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

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

Other comments on C186

Direct Request

2020
2017

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 Fiji has not submitted a declaration of acceptance of the amendments to the Code of the Convention approved in 2014 by the International Labour Conference and is therefore not bound by these amendments. The Committee further notes that the 2016 amendments to the Code entered into force in the country on 8 January 2019. Following a second review of the information and documents available, 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, 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 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 on this issue.

Article I of the Convention. General questions on application. Implementing measures. In its previous comment, noting that the draft Maritime (Labour Convention) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter the draft MLC Regulations) aimed at implementing the requirements of the Convention, had yet to be adopted by the Parliament, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any progress made to give effect to the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Ministry of Employment and the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF) agreed to include parts of the draft MLC Regulations under the respective legislations administered by them. As a result, the Ministry of Employment prepared two draft regulations, i.e. the Draft Employment Relations (Maritime) Regulations (hereinafter, draft Maritime Employment Regulations) and the Draft Health and Safety (Maritime) Regulations (hereinafter, draft MOSH Regulations). The Government indicates that the MSAF is still in the process of completing the draft regulations on the technical aspect of the MLC, 2006. While taking note of this information, the Committee observes that six years after the ratification of the Convention, the Government has not adopted the required laws and regulations to implement its provisions. The Committee requests the Government to adopt without delay the necessary measures to implement the Convention, taking into account the points raised below. The Committee also requests the Government to provide copy of the relevant texts once adopted.

Article II, paragraph 6. Scope of application. Ships under 200 gross tonnage. The Committee previously noted that Regulation 4(1) of the draft MLC Regulations provided for the possibility to exempt any Fiji-owned ship of less than 200 gross tonnage and not engaged in international voyages, from any the provisions of the Regulations. Recalling that the flexibility provided for in Article II, paragraph 6, only concerns “certain details of the Code”, i.e. Standards and Guidelines, and that 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”, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to revise Regulation 4 of the draft MLC Regulations to ensure full conformity with the provisions of Article II, paragraph 6. The Committee notes that Regulation 4 of the draft MLC Regulations has not been reproduced into the draft Maritime Employment Regulations nor into the draft MOSH Regulations. Considering that the MSAF is still in the process of finalizing the draft regulations on the technical aspects of the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any provision thereof exempting ships of less than 200 gross tonnage is in conformity with Article II, paragraph 6. It also requests the Government to ensure that any determination under Article II, paragraph 6, may only be made in consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations and will be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office, as provided for in Article II, paragraph 7.

Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4. Substantial equivalence. The Committee previously noted that according to Regulation 64(3) of the draft MLC Regulations, the shipowner and the master may, instead of complying with the requirement to have a qualified ship’s cook on board, comply with such other requirement as the Chief Executive Officer may approve in respect of a particular ship, or ships of a particular description, being requirements that the Chief Executive Officer considers “substantially equivalent” to the requirement contained in the Regulations when considered together with the conditions and limitations to which the approval may be subject. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the substantial equivalence included in the draft Regulations regarding Standard A3.2, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, since the MSAF is still in the process of finalizing the draft Regulations on the technical aspects of the MLC, “Article VI, paragraphs 3 and 4 are yet to be included as implementing provisions in its laws and regulations or other measures which are substantially equivalent to the provisions of Part A of the MLC”. The Committee recalls that a Member availing itself of substantial equivalence shall provide information on the reason why it was not in a position to implement the requirement in Part A of the Code, as well as (unless obvious) on the reason why the Member was satisfied that the substantial equivalence met the criteria set out in Article VI, paragraph 4. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any provision of the new draft of the MSAF providing for substantial equivalence in light of Article VI, paragraph 4 of the Convention.

