|
GB.274/1
| ||
|
| ||
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Approval of the minutes of the 273rd Session
of the Governing Body
1. The draft minutes of the 273rd Session were circulated on 5 March 1999 with the request that any corrections that members might wish to have made should be forwarded to the Office by 12 noon on Friday, 19 March 1999.
2. The following corrections have been received:
Page VII/5, statement by Ms. Iwata (Government, Japan)
In the second paragraph, replace the word "support" by "activities". Delete the last paragraph of Ms. Iwata's statement.
Pages III/10-11, statement by Mr. Joublanc (Government, Mexico)
In the first line, delete "there was agreement that".
After the first sentence, insert "He reiterated the importance of this concept."
The fourth sentence should read: "Adequate safeguards to that effect needed to be established; he therefore trusted that the assurances given in the Conference committee June 1998 -- that information from non-governmental organizations would not be considered as an official source for the purposes of compiling reports -- still stood."
The second, third and fourth paragraphs should read:
Regarding the annual reviews, the Office should proceed with the preparation of questionnaires that would be the subject of informal consultations before March 1999 and examined by the Governing Body at its 274th Session.
The new group of experts should work with objectivity and transparency; a consensus on the group's composition, specific mandate and duration should be achieved in good time in the Governing Body before the members were appointed. Geographical representation in the group was an appropriate criterion and was not incompatible with selection on the basis of merit, experience or independence.
While welcoming the proposal to amend the Standing Orders of the Governing Body in order to permit non-members to take part in discussions of concern to them, he was concerned by certain passages in the document, which, if approved, might lead to double scrutiny. There was mention in two paragraphs of the document of the supposed need for governments to justify their position, which suggested, counter to expectation, some complaint-based approach. Further clarification was required in this respect.
The last two paragraphs should read as follows:
It seemed logical to make use of the outcome of the cycle of special reports, which were part of the campaign to promote ratifications, that on freedom of association now being in preparation. However, it should not be forgotten that the questionnaire used for the special report had been designed to highlight legal aspects, and not the elements needed to determine possibilities for cooperation: this latter type of input could ensure an outcome that was commensurate with the promotional nature of the follow-up.
He had no objection of principle to the proposed time-frame, but it was advisable first to gain further clarity regarding the follow-up modalities. As regards the modalities for presentation of the report to the International Labour Conference, there was need for further, more detailed discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three options set out in the Office paper. He was in favour of the option whereby the global report would be discussed together with the Report of the Director-General to the Conference, which was the simplest solution. With a view to further discussions to define the future structure of the follow-up, he requested that, as in previous stages of the process, the participation of States that were not members of the Governing Body should be facilitated.
Page V/5, statement by Mr. Joublanc (Government, Mexico)
In the second line, replace "acts of violence" by "crimes"; in the last phrase, replace "Government's readiness to meet all the ILO's requirements were to be commended" by "Government's attitude of awaiting suggestions from the ILO".
Page V/12, statement by Ms. Sosa Marquez (Government, Mexico)
The first sentence of the first paragraph should read:
Ms. Sosa Marquez (Government, Mexico) found it useful to have this item on the agenda, concerning ways of improving the selection of items with a view to the adoption of international labour instruments, as the legitimacy and credibility of the Organization would be enhanced by improving its standard-setting activity.
The second paragraph should begin:
She agreed in general with the proposal in subparagraph 5(a). As regards subparagraph (b), it seemed that the Governing Body was being asked ...
In the penultimate paragraph, the sentence beginning "The fact that a standard was not applicable ..." should be replaced by: "In the second case the decision to ratify was based on an analysis of compatibility between national legislation and Conventions."
3. Subject to the above corrections, the Governing Body may wish to approve the minutes of its 273rd Session (November 1998).
Geneva, 19 March 1999.
Point for decision: Paragraph 3.