime sector and that there does not seem to be any reference in particular to the protection of seafarers against monetary loss that they may incur as result of the failure of recruitment and placement services or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them. In light of the general nature of the system of licensing of employment agencies established, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 5 (prohibition of blacklists, keeping registers, qualification of seafarers, protection of seafarers in foreign ports, managing complaints and establishment of a compulsory insurance scheme to compensate seafarers).

Regulation 1.4, paragraph 3 and Standard A1.4, paragraphs 9 and 10. Recruitment and placement. Services based in countries in which the Convention does not apply. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures envisaged or adopted to implement Standard A1.4, paragraphs 9 and 10 with respect to the obligation to ensure that shipowners on ships flying the Irish flag, which use seafarer recruitment and placement services based in countries in which the Convention does not apply, ensure that those services meet the requirements of Standard A1.4. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Employment Agency Act, 1971 does not regulate recruitment processes of individuals, and therefore the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has no knowledge in relation to how seafarers resident in Ireland are generally recruited for working on ships flying the Irish flag and on ships flying the flags of other countries. Equally, the WRC has no knowledge of measures envisaged or adopted to give effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 9, of the Convention. The Government further states that regarding MOUs established with administrations who have in place International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978 , any future decision on recognition, including renewals, of third countries will take into account whether those third countries have ratified the MLC, 2006. Noting that there does not seem to be an oversight of how shipowners of ships flying the Irish flag who use seafarer recruitment and placement services based in countries in which the Convention does not apply ensure, as far as practicable, that those services meet the obligations of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to explain what kind of action is expected from shipowners in order to ensure, as far as practicable, that the recruitment and placement services concerned meet the requirements of the Convention (Regulation 1.4, paragraph 3; Standard A1.4, paragraphs 9 and 10).

Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and A2.2, paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreements and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships. In relation to the 2018 amendments to the Code, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; (b) how are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and (c) do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to reply to the abovementioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Normal working hours standard. The Committee previously noted that the national provisions do not refer to normal working hours for seafarers nor to the guidance provided concerning young seafarers and therefore requested the Government to indicate how effect is given to Standard A2.3, paragraph 3, and how it has given due consideration to Guideline B2.3.1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Ireland acknowledges the normal working hours standard for seafarers is based on an eight-hour day with one day of rest per week and rest on public holidays and that given the terminology used in the Standard, it was not considered necessary to provide for a specific corresponding provision in secondary legislation. The Government further indicates that the provisions of Guideline B2.3.1. are provided for in the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996. While noting that, for most employees the normal working hours are based on 48 hours a week with one day of rest per week, as set out in sections 13 and 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, section 3 of this Act however provides that Part II on minimum rest periods and other matters relating to working time, including sections 13 and 15, does not apply to employees working at sea. For seafarers, the applicable provisions are S.I. 532 of 2003, European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Organisation of Working Time) Regulations 2003 as amended by S.I. 245 of 2014, European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Organisation of Working Time) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 which refer to the limits set out in Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5 but not to the requirement of paragraph 3. Recalling that each Member acknowledges that the normal working hours shall be based on an eight-hour day with one day of rest per week and rest on public holidays, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or taken to give effect to Standard A2.3, paragraph 3. Regarding the guidance on hours of work and hours of rest for young seafarers, the Committee observes that S.I. 357 of 2014, Protection of Young Persons (Employment) (Exclusion of Workers in the Fishing and Shipping Sectors) Regulations 2014 seems to allow exceptions to the limits (no more than 8 hours in any day or 40 hours in any week) set out under section 6(1)(a) of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996. The Committee recalls that Guideline B2.3.1 provides that “working hours should not exceed eight hours per day and 40 hours per week and overtime should be worked only when unavoidable for safety reasons.” The Committee also notes that the rest periods provided for in the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996 are not equivalent to those provided for in Guideline B2.3.1. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any development in this respect which would give due consideration to the guidance provided in Guideline B2.3.1.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Prohibition of agreements to forgo annual leave. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on whether any agreements to forgo the minimum annual leave with pay are prohibited under national legislation, in conformity with Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that any such agreements are prohibited under European Union law as set out in the Working Time Directive. The Government indicates that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 implements the Working Time Directive under Regulation 10A(2) of S.I. 532/2003 as inserted by S.I. 245/2014, according to which annual leave to which a seafarer is entitled may not be replaced by a payment in lieu except where the seafarer’s employment has been terminated. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. Noting that Regulation 11 (Duty to repatriate seafarers) of S.I. 375/2014 provides that a shipowner shall make such provision as is necessary for the repatriation of a seafarer as soon as is practicable, inter alia, where for justified reasons a seafarer’s agreement is terminated by the shipowner or by the seafarer, the Committee requested the Government to clarify if a shipowner who terminates the SEA for any reason shall repatriate the seafarer, as required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a shipowner is required to provide for repatriation of a seafarer where the shipowner has terminated the SEA for any reason and that Regulation 11 of S.I. 375/2014 is making it clear that this duty remains in place even if the shipowner terminates the SEA for a justified reason. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

