Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Qatar (Ratification: 1998)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



A Government representative indicated that the Government had adopted sound policies in collaboration with regional and international organizations to promote the respect and protection of workers’ rights. It deployed every effort to protect the rights of migrant workers, as reflected in the country’s Constitution and national legislation. The Committee of Experts had expressed its trust that the new legislation on migrant workers would be enacted in the near future, and would be drafted in such a way as to provide them with the full enjoyment of their rights at work and protect them against any form of exploitation, tantamount to forced labour. The Committee of Experts had further expressed the hope that, to attain that objective, the legislation would make it possible to suppress the restrictions and obstacles that limit these workers’ freedom of movement and prevent them from terminating their employment relationship in case of abuse; authorize workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having been given reasonable notice; review the procedure of issuing exit visas; and guarantee access to rapid and efficient complaint mechanisms to enforce workers’ rights throughout the country. Corresponding recommendations had been made by the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI). The Government had taken them into account by preparing a bill on the termination of the sponsorship (kafala) system, and its replacement with an employment contract system. The bill authorized the transfer of migrant workers to other employers after the end of their contract of a specific duration, or after five years of a contract of unlimited duration. Amendments would also be made to allow workers to leave their employer after obtaining authorization from the competent government authority, without prior authorization by the employer. A new and efficient mechanism in managing complaints of migrant workers had been established that was easily accessible. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs settled complaints by convening employers and workers, and providing them with explanations in relation to the legislation, which helped to reach an agreement with the consent on both sides. This mechanism had contributed to an increase in the settlement of complaints without the need to refer to the courts. Workers also had the right to lodge their complaints through the responsible bodies at the regional branches of the Labour Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. These complaints could be submitted in Arabic and English and seven other languages thanks to the presence of interpreters. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had also set up a new hotline and a dedicated email address, as well as accounts on social media networks (on Facebook and Twitter) to receive workers’ complaints and address them promptly. The Ministry also held information symposia intended for employers and workers so as to raise awareness about their rights and obligations, in addition to distributing leaflets, including a manual on migrant workers, to the embassies of labour-supplying countries. A specialized team had also been set up, and had conducted more than 150 field visits to large companies to give guidance and advice on workers’ rights and employers’ obligations, as well as to receive complaints. A new mechanism to submit complaints to various authorities through a single window system had been established at the specialized labour departments of the Ministry. Furthermore, offices at the courts had been established in order to assist workers with legal proceedings, free of charge. These offices were equipped with the necessary technical means in addition to qualified staff, proficient in most of the common languages spoken by migrant workers. Regarding the measures taken to provide effective protection for domestic workers, the Government had carried out a study with a view to adopt regulations on the conditions of work of domestic workers, with a view to adapt the regulation to the special needs of that category of workers, taking into account the provisions of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). On the subject of labour inspection and the enforcement of laws, the number of labour inspectors had been increased from 150 to 294. Moreover, labour inspectors had been provided with modern handheld devices (tablets) to enable them to collect information electronically and save time in preparing reports, which previously had to be established upon their return to their offices. Labour inspectors had also been trained, both at the International Training Centre of the ILO and at the national level. He emphasized that the inclusion of this case in the list of individual cases discussed at the Committee was not justified, and that the progress made and the findings of the report of the high-level mission in February 2015 had not been taken into account in this decision. Sufficient time should be granted for the completion of the measures to strengthen the protection of migrant workers, and relevant information would be provided in the report to be submitted to the Governing Body in November 2015.

The Worker members stated that many migrant workers continued to be subjected to forced labour in Qatar, as borne out by numerous reports from different sources, including the United Nations. Workers were victims of practices including: the obligation to obtain an exit permit to be able to leave the country; the impossibility of changing employer under the kafala system; exorbitant recruitment costs imposed on migrants with a view to obtaining a visa in their country of origin; false promises with regard to wages and conditions of work; and the retention of passports; major obstacles encountered in having access to justice in the event of violations of their rights; and denial of the right to freedom of association. In 2013, a representation alleging non-observance by Qatar of the Convention had been made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The tripartite committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation had concluded that Qatar had indeed violated the Convention, considering that certain migrant workers in the country may find themselves in situations prohibited by the Convention. The committee had considered that the Government should take other measures to eliminate the use of all forms of forced labour. In the absence of measures by the Government, in June 2014 a number of worker delegates had presented a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to call for the setting up of a commission of inquiry. One year later, the promises made – which were already inadequate – had not been acted upon. Additional labour inspectors had been recruited and an electronic payment system had been established but there was still no evidence that the measures had had a real impact. On the contrary, recent reports and eyewitness accounts from workers provided damning evidence of the widespread persistence of forced labour practices. At the same time, foreign journalists investigating the situation had been detained, which amounted to intimidation by the Government. With regard to the kafala system which prevented workers from changing employer or leaving the country, the Government had long been announcing the possibility of abolishing it but there was little visible progress and no definite time frame had been established. Moreover, according to the information provided by the Government, the planned amendments would only allow workers to leave their employer after a period of five years. Another proposal provided for the possibility for a worker to obtain an exit visa within 72 hours for leaving the country, but the employer could still oppose it. It should be noted that despite the tragic circumstances experienced by Nepal as a result of the earthquake, numerous employers had refused to grant Nepalese workers permission to leave Qatar to attend family funerals and assist surviving family members.

