CMNT_TITLE

Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006) - Netherlands (RATIFICATION: 2011)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s first report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). It notes that the Government has previously ratified 17 maritime labour Conventions, which have been denounced following the entry into force of the Convention. The Committee notes the efforts achieved and measures taken, particularly through the adoption of legislation and regulations, for the implementation of the Convention. Following a first review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues. If considered necessary, the Committee may come back to other matters at a later stage.

The Committee notes the joint comments made on a draft version of the Government’s report by the platform representing the social partners in the Dutch maritime sector (“Platform Maritiem”) and communicated by the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) to the Office on 29 August 2014. These comments were also transmitted to the Government before the finalization of the report and its communication to the ILO.

General questions on application. Implementing measures. The Committee notes that the Government provided two examples of Declarations of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I: one for existing ships and one for ships, the keel of which was laid on or after 20 August 2013, date of entry into force of the Convention for the Netherlands. The Committee notes that the Netherlands MLC, 2006, website contains three different DMLC, Part I (for three categories of ships), each of which includes a lengthy Annex 1 providing detailed explanations with respect to applicable law. The three categories of ships are: “existing ships” that had a keel laid before 20 August 2013, with the Annex “Version 2. Valid from 1 March, 2014”; “new ships”, the keels of which were laid on or after 20 August 2013 with the Annex “Version 1. Valid from 1 February 2013”; and, “traditional sailing vessels” with the Annex “Version 1. Valid from 1 August 2013”. Importantly, the DMLC, Part I indicates that the Netherlands has made use of the potential flexibility under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article VI of the MLC, 2006, and implemented requirements under the Code of the MLC, 2006, through national legal provisions that it regards as substantially equivalent. In addition, a number of exemptions are also stated to be available with respect to the requirements on accommodation set out in Title 3 of the MLC, 2006. The DMLC indicates that substantial equivalences and “derogations” to the extent they relate to matters listed in the DMLC, are set out under the relevant item of the DMLC. They are also listed at the end of the DMLC and allow for an indication of the particular substantial equivalence applicable to the specific ship seeking certification.

The substantial equivalences mentioned in the DMLC, Part I (for “new ships”) are not however reported in the corresponding sections of the Government’s report, as explicitly requested in the report form. These equivalences mentioned in the DMLC, Part I, with some further information in an annex to that part, are the subject of comments or requests below in the context of the Convention provisions concerned. These are: Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a) and certain paragraphs of Standard A3.1.

With respect to the general question of resort to substantial equivalences, the Committee recalls its 2014 general observation in which it commented that “the concept of substantial equivalence is not a matter for administrative discretion but is a matter to be decided by a Member that must first make sure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article VI, that it is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code of the Convention. Unless expressly provided otherwise in the Convention, the Member may implement the Standards in Part A of the Code in laws and regulations or other measures if it satisfies itself that the relevant legislation or other implementing measures “is conducive to the full achievement of the general object and purpose of the provision or provisions of Part A of the Code concerned” and “gives effect to the provision or provisions of Part A of the Code concerned”. The Member’s obligation is principally to “satisfy itself”, which nevertheless does not imply total autonomy, since it is incumbent on the authorities responsible for monitoring implementation at the national and international levels to determine not only whether the necessary procedure of “satisfying themselves” has been carried out, but also whether it has been carried out in good faith in such a way as to ensure that the objective of implementing the principles and rights set out in the Regulations is adequately achieved in some way other than that indicated in Part A of the Code.” The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the reason why it was not in a position to implement the requirements in Part A of the Code, as well as (unless obvious) on the reason why it was satisfied that the substantial equivalence met the criteria set out in paragraph 4 of Article VI.