The Committee further notes that Regulation 13 of S.I. 375/2014 provides that the duty to repatriate ends when: (a) the seafarer is repatriated in accordance with Regulation 12; (b) the shipowner makes reasonable arrangements for repatriation which are unsuccessful because of the seafarer’s unreasonable conduct; (c) notwithstanding reasonable endeavours, the shipowner is unable to contact the seafarer for a period of three months or more, or (d) the seafarer confirms in writing to the shipowner that repatriation is not required. The Committee recalls that the Convention does not provide that the right to repatriation ends when the circumstances provided under Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1 are met. The only case in which this right may lapse in conformity with the Convention is provided by Guideline B2.5.1, paragraph 8, in the case in which the seafarers concerned do not claim that right within a reasonable period of time to be defined by national laws or regulations or collective agreements. The Committee further observes that there does not seem to be a reference to the procedure and processes, which would be used to determine whether the seafarer’s conduct was reasonable or not pursuant to Regulation 13(b) of S.I. 375/2014. Observing that Regulation 13(b) and (d) of S.I. 375/2014 are not in conformity with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that any provision of national legislation which deprives seafarers of their right to repatriation is limited to the circumstances allowed by the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. The Committee previously noted that the Government has indicated that due to his or her “misconduct”, a seafarer can be expected to reimburse the cost of his or her repatriation, according to Regulation 14(2) of S.I. 375/2014. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on what is considered to be misconduct under the applicable legislation and requested the Government to provide information on the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied before any seafarer covered by the Convention can be found to be in “serious default of the seafarers employment obligations” pursuant to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while there are no specific criteria setting out what constitutes misconduct, there are however a number of provisions in the implementing instruments to deter shipowners from abusing this provision in an unjustified manner, including the on-board complaints procedure and the ability to make a complaint to the MSO directly as provided for in S.I. No. 376/2014 – Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Flag State Inspection and Certification) Regulations 2014. Furthermore, where a shipowner defaults on his or her repatriation responsibilities, in line with the provisions set out in S.I. 375/2014 as amended by S.I. 88/2020, the State has the ability to provide for the repatriation of the seafarer, including any material assistance or support and can recover the cost from the shipowner. Any shipowner found to have breached his or her responsibilities with regard to repatriation is also subject to prosecution which may result in financial penalties. While noting this information, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the definition of what is to be considered as misconduct should not be left to the shipowner’s decision. In light of the above, the Committee requests again the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or taken setting out the procedure to be followed and the standard of proof to be applied in order for a seafarer to be found liable for serious default.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. It notes with interest that S.I. 375/2014 as amended by S.I. 88/2020 gives effect to the requirements of Standard A2.5.2.