Article VII. Consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations. The Committee notes that the consultation of shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations is not provided for in the draft Maritime Employment Regulations and the draft MOSH Regulations, whereas the Convention requires such consultations in several of its provisions (for example in Standard A1.1, paragraph 3 (exception to strict compliance with the night work restriction for young seafarers), Standard A1.2, paragraph 2 (nature of the medical examination and certificate), Standard A2.8, paragraph 3 (establishing objectives for the vocational guidance, education and training of seafarers whose duties on board ship primarily relate to the safe operation and navigation of the ship), Standard A3.1, paragraph 19 (the need to take into account the interests of seafarers having differing and distinctive religious and social practices regarding accommodation and recreational activities)). The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to the Convention’s requirements regarding consultations.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1. Minimum age. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, notwithstanding the draft MLC Regulations establish that minimum age for employment on board ships is 16 years, legislation currently in force (i.e. section 92 of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007) fixes at 15 years the minimum age for employment of children, which does not comply with Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measure to give full effect to this provision. The Committee notes the Government’s information that, with its tripartite partners, it is currently reviewing the Employment Relations Act 2007 (ERA) and they agreed to amend section 92 of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007 to increase the employable age to 16 years. The Committee further notes that Regulation 5 of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations, reproducing the draft MLC Regulations, fixes at 16 years the age for employment on board ships. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with Standard A1.1, paragraph 1.

Standard A1.2, paragraph 4. Independence of the medical practitioners. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A1.2, paragraph 4 in relation to professional independence of medical practitioners. The Committee notes that, with regard to the definition of “approved medical practitioner”, the draft Employment Regulations refer to the Maritime (STCW Convention) Regulations 2014. It notes that the latter provide that the Chief Executive Officer may approve a registered medical practitioner as a recognised medical practitioner, if he/she is satisfied that the practitioner is professionally independent from employers, seafarers, and employer and seafarer representatives (Regulation 57(1)(b)). The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Standard A1.2, paragraph 5. Review of decisions related to seafarers’ medical certificate. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to Regulation 15(2) of the draft MLC Regulations, the competent authority may accept or refuse a seafarer’s application for review of decisions related to the seafarer’s medical fitness. The Committee requested the Government to amend the draft Regulations in order to comply with the provisions of Standard A1.2, paragraph 5. The Committee notes that Regulation 63 of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations stipulates that a seafarer may apply to the Chief Executive Officer for a review by a reviewing medical practitioner of a Certificate of Medical Fitness, indicating that the seafarer is unfit for service at sea or fit for service at sea with limitations. The reviewing medical practitioner shall be a medical practitioner recognised by the Chief Executive Officer. After reviewing a Certificate of Medical Fitness and the state of health of the seafarer to whom it was issued, the reviewing medical practitioner may direct that a further medical examination be carried out and may stipulate the examination and the medical practitioner or organisation to carry it out. Regulation 64 provides for the possibility for the seafarer to appeal a reviewed Certificate of Medical Fitness by a committee consisting of representatives of the Chief Executive Officer, the shipowner and the seafarer, assisted by a recognised medical practitioner. The Committee observes that Regulation 63 does not allow the seafarer to have a further examination, as long as such decision depends on the discretion of the reviewing medical practitioner. In this regard, it recalls that Standard A1.2, paragraph 5 provides that seafarers who have been refused a certificate or have had a limitation imposed on their ability to work, shall be given the opportunity to have a further examination by another independent medical practitioner or by an independent medical referee. In the context of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A1.2, paragraph 5.