With regard to access to justice, the number of inspectors had increased by 200 to a total of 294 but, contrary to the Government’s indications, that number was still insufficient in view of the large number of workplaces that required effective inspection. The Government had to intensify its efforts to ensure training and adequate resources with a view to having an effective inspection system. In a recent report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had issued a series of criticisms concerning access to justice for migrant workers in Qatar and had expressed her concern at the virtually insurmountable obstacles faced by vulnerable sectors of the population, such as migrant workers in construction or domestic workers. Those obstacles included lack of information, the language barrier, fear of the police, of institutions and of reprisals from employers, and prohibitive legal fees. With regard to the imposition of penalties, the Government had not supplied detailed information on the progress of the draft reform aimed at increasing penalties for violations of the labour legislation. Furthermore, it had still not supplied information on the number of fines imposed on employers. That information was essential for evaluating whether the law was being applied effectively in view of the countless complaints received from workers. The Government recognized the seriousness of the problem of confiscation of passports. However, the information supplied in March 2015 referred to just one complaint lodged on that subject, despite the fact that the workers continued to complain about the existence of that practice. There was also no information to prove that the provisions of the legislation criminalizing forced labour practices were being applied. However, as had been emphasized by the Committee of Experts, the absence of penalties for persons who imposed forced labour created a climate of impunity that was likely to perpetuate such practices. It was also essential for the Government to ensure that the police and prosecution authorities acted of their own accord, regardless of any action undertaken by victims. With regard to recruitment costs, a report prepared by the Qatar Foundation in 2014 showed that Qatari employment agencies passed on the costs of recruitment to the workers. The problem did not therefore derive solely from the country of origin of the workers and the Government should also be called upon to take action in that respect. The Government had indicated giving its support for a high-level tripartite mission during discussions in the Governing Body in March 2015, but no action had been taken to follow up on the proposal. The Government had long been stating its intention to carry out a series of reforms but they were slow to materialize. The Committee should make it quite clear to the Government that there was no more time to lose.

The Employer members indicated that the situation in Qatar was very complex and that the country had been under increasing international scrutiny with regard to its labour and human rights practices. In addition to the examination of the case in the framework of the ILO supervisory mechanism, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants had also dealt with the case, along with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They recalled that the Committee had examined the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), in 2014, and deplored that no conclusions had been adopted. The submission of a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning Conventions Nos 29 and 81 had led to a high-level mission in February 2015. The report of that mission had been examined by the Governing Body in March 2015, which had decided to postpone any further action until the next session of the Governing Body in November 2015. While they understood that the Government believed that the Committee of Experts and this Committee did not take account of the information in the mission report of February 2015, the Employer members emphasized that they had thoroughly read the report and agreed with its conclusions and recommendations. Despite the fact that the case of Qatar was already being dealt with under the article 26 procedure, it was nevertheless appropriate that this Committee dealt with it, as these were two separate mechanisms. Not wanting to minimize the seriousness of the case, they stated that media coverage was often one dimensional and did not take into account the complexity and context of the case. The reasons for the great attention received of the case were also linked to the exorbitant growth of the country since its independence in 1971 that was also fuelled by migrant workers, which made up the overwhelming majority of the population of the country. Since the ratification of the Convention, the population of the country had grown from about 100,000 people to 2 million, 1.7 million of which were migrant workers. Migrant workers were now represented in all parts of the economy and society, and could be found to be working as CEOs of companies and in domestic households, i.e. migrant workers were not only unskilled.

While the issues discussed in the framework of the article 26 complaint gave background to the discussion, the discussion in the Committee had in principle to be limited to the observations of the Committee of Experts. These observations related to the kafala system, access to the judiciary and adequate penalties for violations of the law. In this regard, both the legislation and its application in practice had to be considered. In this context, they also recalled that the Government had commissioned a private law firm to prepare a report that contained some interesting conclusions, including critical ones. With regard to the kafala system, they called on the Government to pace up the procedure for the amendment of the relevant legislation. It was not acceptable that the legislation provided that: each migrant worker had to have a sponsor (generally their employer) to arrange for their resident permit, which required the sponsor to hold the worker’s passport, even though it had to be returned as soon as possible; it was prohibited to change employer unless there was a pending lawsuit; and workers were not allowed to leave the country unless they had an exit permit issued by the employer. Concerning practical problems, they referred to the withholding of the worker’s passport and the additional requirement for an exit permit. In this regard, they recalled the suggestions made by the law firm in relation to the kafala system, which had suggested that the existing visa system be reformed, and the legislation be amended to grant migrant workers the right to apply to the relevant ministry to exit the country. They hoped that these suggestions would soon be implemented. Concerning access to justice, further measures had to be taken in practice. Language barriers remained an issue, even though the Government was to be commended on the measures taken, such as the possibility to submit complaints through single window offices in seven languages, and the possibility to make direct deposit payments in bank accounts. Concerning the imposition of penalties, while the law provided for adequate penalties, not much information was available on their application in practice. The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that the Government had to take the necessary actions in relation to the abovementioned issues. They concluded by stating that the Government had come a long way and they appreciated the measures taken, but that the Government still had a long way to go, and that it did not have time to lose in this regard.