Regulation 2.7 and the Code. Manning levels. The Committee previously noted that Regulation 5 of S.I. 551/1998, Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning, Hours of Work and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1998 regarding the requirements of the safe manning document only apply to ships of 500 gross tonnage or more and that Regulation 15 of the same S.I. provides that where the Minister considers it appropriate in the circumstances, she/he may grant exemptions from all or any provisions of the Regulations for classes of cases or individual cases. Recalling that Standard A2.7 does not provide for exemptions in relation to the gross tonnage of ships or any other reasons, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all ships covered by the Convention are required to conform with and to implement the requirements of the Convention on manning levels. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while vessels under 500 gross tonnage are not required to have a dedicated safe manning document, assurances as to the safe manning of the vessel are confirmed through the certification and/or licensing process. The Government further indicates that with regard to Regulation 15 of S.I. 551/1998 this exemption provision is retained for exceptional circumstances and that no such exemptions have been provided to date. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide detailed information on the application of Regulation 2.7 to ships of less than 500 gross tonnage. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on procedures developed to determine, approve or revise manning levels for ships of less than 500 gross tonnage, specifying how they take into account the need to avoid or minimize excessive hours of work and limit fatigue.

With regard to complaint mechanisms about determinations on the safe manning levels, the Committee previously noted that the Government refers to Regulation 16 of S.I. 376 of 2014, which only deals with on board complaint procedures and therefore requested it to indicate how it has given due consideration to Guideline B2.7.1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulation 16 of S.I. 376/2014 provides for an on-board complaints procedure and that Regulation 16(4) specifically provides for the ability for complaints to be made directly to the MSO which will treat any such complaint as confidential while undertaking an investigation into the complaint. The Committee also previously noted that the example of a safe manning document communicated with the Government’s first report was related to a bulk carrier ship, and therefore requested the Government to provide examples of a safe manning document regarding other types of ship (passenger, cargo, etc.). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sample manning document for passenger ship cannot be provided as there are no internationally trading passenger ships on the Irish Flag. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraphs 9 and 11. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sleeping rooms and sanitary facilities. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A3.1, paragraphs 9(f) and (g) (size of the floor area of single berth seafarers’ sleeping rooms), and paragraph 11(f) (hot and cold running fresh water available in all wash places), as well as on the implementation of accommodation requirements on special purpose ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all Irish ships comply with Standard A3.1 paragraph 9(f) even though it is not directly reflected in the Irish legislation and that in its agreements with recognized organizations, they survey for compliance with international Conventions including the MLC, 2006 and certification is based on that compliance. Noting that the Government would be willing to insert a provision into its secondary legislation for clarity, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard. With regard to its other requests, the Committee observes that paragraph 11(f) of Standard A3.1 is implemented by Regulations 10(4) and 10(5) of S.I. 374/2014 and that there are no special purpose ships on the Irish Flag. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board and ashore. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate if medical attention includes the possibility to visit a dentist, such as provided under Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that medical attention includes a visit to the dentist. The Committee further observes that Regulation 5(3) of S.I. 375/2014 with respect to the shipowner’s duty to make provision for seafarer medical care and other expenses provides that medical care expenses include essential dental treatment. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Noting that under Regulation 3(4) of S.I. No. 506 of 1997, European Communities (Minimum Safety and Health Requirements for Improved Medical Treatment on Board Vessels) Regulations 1997 (hereinafter S.I. 506/1997), vessels that have a crew of 100 or more workers and engage on an international voyage of more than three days, are required to carry a medical doctor to provide medical care for the workers during the voyage, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b) which provides for the obligation of having a qualified medical doctor for “ships carrying 100 or more persons … ” and not only seafarers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is currently updating S.I. 506/1997 and, in that context, it will engage with the EU Commission in relation to the implementing Directive 92/29/EC which refers to a crew of 100 or more to seek guidance on appropriate implementation as it relates to the text of the MLC, 2006, as amended. The Committee welcomes this information and requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended text once adopted.

