CO129-536-10 Need for leglisation concerning number of certificated officers carried on passenger ships 18-11-1931 - 15-6-1932 — Page 28

42

REPLIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

See reply under Question 1, ante, p. 10.

DENMARK

4. The reply is in the affirmative.

ESTONIA

36

4. The reply is in the affirmative. Estonian legislation already contains provisions for securing the guarantees men- tioned in points (a), (b) and (c).

FINLAND

4. The reply is in the affirmative. These points are already covered in Finland by Section 62 of the Order of 17 April 1924 referred to above, and by the Order of 15 June 1928 concerning certificates of competency.

FRANCE

4. The French Government considers that the character of the Draft Convention cannot be other than quite general and that a priori it appears impossible to state in detail the conditions for granting certificates. Reference to the Grey Report shows that national regulations in the matter are very varied, and this is due to the variety of national customs. The nature of the certificates according to the duties of the holders, the examination programmes, the different degrees of capacity required according to the kind of ship or navigation engaged in, would clearly make any attempt to unify national legislations difficult. Further, it was not such uniformity which the French Government had in mind, any more than the International Association of Mercantile Marine Officers, in raising the question of the minimum of professional capacity with reference to the "Lotus" and Boz-kourt collision.

No doubt there are features common to the examination programmes for each country, and, if this were really necessary, it might perhaps be possible to arrive at common programmes, tests and certificates.

The French Government does not urge this: the Thirteenth Session of the International Labour Conference did not con- template it, and it is in no way necessary.

1

37

QUESTION 4

Is it desirable, on the other hand, to create an international certificate of capacity on the basis of which a special diploma of a uniform model would be issued? Insufficient light has been thrown on this question in the preceeding discussions. It might perhaps be desirable, with a view to facilitating control in foreign countries, to institute such a uniform diploma. The French Government, however, while reserving the right to return to this point at the next Conference, prefers for the present to emphasise what constitutes the real substance of the question, i.e. the adoption of common rules by all national regulations, rules which would embody the principle that a minimum of professional capacity is compulsory.

The Draft Convention must be sufficiently explicit on this matter and indicate what the minimum ought to be, because, as the French Government pointed out in reply to Question 1, it would be difficult to impose an obligation if there were no Convention and if, moreover, that Convention did not include some provisions defining the scope of the obligation. Το say that there must be a minimum of professional capacity without fixing the minimum if only by a few general considera- tions would be absolutely valueless, since national regulations would be free to fix a minimum much below the limits which the International Labour Conference would appear to have already indicated.

Without wishing to criticise regulations in neighbouring countries which are based on tradition, custom or necessity, the French Government cannot refrain from noting a certain anomaly in British regulations. Under these regulations exceptions from the provisions regarding certificates and the number of officers to be carried are allowed (1) for cargo vessels in the "home trade" (which is international trade), and (2) for British ships trading entirely between foreign ports. It should not be inferred that the masters and officers of these ships are lacking in competence professionally speaking: if they are not controlled by the authorities, there is another form of control as strict in certain particular respects, viz. the control which the shipowner can exercise in his own interest over a seaman to whom be entrusts his ship and in whom he must have full confidence. Though such seamen may be competent to perform their duties efficiently, it would be none the less desirable, if the Draft Convention is adopted, to subject them to the common rule, precisely because it is recognised that the rule is in the general interest. Such exceptions to the principle of a minimum of capacity should no longer be allowed. and it is accordingly necessary to indicate in the Draft Conven tion definite conditions for proving the minimum of professional capacity of a seaman responsible for any of the duties mentioned and defined under Questions 1 and 2.

43