The Employer member of Qatar observed that the modernity and speed of Qatar’s economic growth had attracted a large number of migrant workers seeking to take advantage of the fact that workers were well received in the country and that Qatar had good working conditions to offer. Their presence had induced the authorities to revise its immigration laws and regulations so as to ensure that their labour rights were respected and that they were protected against abusive treatment. Qatari employers were aware of all that the Government had done to that end. However, certain problems had already arisen in the migrant workers’ country of origin, specifically regarding the substantial fees charged by placement agencies, which was both unacceptable and illegal. For employers and the national authorities, it was however not easy to take appropriate action. Since the Governing Body had examined the case in March 2015 on the basis of the report of the mission that visited the country in February 2015, it would be preferable not to discuss the matter at the present session of the Conference. That said, the Qatari employers would continue to do everything they could to co-operate with the authorities in protecting the rights of migrant workers.

The Worker member of South Africa explained that migrant workers represented over 90 per cent of the workforce of Qatar, that is, roughly 1.5 million workers and that the number continued to rise. These workers were drawn into a highly exploitative system that facilitated the exaction of forced labour by employers. Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the kafala system was among the most restrictive in the Gulf and made it almost impossible for migrant workers to leave abusive employers as they enjoyed almost total control over workers’ movements. Workers were often afraid of reporting abuses, being paid far lower wages than promised or not even being paid at all; moreover, they were often found living in abysmal conditions. In particular, migrant workers could not freely seek better employment conditions elsewhere without the consent of their employer, which was rarely granted. Those who nevertheless quit their job without permission had to be reported to the authorities as having absconded. Under the law regulating the kafala system the fact that an employer had committed abuse or failed to pay wages was not an excuse for workers fleeing from their employers. Furthermore, migrant workers were forbidden to leave the country without the consent of the employer, even if they had the means to do it. Recalling that no action had been taken on the issue, he stated that both the Committee of Experts and the tripartite committee had raised several concerns on this system and had urged the Government to amend it immediately. Despite the fact that the Government proposed to annul the kafala system and replace it with a contract system, it appeared that workers would still be tied to the employer for up to five years. Furthermore, while the Government promised to enact a release permit, it did not explain under what circumstances the permits could be obtained. The possibility for workers to obtain an exit visa and leave the country within 72 hours was also mentioned, but the modalities of implementation were not explained. Depending on the details of the new legislation, it might well be that workers would not be better off than under the kafala system. Finally, as trade unions were not allowed, no tripartite negotiations with representatives of workers were possible on these issues.

The Government member of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Republic of Moldova, stated that the EU supported the universal ratification and implementation of the eight fundamental Conventions as part of the EU Strategy on Human Rights. The EU attached great importance to human rights, including the abolition of forced labour, and recognized the important role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards. Compliance with the fundamental Conventions was essential for social and economic stability in any country and an environment conducive to dialogue and trust between employers, workers and governments contributed to creating a basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies. The EU was ready to work with the Government in its implementation efforts regarding ILO Conventions. She recalled that the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to take measures to strengthen the capacity of migrant workers to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal; and to strengthen mechanisms monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers. The EU shared the Committee of Experts’ view that the application of effective and dissuasive penalties to perpetrators of forced labour were necessary to prevent a climate of impunity. Welcoming the Government’s commitment to replace the kafala system by work contracts in 2015, the EU expected the Government to enact the relevant bill and draft it in such a way as to provide effective protection for migrant workers. More information would be welcomed in this regard on the measures taken, both in legislation and in its implementation. Noting that the number of inspection visits had increased in recent years, the Government was encouraged to continue strengthening the labour inspectorate. The Government’s announcement of electronic payment measures to be implemented by August 2015 was also welcomed. The EU expected the Government to continue its efforts in securing the fundamental rights of migrant workers and in fully applying the Convention. The EU encouraged the Government to cooperate with the Office in this regard.

The Employer member of the United Arab Emirates commended the Government on its commitment to pursuing constructive dialogue and cooperation with the ILO and the other parties concerned. That positive attitude indicated that it should be possible to reach a solution. The Government was working hard to strengthen the promotion and protection of the rights of migrant workers, and the report of the mission that had visited Qatar in February 2015 to examine the complaint made against the country under article 26 of the ILO Constitution confirmed their positive approach. That being so, the Governing Body had decided to postpone examination of the issue until November 2015, in order to give the Government time to introduce the necessary legislative amendments. It was therefore too early to evaluate the impact of the measures taken. The Committee had to take into account the progress made by the Government and the discussion that had taken place in the Governing Body in March 2015. The employers of the United Arab Emirates were committed to supporting any efforts to guarantee adequate working conditions for migrant workers, but the placement agencies should also act fairly and transparently so as to ensure decent conditions for their migration.