General questions on application. Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and (i), 3, 5 and 6. Scope of application. The Committee notes that the Seafarers Act defines the term “seafarer” as meaning any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which the Convention applies. This corresponds to the definition of “seafarer” in the Convention. However, the Committee notes the observations submitted by Platform Maritiem that the Dutch Civil Code – in which many of the Convention provisions have been implemented, especially concerning the seafarer’s employment agreement – does not contain any definition of a seafarer in its provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, relative to the possible doubts as to whether any categories of person are to be regarded as seafarers, an Advisory Committee has been instituted to advise the competent authority on persons on board which may not qualify as seafarers and that the Government stated that a number of such cases of doubt have been presented to the Advisory Committee, but that no conclusions have been reached so far. However, the Committee also notes that the DMLC, Part I for existing ships, (Annex Version 2, dated 1 March 2014) states that:

In the Seafarers Act “seafarer” has been defined in accordance with the MLC, 2006 and the Annex to Resolution VII, adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization on February 22nd, 2006.

Essentially everybody working on board shall be deemed to be a seafarer, except for:

• (a) passengers;
• (b) family of seafarers, who shall not perform any work within the regular scope of activities on board;
• (c) pilots, inspectors, military men;
• (d) longshoremen;
• (e) other persons whose activities are not part of the regular activities on board, within the use of the ship.

An Advisory Committee has been instituted to advise the Minister on other persons on board which may not qualify as seafarers. These persons may be included in the Regulation Seafarers and they will be added here. If a different category of persons on board is not designated as seafarer, or in case of doubt, the inspector of the Recognized Organization shall seek the advice of the Dutch Authorities for verification.

A cadet does not have a seafarer’s employment agreement, but an agreement between the Maritime Institute and the shipowner. Apart from this, all relevant legislation applies to cadets.

Please be aware that the accommodation requirements of the Seamen’s Decree do not apply to cadets or to SPS-personnel. It has been agreed that not more than two cadets will be accommodated in one cabin. This also applies to the requirement for a hospital on board of ships with a crew of 15 seamen or more, which undertakes a voyage during which it stays at sea for more than three days.

The Committee requests the Government to clarify how the term of “seafarer” is interpreted and applied in the context of the Dutch Civil Code. It also requests the Government to clarify the status of cadets and personnel in special purpose ships (SPS) in the context of the term “seafarer” and to provide information on the conclusions reached concerning cases of doubt as to whether any specific category of persons is to be regarded as seafarers when these become available.

The Committee also notes the indication by the Government that a determination has been made that seagoing ships which serve as harbour tugs are not regarded as seagoing vessels for the period in which they serve in port. The Committee recalls however, that, according to Article II, paragraph 5, this type of determination must be made after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if such consultations have taken place before making a determination on seagoing vessels serving as tugs, and to provide information on the legislation that applies to ships of less than 200 gross tonnage that do not voyage internationally.

Regulation 1.1 and the Code. Minimum Age. Concerning the hours of work of young seafarers, the Committee notes that the two DMLC, Part I provided by the Government state that “no person younger than 18 years shall work during night-time, in accordance with the Convention” and that “‘night’ has been specified as the period between 00.00 and 05.00 hours”. The Committee recalls that paragraph 2 of Standard A1.1 provides that, “night” shall cover a period of at least nine hours starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m. The Committee also notes that paragraph 1(b) of Article 6.4:3 of the Decree on Working Hours in Transport reproduces Standard A1.1 in that it requires the young seafarer to have “a rest period of at least 12 hours in each period of 24 successive hours, of which at least nine are uninterrupted and in which the period between 00.00 and 05.00 hours has been included”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the apparent discrepancy between the Decree on Working Hours in Transport and the DMLC, Part I, regarding this requirement of the Convention.

