CO129-536-10 Need for leglisation concerning number of certificated officers carried on passenger ships 18-11-1931 - 15-6-1932 — Page 41

bja

GENERAL SURVEY

60

Here again the question is concluded by the replies of the Governments. Not only may nearly all the Governments be assumed, from the nature of their replies, to hold views similar to those expressed by the Finnish Government (c.f. ante, p. 57), viz. that the article in question does not provide an adequate international solution of the problem, but the one or two Governments which have had doubts whether Article 48 might not be considered sufficient in itself do not oppose special treatment of the problem by the Conference. Even the Danish Government, which, as has been seen, considers that so far as that country is concerned there is no need for further Conventions on the problem, recognises that there are practical reasons from the general international standpoint for not opposing the investigation by the Conference of a special Convention on the matter.

(c) Thirdly, there can be no question, in view of the replies, but that proposals for a Draft Convention should be submitted to the Conference as a basis for its discus- sions and decision, and that this draft should, in the terms of the question put to the Governments, be based on the principle that national laws or regulations are to make possession of certificates of professional competency compulsory for employment on board national merchant vessels as (a) master or skipper, (b) navigating officer in charge of a watch, (c) chief engineer or (d) engineer officer in charge of a watch. If one Government (Great Britain) would perhaps have preferred a Recommendation instead of a Draft Convention, it has nevertheless indicated that it would be prepared to accept a Draft Convention if such was the general desire of the Conference.

Whether the Draft Convention should go further than the statement of the general principle involved in the item on the Agenda is a question which remains to be considered in the light of the replies of the Governments to the subsequent points in the Questionnaire. For the present it is simply desired to note that the reason why the British Government has not specifically replied to these subsequent points is that it considers that the Draft Convention should be confined to laying down the

61

QUESTION 2

principle that each Government is to establish a national system providing for compulsory minimum requirements of capacity, leaving the methods and scope of its applica- tion to be determined by each individual country. This attitude, it has been seen, is based on the view stated by this Government that it would be impracticable to lay down for international application detailed rules on the actual minimum requirements of professional capacity to be imposed on the different classes of persons in question (e.g. as to the minimum age, professional experience, and the passing of public examinations). This latter view, it may be assumed, would no doubt be shared by the other Governments, which indeed have clearly borne in mind in their replies to the Questionnaire as a whole that in any case there has not been any question since the problem was first placed on the Agenda of the International Labour Conference of endeavouring to settle these particular matters uniformly and in detail for all maritime countries. All the same, as will be seen later, nearly all these Governments recognise that the application of the general principle requires to be further defined in some, if not all, of the directions indicated in the remaining questions in the Questionnaire. The great majority of the Governments thus tacitly assume that a Draft Convention which merely laid down the principle, without more, and left all matters affecting its application (e.g. its scope) entirely to the discretion of national laws or regulations, would hardly be calculated to furnish an adequate solution of a problem which has so important international bearings.

II. Definition of the duties for which certificates are to be required (Question 2).

If certificates of professional competency are to be required for employment in the four capacities specified in the preceding question, (1) should the scope of the Draft Convention as regards these different forms of employment be determined on the basis of general

66