The Government member of Swaziland noted that the Government had introduced a number of significant measures to improve the rights of workers in the country. These measures included allowing workers to transfer from one employer to another; establishing a hotline at the Ministry of Labour to deal with complaints; holding information seminars to advise workers of their rights; distributing manuals to migrant workers; setting up a guidance and counselling team and making field visits and increasing the number of labour inspectors from 150 to 294. The Committee had to take note of these measures and provide more time to the Government to fully meet the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom indicated that despite the existence of a number of complaint mechanisms, the reality for workers in Qatar fell well short of ensuring that all complaints were properly examined by the appropriate authorities. Barriers to justice were numerous, including, for example, the requirement of a compulsory expert’s report, which typically involved the victim paying a fee of around 600 Qatari riyals. Resolutions were often taking a year or more and during that time workers might be subjected to retaliation from their employer, while wages remained unpaid, or workers were evicted from accommodation, without being able to work elsewhere due to the kafala restrictions. Independent reports showed examples of workers being forced to borrow money, receive support from sending countries’ embassies or work illegally in order to – literally – survive the legal process. Given that many labour complaints were in response to systematic non-payment of wages, this placed an intolerable burden on those seeking redress. The various departments and organizations involved in handling remedy for victims of forced labour, as well as the Labour Court itself, were clearly under-resourced in the face of the scale of labour disputes. This not only placed workers making complaints at risk of continued exploitation, but also discouraged other victims from seeking redress. Even if the Government had demonstrated some commitment to improving access to justice by providing the appropriate resources to this process, a number of issues remained unresolved, as set out in the law firm’s report commissioned by the Government and released in 2014. Most notably, these included widespread accusations from sponsors as retaliation, particularly of workers “absconding” from employment – punishable by detention and eventually deportation – with insufficient cross-referencing by the authorities to establish the connection with the submission of labour complaints. That, along with sponsors’ ability to deploy “no objection certificates” and exit visas as effective bargaining chips to pressure workers into dropping claims, contributed to a crippling imbalance of power that the court system was failing fundamentally to redress. It also appeared that the Government had done very little to rectify the negative assessment in this law firm’s report concerning information available to workers about their existing rights. Since the Government’s refusal to allow migrant workers to join trade unions denied them the obvious route to educating a workforce about its rights, more was needed to bring the regulations to the knowledge of those requiring the protection of the law.

The Government member of Mauritania noted that this discussion had provided an opportunity to objectively examine the legislative changes that Qatar needed to make and to recognize the Government’s efforts to improve the situation of migrant workers and the law on the kafala system. Significant progress had been made and the authorities should be commended on the measures taken to strengthen the rights of migrant workers, improve their living and working conditions and provide them with access to complaint mechanisms. The Committee should take into account the commitment and willingness of the Government.

The Worker member of New Zealand recalled that, even though Article 25 of the Convention provided for an obligation on ratifying States to ensure that penalties for forced labour were adequate and strictly enforced, migrant workers in Qatar continued to face high hurdles in their access to justice. While welcoming the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the labour inspectorate, he emphasized that much more had to be done, including the further recruitment and training of labour inspectors and the provision of interpretation services. As the Committee of Experts pointed out in its last comments under Convention No. 81, the failure to enforce adequate penalties created a climate of impunity, which perpetuated forced labour. It was therefore deeply concerning that Qatar had not supplied any information on prosecutions for the exaction of forced labour under the 2009 Act prohibiting trafficking in persons. He therefore concurred with the Committee of Experts in calling on the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that effective and dissuasive penalties were actually applied and that the police and prosecution authorities acted of their own accord, irrespective of any action taken by the victims. Taking into account the 2014 comments of the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, he further pointed out that a key weak link in the enforcement system might be the Qatari justice system, which was influenced by high-level persons and powerful businesses and completely arbitrary as to whether cases had to be pursued. Significant allegations also related to lack of impartiality, bias and improper behaviour by judges, including allegations of discrimination against migrants in favour of Qataris. He therefore called on the Government to reform the judicial system as recommended by the Special Rapporteur. Finally, publically naming employers convicted of forced labour might assist in dispelling a climate of impunity, as it was observed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants regarding the Government’s initiative to blacklist employers who committed multiple workers’ rights violations.