The Committee also recalls that paragraph 4 of Standard A1.1 does not allow for any exception to the prohibition of hazardous work for persons under 18 years of age. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the prohibition of hazardous work for young seafarers is implemented without exceptions or whether such work may be allowed under adult supervision.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement and labour-supplying responsibilities. The Committee notes that, under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Act on Placement of Workers by Intermediaries (“Wet allocatie arbeidskrachten door intermediairs, Waadi”), no compensation shall be requested from the jobseeker for recruitment services. The Committee notes, however, that it does not appear from the Government’s report, nor the two DMLC, Part I and their annexes, that any laws or regulations or other measures have been adopted to ensure that private seafarers’ recruitment and placement services operating in the country establish a system of protection, by way of insurance or an equivalent appropriate measure, to compensate seafarers for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligation to them, as requested under Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). The Committee also recalls that, under Standard A1.4, paragraph 6, the competent authority shall closely supervise and control all seafarer recruitment and placement services operating in its territory. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to these requirements of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. The Committee notes that, subsequent to its report and in response to a letter of 3 March 2015 requesting supplementary information, the Government has indicated that the Netherlands does not use a standard form of seafarer’s employment agreement, and neither do the social partners. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide an example or examples of a seafarers’ employment agreement in English with relevant identifying information removed. The Committee notes that the two DMLC, Part I and their annexes provided by the Government state that “in derogation of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention, the Netherlands allows seafarers’ employment agreements to be signed not only by the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, but also by an employer other than the shipowner or his representative”. Three specific groups of employers are identified in this context:

• (1) temporary employment agencies;
• (2) an employer that has employees working on a part of the ship that is rented by this employer from the shipowner; and
• (3) an employer that has employees working on a ship that has been chartered by the employer for specified work.

The Committee refers to its comments above with respect to implementation and recalls that Article VI, paragraph 3, of the MLC, 2006, permits a Member “which is not in a position to implement the rights and principles in the manner set out in Part A of the Code” to implement Part A through legislative provisions or other measures which are substantially equivalent. The Committee requests the Government to explain why the Netherlands is not in a position to require, in its laws and regulations, that all seafarers’ employment agreements be signed by the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner.

The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with the definition in paragraph 4 of Article VI, the national provision concerned must be “conducive to the full achievement of the general object and purpose” of the Part A provision and give effect to the latter provision. In that respect the Committee notes that, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) of Standard A2.1, the seafarers’ employment agreement is to be signed by or on behalf of the shipowner who is responsible for ensuring compliance with all the requirements of the Convention relating to the working and living conditions of the seafarers and who, by such signature, becomes legally responsible vis-à-vis the seafarer for compliance with all those requirements, whether or not the shipowner is considered to be the employer of the seafarer. The Committee refers to its 2014 general observation, in which it stressed “the importance of the basic legal relationship that the MLC, 2006, establishes between the seafarer and the person defined as ‘shipowner’ under Article II”. The Committee requests the Government, in line with paragraph 4 of Article VI, to indicate precisely how it has satisfied itself that the national provisions concerned are substantially equivalent to the Part A requirements concerned and in particular to clarify how the provisions allowing signature by the seafarers’ employers, other than the shipowner or a representative of the shipowner, are conducive to the full achievement of the identified general object and purpose and whether such employers are considered to take over the duties and responsibilities imposed on shipowners in accordance with the Convention.

The Committee recalls that, according to paragraph 1(b) of Standard A2.1, seafarers signing a seafarers’ employment agreement shall be given an opportunity to examine and seek advice on the agreement before signing. In this regard, the Committee notes that articles 3:44 and 7:611 of the Civil Code, to which the Government refers in its report, provide a remedy, respectively, where an agreement is reached through intimidation, fraud or abuse of circumstances and where it contains terms that are unreasonable or unfair, but do not appear to cover the right of seafarers to have an opportunity to examine and seek advice on the agreement before signing, as required by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information and material (such as judicial decisions) on how effect is given to the requirements under Regulation 2.1 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. Concerning implementation of the requirement in Standard A2.3, paragraph 5(b) that minimum hours of rest shall not be less than ten hours in “any 24-hour period”, the two DMLC, Part I and their annexes provided by the Government indicate that the 24-hour period is calculated from the beginning of the longest enjoyed rest periods. The Committee notes however that such a method of calculation, restricted to 24-hour periods beginning with a rest period, would not necessarily cover “any 24-hour period” (emphasis added). Using such a method with the example of the three-day schedule below (see table) would indicate that the seafarer concerned would have had ten or 11 hours of rest per 24 hours in conformity with the abovementioned Standard. But this would overlook other 24 hour periods, such as those beginning with a period of work, particularly a long one such as that of nine hours starting at 3 p.m. on day 2 on the example below. During that 24-hour period (from 3 p.m. on day 2 to 3 p.m. on day 3), the seafarer would have had only nine hours of rest (seven hours from midnight to 7 a.m. on day 3 and two hours between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on day 3). This would not be in conformity with the Convention.