Finally, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c) regarding ships which are not required to carry on board a medical doctor. The Committee notes that S.I. 258/2020 has amended S.I. 506/1997 and inserted Regulation 8(A) requiring that the master of the vessel in charge of the medical supplies shall attend a medical training course relating to the category of vessel concerned. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. Noting that Regulation 5(4) of S.I. 375/2014 seems to allow a limitation of the liability of the shipowner for a period of less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness, the Committee requested the Government to explain how full effect is given to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provisions set out in Regulation 5(4) of S.I. 375/2014 reflect the requirements set out in Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(c). The Committee however observes that Regulation 5(4)(b)(i) of S.I. 375/2014 seems to be more restrictive that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(c) as it may limit the shipowner’s liability to defray medical care expenses for a period shorter than 16 weeks where a registered medical practitioner notifies the seafarer of a decision that the seafarer is not fit to carry out the duties which that seafarer is required to carry out under the terms of his or her agreement and the seafarer is unlikely to be fit to carry out duties of that nature in the future. The Committee observes that it is unclear from this wording whether the shipowner’s liability covers circumstances where the seafarer’s sickness or incapacity has not been declared of a permanent character, and whether in this case medical expenses are assumed by a social security scheme. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to clarify this point and to explain in detail how the relevant legislation gives application to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(c) of the Convention.

The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government indicates that Regulation 7(1)(a) of S.I. 375/2014 provides for the duty of the shipowner to cover a seafarer’s wages in the event of illness or injury which occurs during a period which starts on the date on which the seafarer’s agreement commences until: (i) the shipowner’s duty to repatriate ends in line with Regulation 11; or (ii) the seafarer otherwise leaves the ship. The Government further indicates that Regulation 7(1)(a)(ii) is linked with Regulation 13 which sets out the limits and exceptions to the duty to repatriate. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2, Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8 to 14, and Standard A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that S.I. 375/2014 as amended by S.I. 88/2020 complies with the new provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Noting that the Regulations to which the Government refers were adopted before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006, and do not cover all the matters listed under Guideline B4.3.1, paragraph 2, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any steps taken to develop and promulgate, after consultation with representative shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations, national guidelines for occupational safety and health on board ships that fly its flag. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in addition to the specific requirements set out in S.I. No. 110/1988 - Merchant Shipping (Safety Officials and Reporting of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences) Regulations, 1988, each employer is also subject to the requirements of the Health Safety and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and S.I. 299/2007. In particular, there is an onus on the employer to carry out a risk assessment, prepare a safety statement and put in place protective and preventative measures. The Government further indicates that S.I. 110/1988 is in the process of being updated and a revised statutory instrument will issue later in the year. The Committee welcomes this information and hopes that the revised instrument will give full effect to the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government to provide a copy of the amended text once adopted.

The Committee also previously requested the Government to specify how the requirement of Standard A4.3, paragraph 1(a) (promotion of occupational safety and health policies and programmes on board), is complied with regarding ships employing less than ten seafarers covered under the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication that it will consult its legal advisors with respect Regulation 4(3) of S.I. 109/1988 Merchant Shipping (Health and Safety: General Duties) Regulations, 1988 regarding the application of the Convention to vessels carrying less than 10 seafarers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. Noting that the branches specified at the time of ratification in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraph 2 are not the same as those recommended in Guideline B4.5, paragraph 1, establishing that the protection to be provided at the time of ratification should at least include the branches of medical care, sickness benefit and employment injury benefit, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it has given due consideration to this provision of the Convention. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the steps taken to extend social security protection for seafarers to branches other than those currently covered - medical care, old-age benefit and survivors’ benefit (Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, and Standard A4.5, paragraph 11). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the context of COVID-19, there are currently no plans to extend the protections given to seafarers under the social security branches covered by the Department of Social Protection. The Committee takes note of this information.