The Government member of Thailand appreciated the efforts of the Government to promote and protect the rights of expatriate labour and recognized its willingness to engage and cooperate in a constructive manner with the ILO and relevant stakeholders in this regard. The progress made and the measures taken to review laws and adopt new ones had to be welcomed. The Government should be encouraged to continue working closely with the social partners to further promote and ensure the rights of migrant workers. Since the Governing Body would consider this case in November 2015, the Government should be given appropriate time to continue its efforts and report back at that moment.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries, as well as Estonia and Poland, regretted that a great number of migrant workers were exploited in the country, many of whom were victims of forced labour pursuant to the Convention. In some cases, migrant workers were offered different contractual conditions upon arrival to the country than those promised in the country of origin and the Government had not taken any measures in this regard. Furthermore, while acknowledging that the national legislation prohibited recruitment agencies registered and based in the country from charging fees to workers for their recruitment, she deplored that foreign firms affiliated to these agencies were not accountable for this practice. In this regard, she quoted the findings of a 2014 report of the Qatar Foundation, and regretted that the Government considered this problem as concerning the countries of origin only. Moreover, she deplored that the Government did not increase the fine for the confiscation of migrant workers’ passports, which was a serious and widespread problem in the country, and was concerned about the restriction on freedom of movement of migrant workers, due to the refusal of some employers to provide residence visas. She noted that the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO–Norway) and the Norwegian Football Association urged the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) to cooperate with the international trade union movement in order to improve the working conditions in the construction sites for the 2022 World Cup. In this regard, she mentioned the agreement between LO–Norway and the Norwegian sports associations concerning the 2022 Olympic Games in Oslo. Finally, she urged the Government to cooperate with the ILO, the ITUC and the global unions to ensure appropriate and effective labour inspections.

The Government member of Sri Lanka commended the considerable efforts made by the Government to protect the rights of the workers. Therefore, he stated that the case should not have been discussed again by the Committee. He concluded by encouraging the Government to enhance the rights of migrant workers in the country.

The Worker member of Libya denounced the conditions suffered by domestic workers in Qatar. As they were excluded from the scope of labour legislation, there were no regulations protecting them in terms of working time or minimum wages. Deprived of their passports and freedom of movement and often victims of physical and verbal assault, many were subjected to forced labour and slavery. In that regard, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had expressed serious concern over the cases of physical and sexual violence affecting female domestic workers. Some five to ten female domestic workers came forward every day seeking refuge in the Indonesian Embassy in Qatar. Despite the promises that the Government had made in previous years, no bill on the issue had yet been passed. In these circumstances, the Government should reform its legislation to introduce a legal framework covering all aspects of the employment relationship of female domestic workers and allow them access to effective means of recourse, all of which was also set out in Convention No. 189. It was due to this legal vacuum, in which chauffeurs, gardeners, cooks and other categories of workers found themselves, that work was often rendered vulnerable. It was high time for the Government to move from promises to genuine reform.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed appreciation for the commitment the Government had shown to upholding international labour standards, including the Convention. The Government had indicated that it was amending its legislation and improving its labour inspection system. The Committee of Experts had formulated comments on some legislative initiatives under way. The Government had mentioned the drafting of a bill to abolish the kafala system and replace it with contracts of employment. Bearing in mind the Government’s goodwill and its efforts to safeguard workers’ rights and interests, she considered that the Committee should keep in mind the positive aspects apparent from the explanations that the Government had given. She trusted that the Committee’s conclusions resulting from its discussion would be objective and balanced, which would doubtless enable the Government to consider and evaluate them as it applied the Convention.

The Worker member of France, speaking also on behalf of the trade unions of the Netherlands and the International Transport Workers’ Federation, stated that while it was of course incumbent on States to respect ratified Conventions, companies, too, possessed the duty of respecting standards agreed upon at the international level. This duty was one of the three pillars of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – the so-called “Ruggie Principles” – and of the OECD guidelines on multinationals. Moreover, it was not just parent companies, but all parties implicated in the global supply chain that bore this responsibility, including subsidiaries, subcontractors, business partners and financial institutions. Aside from the Government of Qatar, then, companies involved in infrastructure projects for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar may also have perpetrated forced labour practices against migrant workers on building sites. For instance, a French NGO had brought a complaint before the French courts against a French construction company and its Qatari subsidiary, alleging forced labour offences committed against migrant workers employed on their building sites. The complaint also referred to indecent working conditions, accommodation and pay. This was just one example of corporate malfeasance among many, and it was important for parent companies to realise that they were accountable, under several international and national legal instruments, not only for their own actions but those of their subsidiaries abroad as well. She observed in this regard that States were increasingly requiring companies to report on non-financial matters, and France had passed a law on the extraterritorial responsibility of multinational corporations. Furthermore, the 21 November 2013 resolution of the European Parliament on Qatar and the situation of migrant workers was “calling for the responsibility of European construction companies involved in the building of stadiums and other infrastructure in Qatar in order that they offer work conditions which respect international standards on human rights”. Trade unions and civil society groups had taken note of these developments, and the Qatari construction industry, in which thousands of migrant workers were employed by, among others, large state-owned companies of international repute, presented ample opportunity for utilizing these means in order to hold companies accountable. She concluded by recalling that the ILO supervisory bodies’ comments had also highlighted violations of freedom of association principles and other Conventions in Qatar.

The Government member of Namibia recalled that at its 323rd Session, in March 2015, the ILO Governing Body had requested the Government to provide information on the actions taken to address all the issues regarding non-observance of the Convention for consideration at its 325th Session, in November 2015. Noting that the information provided by the Government demonstrated that progress had indeed been achieved, including in the area of legislative reform, she urged that engagement between the ILO and the Government on these issues continue.