	Day 1				Day 2				Day 3
	Work	Rest	Work	Rest	Work	Rest	Work	Rest	Work	Rest	Work	Rest
Time	05:00	13:00	17:00	23:00	05:00	11:00	15:00	24:00	07:00	13:00	17:00	23:00
Duration	8 hrs	4 hrs	6 hrs	6 hrs	6 hrs	4 hrs	9 hrs	7 hrs	6 hrs	4 hrs	6 hrs	6 hrs

With respect to the requirement in paragraph 6 of Standard A2.3 that “Hours of rest may be divided into no more than two periods, one of which shall be at least six hours in length”, the Committee notes that, according to the interpretation of Article 6.5.2 of the Working Hours Decree Transport in the Annexes to the two DMLC, Part I, rest may be divided into more than two periods if one of the periods includes an uninterrupted rest for at least six hours. Such an interpretation does not appear justified from the wording of paragraph 6 of Standard A2.3. The Committee is aware that there could indeed be cases in which three periods of rest may be necessary and in which the seafarers concerned are clearly being afforded with adequate rest in keeping with paragraph 5 of Standard A2.3. However, following its previous comment on the Seafarers’ Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180), the Committee recalls that exceptions to the limits on hours of rest may only be permitted by collective agreements authorized or registered by the competent authority in accordance with national laws or regulations (see paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3).

Finally, the Committee notes from the annexes to the two DMLC, Part I, that “Under Dutch law it is allowed to operate ships under a two-watch system, including 6-on/6-off”. In this respect, the Committee recalls its previous comments, made in connection with Convention No. 180, to the effect that Members should take measures to avoid infringements of the work or rest hour requirements that result from additional work which officers have to perform outside their watchkeeping routine. The Committee requests the Government: (a) to review the method of calculation relating to hours of rest in “any 24-hour period”; (b) to ensure that, where more than two periods of rest are considered necessary, its decisions are based on paragraph 13 of Standard A2.3; and (c) to take appropriate measures to ensure, in the case of a two-watch system, that six-hour periods of rest are not eroded by incidental duties and to provide information as regards the accompanying measures limiting the risks of fatigue, such as compensatory rest granted to seafarers.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. Recalling that, according to paragraph 2 of Regulation 2.5, each Member shall require ships sailing under its flag to provide financial security to ensure that seafarers are duly repatriated, the Committee notes that the current national legislation does not appear to implement the requirements of the Convention on this matter. The Committee requests the Government to provide any documentation clarifying the kind of financial security which is required from ships flying the flag of the Netherlands in order to implement Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Noting the information and documents submitted subsequent to its report (in response to a letter of 3 March 2015 from the Office requesting supplementary information), the Committee requests the Government to provide an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued as proof of the financial security that must be provided by ships flying its flag to ensure that seafarers are duly repatriated.