The Committee previously noted that, according to the information provided by the Government, for the three branches specified, social security coverage is not available to all seafarers ordinarily resident in Ireland, but only to those who work on Irish flagged ships. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure full compliance with Regulation 4.5. The Committee also requested the Government to provide further details on social security coverage of seafarers under the bilateral and multilateral agreements mentioned by the Government. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, ordinarily, workers are subject to social insurance in the country where their work is carried out, but in recognition of the fact that seafarers work across multiple territories, special provisions have been made by Regulation across the European Union (EU)/ European Economic Area (EEA) to coordinate the collection of social insurance. Under those Regulations social insurance is remitted on a one country only basis, and in the case of seafarers, social insurance is normally paid to the country under whose flag the vessel sails. However, if a seafarer is employed on board a vessel flying an EU / EEA flag and is remunerated for that activity by an undertaking with a place of business in another Member State, the seafarer pays social insurance in that latter Member State if she/he resides in that same State. The Government further indicates that Ireland has bilateral social security agreements with a number of Third Countries, some of which make explicit provisions for seafarers in terms of social insurance coverage for long-term benefits, like pensions. If seafarers are working on vessels with no association with EU/EEA Member States, or indeed countries with which Ireland holds a bilateral agreement, then there is no avenue for those seafarers to pay compulsory social insurance from their employment income. However, seafarers have the option to pay voluntary contributions directly to the Department of Social Protection, subject to the same scheme entry criteria that apply to shore workers. Ireland operates a voluntary contributions scheme, which allows workers (seafarers and shore based equally) to continue to remit social insurance in Ireland - solely for pension purposes - if they cease to be covered by social insurance in Ireland or in another EU / EEA Member State, provided they meet entry criteria. Inclusion in the social insurance system of a country with which Ireland holds a bilateral agreement does not prevent workers (seafarers and shore based alike) from paying voluntary contributions in Ireland. The Committee also notes the Government’s information on the negotiated bilateral agreements with several countries, which purpose is to protect the pension rights of people who have worked and paid social security contributions in Ireland and the countries with which Ireland has such agreements. This is achieved by allowing reckonable social security contributions paid in one or more of these countries to be aggregated with Irish full-rate social insurance contributions for the purposes of qualifying for certain contributory payments in Ireland or in these countries. The Committee observes that seafarers residing in Ireland and employed on board foreign ships (other than EU/EEA or those with existing bilateral agreements) would only be entitled to voluntary affiliation and would need to bear alone the financial burden of both employer’s and employee’s contributions, in breach of the principle established by Regulation 4.5, paragraph 3, according to which seafarers who are subject to the national social security legislation are entitled to benefit from social security protection no less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to comply with the principle of equality of treatment between seafarers and shoreworkers as regards social security protection in the case of seafarers serving on board foreign ships (other than EU/EEA).