The Worker member of Switzerland said that the case of Qatar was more tragic than complex. The working conditions on sites where stadiums were being built were simply appalling. Construction workers and employees in other sectors were deprived of the most elementary labour rights, and deaths on construction sites were a frequent occurrence. The situation had deteriorated after FIFA had decided to confer the hosting of the World Cup to Qatar. It showed that the way the hosting of international sporting events was assigned needed to be changed. The Government asserted that it was changing the kafala system, but that was insufficient. It was the situation of workers’ rights in the country that needed to be reformed, and migrant workers should be given complete autonomy. It was unacceptable that they should be obliged to work for five years for the same employer. He requested the Government to provide a timetable of the reforms it was carrying out. The lesson to be learned from this historic case was that the criteria for selecting the countries to which the organization of world events was attributed should include respect for the human and labour rights embodied in the ILO’s standards.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, recalled that human rights were universal and encouraged the universal ratification and implementation of the eight ILO fundamental Conventions. She expressed deep concern for the numerous and well-documented cases of unacceptable working and living conditions of migrant workers in the country, especially with regard to exploitation and forced labour associated with the kafala system. She deplored the practices of contract substitution, limitation of the possibility of resignation, non-payment of wages, threat of retaliations and she emphasized the difficult situation of women domestic workers. She recalled that, during the discussion on the complaint against the Government at the Governing Body’s 323rd Session in March 2015, her Government supported the appointment of a commission of inquiry because of the seriousness and urgency of the matter. She noted that the present discussion of the case regrettably confirmed the persistence of the problem. She called on the Government to guarantee the respect of fundamental principles and rights at work of the workers recruited for the preparation of the 2022 World Cup. While acknowledging the existence of a draft legislation to abolish the kafala system, she urged the Government to enact the new law in the near future so as to protect workers from any form of exploitation and to provide them with the full enjoyment of their rights at work, in particular access to justice, freedom of association and collective bargaining. She also called on the Government to cooperate with the recruitment agencies and the countries of origin to secure a rights-based migration process. Finally, she strongly encouraged the Government to cooperate with the ILO.

The Employer member of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the group of Arab Employers, said that consideration had to be given to the special situation of foreign workers in the Gulf States, most of which followed the kafala system. Employers, who generally resorted to private placement agencies, naturally incurred certain recruitment fees, and that could pose problems when workers who had cost the employers money wanted to change jobs. Consequently, a balanced solution had to be found that respected the rights of both workers and employers. Unlike Egypt, which employed far fewer migrant workers, 70 to 80 per cent of foreign workers in the Gulf States were not allowed to join trade unions. Although between 350,000 and 500,000 Egyptians were employed in Qatar, he had never heard of any complaints, which suggested that there were no particular problems. Moreover, Qatar had granted most of the major building projects for the 2022 World Cup to foreign enterprises. A lot of Egyptian construction companies were present in Qatar, and they had never run up against any particular problem. Finally, since the Governing Body had decided to allow the Government enough time to take the necessary measures, it would be appropriate to await the next Governing Body session and see what steps had been taken then.

The Government member of the United States observed that almost 94 per cent of Qatar’s workforce consist of migrant workers, mainly from Asia and the Pacific. Many of them were engaged in forced labour, a situation that was facilitated by the legal framework governing migrant work in the country. According to the Committee of Experts, the abusive practices migrant workers were subjected to included contract substitution, high recruitment fees and restrictions on the freedom to terminate the employment relationship. While the Government had pledged to address those issues, no significant progress had been made. She urged the Government to intensify the pace of its reform efforts in this regard. Although withholding workers’ passports was prohibited by the 2009 Sponsorship Law, it was not really enforced. According to recent studies by Qatar University’s Social and Economic Survey Research Institute, 86 to 90 per cent of workers’ passports were in the employers’ possession. As regards the kafala system under which labour migration was at present organized, she recalled the Government’s indication that it was working to replace the system with a contract-based governance framework and expressed the hope that this system would soon be established and would, inter alia, grant migrant workers full freedom of movement and work mobility, particularly when subjected to workplace abuse or threats of retaliation. She urged the Government to immediately undertake the measures to combat forced labour enumerated in the comments of the Committee of Experts and other supervisory bodies, including the enactment of new legislation, the imposition of dissuasive penalties for forced labour practices, the conducting of public awareness-raising campaigns on forced labour, and the initiation of partnerships with governments of migrant-sending countries to prevent exploitative practices in the labour recruitment process. Until adequate changes were made to both law and practice in Qatar, this case ought to continue to receive urgent attention from the Committee and the other supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Worker member of Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Sudan, Bahrain and Kuwait, said that during the discussion the positive measures adopted by the Government had been examined, such as the introduction of modern employment contracts, the establishment of a modern salary protection system which included the payment of workers’ salaries via bank transfer, the establishment of mechanisms to facilitate the submission of complaints by workers to the Ministry of Labour without additional costs, and the strengthening of the labour inspection system, including sanctions for perpetrators of crimes against workers. The Government had fulfilled the recommendations of the high-level mission, and this case should therefore be removed from the list of cases to be examined, and the Government should be afforded time to put into practice the new measures adopted.