The Committee also notes that, according to section 7:718, paragraph 4, of the Civil Code, the right to repatriation lapses (and the seafarer is therefore expected to pay for the cost of repatriation) if the seafarer has not made his or her wish to repatriation known to the captain within two days after one of the situations provided for in section 7:718 occurred. The Committee recalls that Guideline B2.5 provides guidance, which must be given due consideration by Members when implementing the requirements of the Convention. Paragraph 8 of Guideline B2.5.1 provides that “the entitlement to repatriation may lapse if the seafarers concerned do not claim it within a reasonable period of time to be defined by national laws or regulations or collective agreements”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the basis for its decision, after giving due consideration to implementing its responsibilities in the manner provided for in Part B of the Code, that two days from the time when the seafarer is entitled to be repatriated (paragraph 4 of section 7:718) would represent a reasonable period of time justifying the loss of the seafarer’s right to repatriation.

Regulation 2.8 and the Code. Career and skill development and opportunities for seafarers’ employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has no separate programme for seafarers and that it encourages career and skills development and employment opportunities of all workers, including seafarers. The Committee recalls its previous comments on the application of the Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Convention, 1976 (No. 145), by the Netherlands. The Committee also recalls that paragraph 3 of Standard A2.8 requires consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned in establishing clear 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, including ongoing training. The Committee requests the Government to provide information with respect to the measures it has adopted, after consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, with respect to vocational guidance, education and training of seafarers in application of paragraph 3 of Standard A2.8, giving due consideration to Guideline B2.8.1.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee notes that, in relation to the way the Government implements the requirements of Standard A3.1, the latter refers to paragraphs and articles of the “Regulation Seafarers” (in Dutch) without indicating their substance. The Committee requests the Government to explain in detail how effect is given to the provisions of Standard A3.1.

More specifically, the Committee notes, from the DMLC, Part I, for “new ships” provided by the Government, that substantially equivalent provisions have been adopted with respect to certain requirements relating to sleeping rooms of Standard A3.1. In this connection, the said DMLC, Part I refers to sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of the “Regulation Seafarers”. Section 3.4 sets out new dimensions for floor areas; section 3.5 relates to ships under 500 gross tonnage; and section 3.6 to the location of sleeping rooms above the load line in passenger and special purpose ships. The Committee was not able to examine the provisions concerned in detail because of lack of access to a reliable translation in one of the working languages of the Organization. The Committee requests the Government to state the content of each of the three articles concerned, indicating the precise differences between the national provisions and the corresponding requirements in Standard A3.1. Referring to its comments above, the Committee requests the Government to explain why the Netherlands is not in a position to implement the requirements concerned in the manner set out in Standard A3.1 and to indicate precisely how it has satisfied itself that the national provisions concerned are substantially equivalent to the requirements of Standard A3.1.

Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board ship and ashore. The Committee recalls that, under paragraph 1(c) of Standard A4.1, seafarers have the right to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delays in ports of call, where practicable. However, the Committee notes that section 7:734(a) of the Civil Code, to which the Government makes reference in its report in relation to this Standard, does not explicitly mention this obligation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide clarification as to how effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. The Committee notes that section 7:734(a) and (b) of the Civil Code provide that the right to medical care and treatment, as well as the right to full payment of wages in case of illness “ends when the seafarer reaches his country of residence”. The Committee recalls that, under paragraph 1(c) of Standard A4.2, shipowners are liable to defray the expense of medical care, as well as those of board and lodging away from home, until recovery or a declaration that the sickness or incapacity is permanent. Similarly, under paragraph 3(b) of Standard A4.2, shipowners are liable to pay wages in whole or in part as prescribed by national laws or regulations or as provided for in collective agreements from the time when the seafarers are repatriated or landed until their recovery or, if earlier, until they are entitled to cash benefits under the legislation of the Member concerned. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Standard A4.2 provide that national laws or regulations may limit the liability of the shipowner to defray the expense of medical care and board and lodging and to pay wages in whole or in part in respect of a seafarer no longer on board “to a period which shall not be less than 16 weeks from the day of the injury or the commencement of the sickness”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether shipowners are required: (a) to continue to defray the expense of medical care after the sick or injured seafarers have returned home at the termination of their employment for at least 16 weeks or until recovery or until such time as the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character; and (b) to pay wages in whole or in part as prescribed by national laws or regulations or as provided for in collective agreements from the time when the seafarers are repatriated or landed until their recovery or, if earlier, until they are entitled to cash benefits under the legislation of the Member concerned. Furthermore, noting the information and documents submitted subsequent to its report (in response to a request for supplementary information), the Committee requests the Government to provide an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued with respect to the financial security that must be provided by shipowners to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard (Standard A4.2, paragraph 1(b)).