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime labour certificate and declaration of maritime labour compliance. Noting that Regulation 14 of S.I. 376/2014 provides that the shipowner or the master shall make the maritime labour certificate and the declaration of maritime labour compliance (DMLC) available, upon request, to an organization that represents seafarers, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it ensures that a copy of these documents shall be made available in accordance with national laws and regulations, upon request, to seafarers, flag State inspectors, authorized officers in port States, and shipowners’ and seafarers’ representatives in accordance with Standard A5.1.3, paragraph 12. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulation 14 of S.I. 376/2014 provides that the shipowner and master must ensure that the maritime labour certificate or interim maritime labour certificate for the ship and the DMLC are carried on board and posted in a conspicuous place where they are available to seafarers. As noted above, Regulation 14 also requires that such documents are made available to an organisation representing seafarers. The Government further indicates that, authorized persons (MSO surveyors or Recognized Organizations) have powers to review and inspect such documents under section 87 of the Merchant Shipping Act 2010. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.4 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Considering the Government’s indication that the certification and inspection functions have been delegated to Recognized Organizations (ROs), the Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the qualifications, training and status required for flag State inspectors carrying out inspections under the Convention (Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3, 6, 11 (a) and 17). The Committee also requested the Government to provide detailed information on the procedures for receiving and investigating complaints (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5). The Committee notes the detailed explanations provided by the Government in this regard, including the requirements of EU legislation that the agreements with ROs are based upon, to undertake ship surveys and certification of Irish registered vessels on behalf of the Irish Maritime Administration when required (S.I. 275/2011 – European Communities (Ship Inspection and Survey Organisations) Regulations 2011). The Government further indicates that the MSO monitors the performance of authorized ROs on an ongoing basis and that, an Irish Committee of Recognized Organizations (ICRO), established by the MSO, meets on an annual basis and is attended by representatives of each RO, the MSO and other Maritime Divisions of the Department as necessary. With respect to the procedures for receiving and investigating complaints, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulations 15 and 17 of S.I. 376/2014 set out the powers of surveyors, including ROs to investigate compliance with the MLC, 2006 as well as offences for breaching the requirements or impeding a surveyor or RO in the course of their work. Any complaint received in the MSO in relation to an alleged breach of the MLC, 2006 is treated as strictly confidential. The MSO carries out a rapid initial assessment to determine if there is merit to the complaint. Where a determination is made that the complaint is unfounded, the complainant is informed of the decision and the reasons for it. Where a determination is made that the complaint is justified, the MSO takes whatever action is necessary. The identity of the complainant is not revealed to the master or the owner of the ship concerned and the relevant surveyor investigating the complaint takes all appropriate steps to safeguard their confidentiality, including during any interviews conducted. Where a breach is identified, the shipowner or master is directed to take corrective action and if it is a foreign flagged ship the appropriate administration is notified. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Noting that the requirement of Regulation 10(2) of S.I. 376/2014 that an inspection report shall be furnished by the surveyor to the competent authority or the recognized organization, as applicable, and a copy of each report shall be given to the master of the ship, appears to only concern the certification inspection report, the Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the arrangements made to ensure that inspectors submit a report of each inspection to the competent authority, that a copy is furnished to the master and another posted on the ship’s notice board (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the certification report referred to in Regulation 10 relates to all inspections (initial, intermediate and renewal). While noting this information, the Committee observes that this provision does not seem to apply in the case of an investigation pursuant to a complaint. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures envisaged or taken to give full effect to the requirement of Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12.

Finally, noting that there does not seem to be a clear reference in the national provisions empowering a surveyor to prohibit a ship from leaving port in case of serious non-compliance with the MLC, 2006, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c), is fully implemented. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Regulation 15(1) of S.I. 376/2014 provides that a surveyor of ships may require that such corrective measures be taken as she/he considers necessary having regard to any deficiencies identified and that pursuant to section 87(7)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act 2010 it is made clear that the adoption of corrective measures includes prohibitions on operating ships in line with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7(c). The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.6. Flag State responsibilities. Marine casualties. Noting that pursuant to Regulation 6 of S.I. 276/2011, European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 2011, the holding of an investigation is optional in the case of any other casualty or incident other than very serious casualties, which are defined as those involving the total loss of the ship or a death or severe damage to the environment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that investigations are held in the event of any serious marine casualty leading to injury, as required by Regulation 5.1.6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the legislation implementing the investigation of marine casualties was adopted prior to the MLC, 2006 and that the distinction between the mandatory investigation of “very serious casualties” and the preliminary assessment of “serious casualties” reflects the requirements of the EU legislation as well as the IMO’s Casualty Investigation Code 2008. The Government further indicates that it considers that the provisions set out in S.I. 276/2011 reflect the requirements of EU law and other international laws including the MLC, 2006 and that in practice the Board have carried out many investigations into “serious casualties” as well as “very serious casualties”. While noting this information, the Committee however recalls that pursuant to Regulation 5.1.6, paragraph 1, the investigation into any serious marine casualty, leading to injury is not optional, and therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an official inquiry is held into any serious marine casualty leading to injury.