not
had been in the hands of members of the Governing Body for some time before the opening of the session. He regretted that the item had been delayed until so late in the session, but in the circumstances he was obliged to press for its consideration.
ame
Sir Guildhaume Myrddin-Evans pointed out that, although it was true that the Office document had been in the hands of members of the Governing Body for some weeks before the opening of the session, the hent submitted by the Workers' group, which was far more fundamental to the future action of the I.L.O., had been submitted only at the beginning of the session. The matter was one which affected governments closely, and it had not been possible in the time available for the Government members of the Governing Body to receive Instructions upon it. The reason why consideration of the item had been delayed until late in the session was that the Govern- ing Body had had other matters of urgent importance to discuss, and the time spent on reaching a com- promise on the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, for instance, had cer- tainly not been wasted. He would not, however, press for the adjournment of the item if this was not generally acceptable.
Mr. Roberts pointed out that the amendment submitted by the Workers' group did not commit Government representatives since it merely asked that the Office should prepare a report for future consideration. The Workers' group could not agree to postponement of the discussion.
It was agreed that the discussion on the fifth item on the agenda should proceed.
Mr. Roberts, as the author of the letter written on behalf of the Workers' group to the Director- General which had given rise to the document sub- mitted to the Governing Body, intended to confine his introductory remarks to the points requiring discussion and decision. He wished to emphasise at the outset that the question was not a group issue, but affected all the three groups equally and also had an important bearing on the universality of the International Labour Organisation.
The Office was to be congratulated on the well- drafted document which it had submitted to the Governing Body. That document set out very fully the de jure and de facto relations between the I.L.O. and non-self-governing territories, although it was not quite so clear on the question of the possible amendments to the Constitution which the Workers' group had suggested in order to provide for associate membership.
With regard to the points of detail in the docu- ment, he observed that while it was true, as stated in paragraph 5, that article 3, paragraph 3, of the Constitution could be applied and had in fact been applied on occasion, the Workers considered that it had not been used as widely as it could and should have been. Furthermore, the meaning of sub- paragraph (b) of article 3 (3) of the Constitution was not entirely clear. If, as appeared to have been the case in the past, this subparagraph was interpreted as applying only to matters which affected non-self-governing territories, it was much too restrictive; if, on the other hand, it could be invoked to provide advisers from non-self-governing territories on all matters coming before the Con- ference, it would be much more helpful from the
63 -
Workers' point of view. He would be ghd to receive some clatification with regard to the scope of this provision.
With reference to the statement regarding the position at regional confereraces of non-self-governing territories in certain areas, the Workers' group. welcomed the fact that non-self-governing territories in both the American and Asian regions could attend regional conferences and exercise the right to vote in them. It must be remembered, however, that these conferences had a very limited function, sînce they could vote only on resolutions intended for consideration by the Governing Body or by govern- ments. Furthermore, the Workers" group was not satisfied that this provision gape full opportunity to all non-self-governing territories to attend regional conferences in a sovereign capacity. In the case of Africa, for instance, where there were more non-self- governing territories than any other part of the world, none of those territories, so far as the Workers were aware, had had an opportunity of taking part in regional conferences and they saw no reason why a distinction should be made between territories which happened to be in one particular region and those which happened to be in another region.
The Workers' group could not accept the sugges- tion that so far as regional comferences were concerned non-self-governing territories had more rights under the present arrangements than they would have if the Constitution were amended to provide for asso- ciate membership. It would be quite feasible to draft an amendment to the Constitution providing for associate membership without voting powers at the International Labour Conference, but with voting powers at regional comferences. That, how- ever, was a point to be determined at a later stage when the Governing Body haad before it the further report for which the Workers' group had asked.
With regard to the question of the self-governing powers of certain non-self-governing territories dealt with in paragraph 25 of the document, the position was that those territories haid powers to deal with industrial and social questionss, and under the present Constitution the metropolitan territory concerned merely acted as a post office for the non-self-governing territory when a Convention was adopted. The Workers' group believed that when a territory had reached such a stage of economic, industrial, social and political development that it could conduct its own affairs in the spheres of competence of the International Labour Organisation, it should have a right and a responsibility in respect of the determi- nation of the legislative problems which were brought before the Conference.
In respect of Recommendations, it was admitted in paragraph 28 of the document that, except in the case of the two Recommendations concerning social policy in dependent territories, there were no special provisions dealing with their applicability to non- metropolitan territories and that it remained within the province of the metropolitan government itself to decide whether Recommendations should even be forwarded to non-self-goverming territories.
Turning to the specific proposals made by the Workers' group, Mr. Roberts thought that there could be no objection to the first part, which proposed to add to the recommendation in subparagraph r of paragraph 35 of the Office document the following words: and to draw the special attention of govern ments to this problem in the letters of invitation for the 37th Session of the International Labour Con- ference". The agenda for the next session of the Conference included two items which were of par-
Page 90Page 91