The Government member of Pakistan stated that his Government agrees with the Government member of Kuwait. He was fully satisfied, judging from the information submitted by the Government, that the latter was making significant progress towards fulfilling the requests of the Committee of Experts, and expressed the hope that these efforts would receive due credit from the Governing Body at its 325th Session in November 2015.

The Employer member of Algeria said that this case, which had already been examined by the Governing Body at its March 2015 session, had seen a great deal of progress. The Government had replied to several inquiries and was consolidating and improving its labour laws. In that regard, it would be best to await the decision of the Governing Body, which had deferred further consideration of the case to November 2015.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomed the information provided by the Government on its positive achievements, which demonstrated its commitment to improving working conditions in the country. In March 2015 the Governing Body had decided to defer to November 2015 the analysis of the complaint against the Government concerning the Convention, in order to allow for the implementation of the measures and legislative amendments it had initiated. In this regard, he emphasized that sufficient time should be granted to the Government, which he encouraged the Government to continue with its efforts. He called on the Office to provide technical assistance.

The Government member of Switzerland encouraged the Government to continue to increase the number of labour inspectors, to train them to identify abusive practices that exposed migrant workers to forced labour, and to bring cases of abuse before the courts. The Government of Switzerland supported a major ILO programme aimed at protecting vulnerable migrant workers, which included exchanges of information on good practices to adopt between countries of origin and countries of destination. Migrant workers, including domestic workers, should be entitled to the same protection as all other workers; their working conditions should be improved and their freedom of movement guaranteed. He noted the intention of the Government to take measures in that regard, and encouraged it to continue implementing the measures that had already been adopted. It was also important, as highlighted by the Committee of Experts, to raise public awareness of the issue. While welcoming the decision to gradually abolish the kafala system, he requested the Government to demonstrate its determination to achieve that objective, and said that the implementation of the new legislation to that end would be closely examined.

The Government member of Cuba said that his Government rejected forced labour in all its forms and encouraged its eradication. The tripartite committee that had examined the complaint against the Government concluded that it should adopt additional measures. The Government had reported that it had drafted a bill to repeal Act No. 4 of 2009, which provided solutions that should address the issues raised by the tripartite committee. He trusted that the Government would continue to make efforts to adopt the necessary measures.

The Government member of Sudan said that Qatar received a substantial flow of migrant workers who benefited from the attractive employment opportunities offered by the country’s ever-expanding economy. This in turn represented a challenge for the Government in terms of providing decent working conditions. In that regard, the Government was receiving technical assistance from the ILO to build capacity to implement fundamental principles and rights at work. It was surprising that the Committee had begun to discuss the case, given that the Governing Body had requested Qatar to submit information on the measures taken in response to the complaint concerning the application of the Convention at its session in November 2015. There was a strong political will to strengthen mechanisms for workers to submit complaints, to raise awareness among workers and employers of their rights and duties, and to encourage more efficient labour inspection. All this contributed significantly to the promotion of international labour standards in pursuit of decent working conditions for all residents of the country without discrimination.

The Government member of Kuwait, speaking also on behalf of the Governments of Bangladesh, Bahrain, China, India, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and United Arab Emirates, welcomed the positive steps and measures taken by the Government to address the forced labour situation, as well as the high degree of cooperation the latter had demonstrated in engaging with the ILO and other concerned parties. Recalling that the Governing Body had deferred consideration of the complaint brought against Qatar to its 325th Session, in order to grant the Government adequate time to implement the measures recommended by the Committee of Experts, he considered this to be too brief a period of time in which to achieve meaningful progress. He hoped that the Government’s efforts so far would be taken into consideration by the Committee and the other ILO supervisory bodies, and he invited the Government to continue its engagement with the ILO to address the issue of forced labour in Qatar.

The Government member of Morocco welcomed the action taken by the Committee to draw attention to the issue of migrant workers’ rights. He expressed satisfaction with the improvements made to labour legislation and with the various reforms that the Government had undertaken in the area of labour relations, which would soon enable workers wishing to leave the country to do so without any difficulty. The Government had increased its efforts to ensure that migrant workers were able to keep their passports, and sanctions were planned to punish employers who broke the rule. He considered that technical cooperation would enable reforms to be undertaken that satisfied all actors in the world of work.

The Government member of the Russian Federation regretted that, although the Government provided information on the intention to protect worker rights, he remained concerned with regard to the modalities and time frame for the implementation of the improvements still needed in several areas, such as insufficient labour inspections, access to justice and the possibility for workers to change jobs and employers. He hoped that the Government would comply with international labour standards, as well as continue to provide information on the implementation of the Convention.

The Government member of Canada expressed concern over the situation of labour rights in Qatar, particularly those of low-income migrant workers. While noting that the Government was considering changes to the labour law to address violations of migrant workers’ rights, he observed that these changes had yet to be implemented. Moreover, while other protective legislation existed, such as Act No. 14 of 2004 providing for maximum working hours, paid annual leave, and safety and health standards, further measures were clearly necessary as reports of abuses continued to mount. Reform of the kafala system was especially necessary, as this system tied migrant workers’ legal residency status to their employer. The kafala system was at the centre of many abuses suffered by migrant workers, including the late payment or non-payment of wages, restrictions on mobility, usurious levels of debt, and inhumane working and living conditions. He urged the Government to implement the reforms envisaged so as to establish a legal framework offering strong protection for migrant workers and hold accountable those individuals and companies responsible for violating the law.

