CO129-536-10 Need for leglisation concerning number of certificated officers carried on passenger ships 18-11-1931 - 15-6-1932 — Page 13

13

6

August 1926 between the French liner "Lotus " and the Turkish collier “Boz-kourt” and which led to memorable international consequences. The object of the problem as a subject for treatment by the Conference is to secure the adoption of international regulations by which, in the interest of the protection of crews, persons who control the movements of a ship, whether on deck or in the engine-room, would not be allowed to perform such important duties unless their fitness and competency for discharging them had first been proved to the satisfaction of the public authorities and they had obtained certificates attesting their qualifications for them. The problem is thus simply to ensure that whoever on board ship performs the duties concerned shall be certificated for those duties, and as such is quite distinct from the question of the number of navigating and engineer officers who should be carried.

<<

The Committee of the Thirteenth Session of the Con- ference in its report considered that it was not sufficient to allow guarantees for the minimum requirement of professional competency for the performance of the duties in question to remain in the hands of individual States for their respective merchant fleets, but that it was necessary to have all States agree to these guaran- tees, because, as experience had shown, a vessel, however well built, equipped, navigated and staffed, could be exposed to serious dangers from the fact that the staff of another vessel did not possess sufficient professional capacity". It will be seen in the rest of this Report that these findings of the Thirteenth Session have been confirmed by the Governments whose replies to the Questionnaire are included in the Report. Not only are these Governments almost unanimously prepared to agree to a Draft Convention regulating the problem inter- nationally, but the overwhelming majority desire that this instrument should not only lay down the fundamental principle but should also deal with the scope and certain methods of its application.

By 1 February 1931, the date on which this Report was closed as regards the inclusion of replies to the Question- naire, the Office had received replies from the Govern- ments of the following twenty-three countries: Australia,

7

Belgium, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Rumania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Yugo- slavia. These replies are reproduced in full in Chapter 1 of the Report. Should other replies be received later, they will be published in a Supplementary Report.1

The Office has also received communications from the Governments of Austria, Haiti, Hungary, Luxemburg, Salvador, Siam and Switzerland to the effect that, in view of the situation of their countries with reference to the nature of the problem on the Agenda of the Con- ference, they have considered that no useful purpose would be served by their replying to the Questionnaire.

Geneva, 1 March 1931.

The replies of Canada, New Zealand and Portugal were received some time after 1 February 1931, while this Report was already in the press. The Office has, however, taken the opportunity to include them in an appendix to Chapter 1, though it has not been possible to take account of them in Chapters II and III.

14