Standard A2.1, paragraph 6. Notice for the termination of seafarers’ employment agreements. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Regulation 25(11) of the draft MLC Regulations provides that the Chief Executive Officer may permit the length of notice for the termination of seafarers’ employment agreement to be less than seven days where such shorter notice is necessary for compassionate or other urgent reasons and agreed to by both the seafarer and shipowner. Noting that Standard A2.1, paragraph 6 does not provide for authorization by the competent authority, the Committee requested the Government to review Regulation 25(11) in order to ensure conformity with such Standard. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the notice period for termination of employment, including with regard to seafarers, is stipulated in section 27 of the ERA. The Government indicates that Regulation 25(11) of the draft MLC Regulations will be repealed as the issue of the notice period is already covered by the ERA. The Committee notes that Regulation 15(11) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations provides the same as Regulation 25(11) of the draft MLC Regulations. It also notes that: a) section 27 of the ERA deals with presumption as to period of contract and termination of contract and not with termination at a shorter notice; and b) the ERA does not appear to provide for termination at a shorter notice for compassionate or other urgent reasons. The Committee requests again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.1, paragraph 6 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.2 and Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Wages. Allotments. The Committee notes that Regulation 37 of the draft MLC Regulations giving effect to Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention has not been reproduced into the draft Maritime Employment Regulations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that legislation implementing the MLC, 2006 gives full effect to Standard A2.2, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 13. Hours of work and hours of rest. Exceptions. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Regulation 30(9)(a) of the draft MLC Regulations provides that the Chief Executive Officer may permit certain exceptions to the hours of rest set out in the Regulations when such exceptions are provided for in a collective agreement or “any other agreement between a seafarer and a shipowner”. Recalling that Standard A2.3, paragraph 13, only allows exceptions where permitted in a collective agreement, the Committee requested the Government to review Regulation 30(9) to ensure conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraph 13. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will ensure that Regulation 30(9) is redrafted to provide only for one exception where permitted in a collective agreement. The Committee also notes that Regulations 19(9) and 20 of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations reproduce the provisions of Regulation 30(9) (a) mentioned above. In the process of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A2.3, paragraph 13 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. Termination of the entitlement. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that according to Regulation 38(9) of the draft MLC Regulations, the shipowner shall grant and the seafarer shall take annual leave not later than 12 months after the end of every 12 months of continuous service and any seafarer who fails to take that leave by the end of such period shall thereupon cease to be entitled thereto. The Committee observed that this provision is not in conformity with Standard A2.4, paragraph 3 and Standard A2.5, paragraph 2(b), from the combined reading of which the maximum continuous period of service without leave is in principle 11 months. It further noted that Regulation 38(9) providing that a seafarer who fails to take leave by the end of the indicated period ceases to be entitled to it, is clearly not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to review Regulation 38(9) to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that Regulation 38(9) of the draft MLC Regulations has been reproduced into Regulation 23(9) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations. Recalling the fundamental importance of paid annual leave to protect the health and well-being of seafarers and to prevent fatigue, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure conformity with Regulation 2.4.

The Committee previously noted that Regulation 38(3) provides for the possibility to lose the entitlement to leave in the event of termination of employment for misconduct, which is not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee accordingly requested the Government to review Regulation 38(3). Noting that Regulation 38(3) of the draft MLC Regulations has been reproduced into Regulation 23(3) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations, the Committee again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure conformity with the Convention.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Prohibition to forgo annual leave. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it gives effect to Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. The Committee notes that, under Regulation 15(8) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations “any term in the contract providing for the seafarer to forego any part of the minimum annual leave shall be unenforceable in so far as it purports to deprive the seafarer of that right or to remove or reduce the liability of the shipowner to grant the minimum annual leave prescribed under this Part except under such circumstances as may be prescribed by the Authority”. The Committee recalls that it considers that the possibility to authorize exceptions to the prohibition of agreements to forgo minimum annual leave needs to be understood in a restrictive manner. In contrast, to read in this Standard a broad authorization to forgo annual leave for cash compensation or otherwise, would defeat the purpose of Regulation 2.4, which is to ensure that seafarers have adequate leave. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the authorized exceptions which could be “prescribed by the Authority” pursuant to Regulation 15(8) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations.

Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. Entitlement to leave. Shore leave. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will ensure to draft a provision in conformity with Regulation 2.4, paragraph 2. In the context of the process of finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance with this requirement of the Convention and to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. The Committee previously noted that Regulation 45 of the draft MLC Regulations provides for a number of cases in which the duty of a shipowner to repatriate a seafarer ends, including where the shipowner has made reasonable arrangements for repatriation, which are unsuccessful because of the seafarer’s unreasonable conduct. It requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Regulation 45 of the draft MLC Regulations. The Committee notes that Regulation 45 of the draft MLC Regulations has been reproduced into Regulation 32 of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations. The Committee requests the Government to explain the procedure and processes which would be used to determine whether the seafarer’s conduct was reasonable or not pursuant to Regulation 32(b) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations.