Regulation 4.4 and the Code. Access to shore-based welfare facilities. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the five major sea harbours in the Netherlands have founded, in October 2013, a Dutch Port Welfare Board. The goals of this Board are to offer and coordinate in a more effective way the seafarers welfare in Dutch ports; to offer better and more organized welfare services; to gather the needs of seafarers and their well-being; to meet the criteria laid down in the Convention, and the European Union Council Directive 2009/13/EC; to provide an appropriate response to port-related complaints which have come forward by the MLC, 2006, complaints desk; and to seek to avoid and to solve serious problems relating to seafarers’ welfare in ports. The Committee notes, however, that, in its observations, Platform Maritiem has expressed concerns on the development of seafarer welfare facilities in the country. It underlined that two facilities in Rotterdam recently closed due to financial problems and that welfare facilities in this port – one of the main seaports in the world – are well below standard. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on measures taken or envisaged in order to promote the development of seafarer welfare facilities in Dutch ports.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee recalls that, in the declaration made at the time of ratification (in accordance with Standard A4.5, paragraph 10), the Government had indicated that seafarers who legally reside in the Netherlands are entitled to social security protection for the following branches: medical care, old-age benefit, child benefit, and surviving relatives benefit. It further declared that seafarers legally residing in the Netherlands and employed by an employer residing in the Netherlands, as well as seafarers legally employed by a foreign employer and working on a ship flying the Dutch flag, are covered for the following additional branches of social security: sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefit, and invalidity benefit. At the time of the abovementioned declaration, the Government had not indicated employment injury benefit as one of the branches of social security provided to seafarers. However, the Committee notes that, in its report, the Government stated that “all branches [of social security] are covered” while at the same time indicating that “in the Netherlands there is no special scheme for employment injury benefit”. The Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications as to whether, and under which framework, employment injury benefits are provided to seafarers. The Committee recalls that the obligation of each Member, under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Standard A4.5, to provide at least three branches of social security to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory may be implemented in a number of ways, as set out in paragraph 7 of Standard A4.5. The attribution of responsibility may also be the subject of bilateral and multilateral agreements adopted within the framework of a regional economic integration organization, as provided under paragraph 4 of Standard A4.5. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether seafarers ordinarily resident in the Netherlands working on ships flying the flag of another country are provided with social security protection, as required under Regulation 4.5 and the Code, both in the presence and absence of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Regulation 5.1.2 and the Code. Recognized organizations. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the instructions to recognized organizations in its report on the implementation of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the legal status of these instructions and to explain to what extent they are legally binding.

Regulation 5.1.4 and the Code. Inspection and enforcement. The Committee recalls that paragraph 12 of Standard A5.1.4 requires that a copy of the report on each inspection carried out by flag-state inspectors be submitted to the competent authority. It also requires that a copy of the report in English or in the working language of the ship be furnished to the master of the ship, that another be posted on the ship’s noticeboard and that a copy be sent to seafarers’ representatives upon their request. The Committee observes that the Government’s statement, to the effect that a report is included in the administrative process and that a master will always request a copy of the inspection report, does not appear to implement the requirements of the Convention on this point. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the relevant legislative or regulatory provisions ensuring that the requirements under paragraph 12 of Standard A5.1.4 are fulfilled.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2017.]