The Committee further notes that Regulation 32(d) of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations provide that the duty of the shipowner to repatriate the seafarer ends when 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 contemplated under 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 requests the Government 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. In this regard, it requests the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Regulation 2.5, paragraph 2. 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. While recalling that Fiji is not bound by the 2014 amendments, the Committee takes note of Regulation 25 of the draft Maritime Employment Regulations, which gives effect to Standard A2.5.2. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date statistical information on the number of ships flying the Fijian flag in respect of which financial insurance certificates have been issued in accordance with the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 3. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Flag State inspections. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate which provisions of the Maritime (Fiji Maritime Code) Regulations 2014 ensure conformity with Standard A3.1, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Government it will ensure to draft a provision to be in conformity with Standard A3.1 as this has yet to be included in the draft Regulations. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A3.1 and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b). Medical care on board and ashore. Minimum requirements. Medical doctor on board. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that ships carrying 100 or more persons and are ordinarily engaged on international voyages of more than three days’ duration carry a qualified medical doctor, in conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b). The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will ensure to draft a provision in conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(b). The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to comply with this requirement of the Convention and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(d). Medical care on board and ashore. Services provided free of charge. Essential dental care. The Committee previously noted that while Regulation 76(c) of the draft MLC Regulations guarantees that medical care on board is provided to seafarers free of charge, there is no reference to dental treatment, as required under Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(d). It requested the Government to provide clarifications on how it gives effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will ensure to draft a provision in conformity with Regulation 4.1 that provides also for dental treatment. In the framework of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to ensure conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(d) in relation to essential dental care.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(e). Medical care on board and ashore. Preventive measures. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Regulation 4.1, paragraph 1(e). The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will ensure to draft a provision in conformity with Standard A4.1 paragraph 1(e). In the framework of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(e).

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(d). Medical care on board and ashore. Minimum requirements. Medical advice by radio or satellite. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate on how it gives effect to Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(d). The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will draft a provision in conformity with this provision to ensure that medical advice through radio or satellite communication should be available 24 hours a day. In the framework of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to ensure conformity with Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(d).

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d). Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Ship’s safety committee. The Committee notes that Regulation 7(1) of the draft MOSH Regulations provides that “Every ship which operates with six or more seafarers on board shall have a health and safety committee for that ship”. The Committee recalls that under Standard A4.3, paragraph 2(d), a ship’s safety committee shall be established on board a ship on which there are five or more seafarers. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full conformity with Standard A4.3. paragraph 2(d).

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based facilities. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on any developments in establishing seafarer welfare facilities. The Committee notes the Government’s information that it will provide more information on the establishment of shore-based welfare facilities on a later date. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Regulation 4.5, paragraphs 1 and 3. Social security. Coverage of dependants. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that dependants of seafarers ordinarily resident in Fiji are not provided with social security protection. It recalled that if national provisions extend social security benefits to dependants of workers, then these national provisions should also be provided to seafarers ordinarily resident in Fiji, as provided for in Regulation 4.5, paragraph 1. Noting the absence of reply on this point in the Government’s report, once again the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether dependants of shoreworkers are provided with social security protection.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraphs 1 and 2. Social security. Branches. The Committee notes that in accordance with Standard A4.5 (2) and (10), the Government has specified the following branches of social security: sickness benefit; unemployment benefit; old-age benefit; employment injury benefit; maternity benefit and survivors’ benefit. The Committee recalls that under Guideline B4.5, paragraph 1, the protection to be provided at the time of ratification in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraph 2, should at least include the branches of medical care, sickness benefit and employment injury benefit. Noting that medical care is not among the social security branches specified, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how it has given due consideration to Guideline B4.5, paragraph 1 and whether it intends to extend the protection to the branch of medical care.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. Unemployment benefits. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that all resident seafarers are entitled to unemployment benefits. It notes the Government’s information that it will discuss this issue with its tripartite partners and relevant stakeholders and provide information at a later date. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in ensuring that all seafarers resident in its territory are entitled to unemployment benefits.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 6. Social security. Comparable benefits for seafarers in absence of adequate coverage. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to give consideration to the various ways in which comparable benefits be provided to non-resident seafarers working on ships flying its flag in the absence of adequate coverage (Standard A4.5, paragraph 6). It notes the Government’s information that it intends to discuss this issue with its tripartite partners and relevant stakeholders and will provide information at a later date. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the consultations and on any measures taken to giving effect to Standard A4.5, paragraph 6.

Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3, 6, 11(a) and 17. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Qualification, status and conditions of service of inspectors. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how it gives effect to Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3, 6, 11(a) and 17. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the MSAF is still in the process of completing the draft MLC Regulation on the technical aspects of the MLC, 2006, which would implement those provisions. In the framework of the finalization of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to implement Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 3, 6, 11(a) and 17 and to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b). Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Procedures for receiving and investigating complaints. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the implementation of Standard A5.1.4, paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b) of the Convention. It notes the Government’s information that the Labour Standard Service under the Ministry of Employment is responsible for the resolution of labour complaints and the Mediation Service is responsible for the resolution of employment grievances. These services handle complaints that are lodged by all workers that fall within the ambit of the ERA, including seafarers. The Government also indicates that in relation to Standard A5.1.4 paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b), it will have to ensure that provisions are drafted in conformity with the Standard. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A5.1.4 paragraphs 5, 10 and 11(b).

Regulation 5.2.1 and Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 4. Port State responsibilities. Inspections in port. Detailed inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to explain how it gives effect to Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 4. Noting that the checklist for Port State procedure does not include inspection of working and living conditions on board except for accommodation, the Committee also requested the Government to ensure the revision of the Port State procedure in order to be in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the MSAF is still in the process of completing the Draft MLC Regulation on the technical aspects of the MLC, 2006. In this framework it will be ensured that the Port State procedures are revised in order to be in conformity with the Convention. In the framework of the adoption of legislation implementing the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the provisions implementing the requirement of Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 4 to bring the deficiencies regarding the working and living conditions on a ship to the attention of the appropriate seafarers’ and shipowners’ organizations in case of a complaint or if such deficiencies are considered to be significant. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the revision of the checklist for Port State inspections in line with the Convention.

Additional documentation requested. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied the documents requested in its previous comments. The Committee requests again the Government to provide the following documents and information : an example of the standard wording in medical certificates once adopted (Standard A1.2, paragraph 10); an example of a document (e.g. Part II of the DMLC) outlining a shipowner’s practices or on-board programmes (including risk evaluation) for preventing occupational accidents, injuries and diseases (Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1(c), 2(b) and 8); a copy of the relevant national guidelines (Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2); a copy of the document(s) used for reporting unsafe conditions or occupational accidents on board ship (Standard A4.3, paragraph 1(d)); a copy of the annual reports on inspection activities that have been issued in accordance with Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 13, during the period covered by this report; a standard document issued to or signed by inspectors setting out their functions and powers (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7; see guidance in Guideline B5.1.4, paragraphs 7 and 8); a copy of any national guidelines issued to inspectors in implementation of Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 7; a copy of the form used for an inspector’s report (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 12); a copy of any documentation that is available informing seafarers and interested others about the procedures for making a complaint (in confidence) regarding a breach of the requirements of the Convention (including seafarers’ rights) (Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5); a copy of your country’s model for on-board complaint procedures, if developed, or of typical procedures that are followed on ships that fly its flag (Standard A5.1.5); a copy of any national guidelines issued to inspectors in implementation of Standard A5.2.1, paragraph 7; the following statistical information for the period covered by this report: the number of foreign ships inspected in port; the number of more detailed inspections; the number of cases where significant deficiencies were detected; the number of detentions of foreign ships due, wholly or partly, to conditions on board ship that are clearly hazardous to the safety, health or security of seafarers, or constitute a serious or repeated breach of the requirements of the MLC, 2006 (including seafarers’ rights) (Standard A5.2.1); a document describing onshore complaint-handling procedures (Standard A5.2.2).