The Government member of Bangladesh noted that the Government had made substantial progress in drafting amendments to the legislation governing migrant workers. He encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to address the forced labour situation, and invited the ILO to extend technical assistance in this regard.

The Government member of Algeria welcomed the forthcoming permanent replacement of the kafala system with a contractual mechanism. The Government was making efforts to improve the remedies available to migrant workers in cases of disputes and to ensure that conflicts were settled in a transparent and open manner. Furthermore, initiatives had been taken to provide migrant workers with easier access to information concerning their rights. These various elements demonstrated the Government’s goodwill regarding the application of the Convention. This progress should be noted by the Committee which should afford the Government the time needed for the reforms to bear fruit.

The Government representative was convinced that the observations voiced during the discussion would help to improve relations between the social partners and would make it easier for the Government to protect the rights of anyone working in the country. When it decided to join the ILO, the Government’s objective had been to develop its labour market and, contrary to what had been said, to maintain a balance between the social partners. Some labour practices were indeed irregular and needed to be corrected, but there was no point harping on the fact. On the contrary, emphasis should be placed on the Government’s achievements, which had been confirmed by the high-level mission that had visited the country earlier in the year. As to the observations that had been heard in connection with the complaint that had been made against the Government, they had been treated quite seriously, and steps had accordingly been taken to introduce a wage protection system, to suspend the kafala system and replace it by modern employment contracts. The speaker called on all the members of the Committee to recognize the progress that had been made in a short time rather than focus on isolated incidents and claim that they were the rule. The allegations contained in the complaint did not take into account the conclusions of the high-level mission’s report, which in essence were no different from those of the Committee of Experts. He concluded by reasserting the Government’s promise to submit a detailed report on the subject to the Governing Body in November 2015.

The Employer members appreciated the robust discussion. While acknowledging the annoyance of the Government to deal with two procedures concerning substantially the same case, they noted that the ILO Constitution allowed for this to happen. They commended the Government for the concrete steps taken to address a number of issues. However, enacting legislation was not enough and they expressed concern with regard to the law’s implementation. In that regard, several elements of the report of the ILO mission of February 2015 referred to the amendment of the labour code, the labour complaints mechanisms and the effective enforcement of labour laws. While commending the Government for the initiatives taken so far, notably the reform of the legislation, they called on the Government to do more and without further delay. They expected that the improvements in the legislation and practice would lead to social progress and economic development in the country.

The Worker members noted that the forced labour situation in Qatar was widely acknowledged to be a serious problem, not only by the ILO supervisory bodies but by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants and various human rights organizations as well. Forced labour in Qatar, moreover, resulted from a system which deprived migrant workers of their fundamental rights and access to justice. The Government could not claim a lack of resources or of access to technical assistance in addressing this issue. Steps to address the forced labour situation could have been taken a long time ago; indeed Qatar had the potential, and still did, to be a model of humane labour migration management. Instead, it remained a model for all that was wrong and deplorable about labour migration today. They welcomed the commitments the Government had made to address the various factors contributing to forced labour, but stressed that these commitments had to be urgently realised. The Government had done far too little, far too slowly, particularly in view of the sheer magnitude of the forced labour problem that continued to exist. The kafala system had yet to be eliminated, for instance, although the Government had promised to do so in 2014.

As concerned the proposed contract-based system that was to replace the kafala system, they remained concerned that the former would do little to address the exaction of forced labour in practice. Employers would still have the power to restrict workers from moving to another job for up to five years, and the proposed exit visa system raised questions as to whether workers would, in practice, actually be able to leave, given that employers could still raise objections to their leaving on grounds that were not sufficiently clear or precise. Additionally, migrant workers remained outside the scope of the labour law, in spite of promises to soon enact legislation providing for their inclusion. Burdensome recruitment fees remained a serious and widespread problem, as did the confiscation of passports and the substitution of contracts. Also, there was little evidence of augmented enforcement measures, whether in the form of increased arrests and prosecutions or of heavier fines levied. Significant obstacles continued to deny migrant workers access to legal aid and the justice system, including lengthy processes, fees and the language barrier. In this regard, they added that although an electronic complaints system was said to have been introduced, they had not been informed of any workers familiar with this system. They noted that, although the decision had been taken to establish an electronic payments system intended to protect wages, the system had yet to be implemented, and they urged that this be done as soon as possible. Also, once put in place it was necessary to monitor the results secured by the system in addressing the problem of non-payment of wages. Many of the problems noted could have been addressed by migrant workers themselves, were it not for the fact that they were prohibited from forming trade unions under the present legislation. Stressing once again that forced labour remained a serious problem in Qatar and that the Government had yet to act on most of the commitments it had made, they urged the Government to immediately enact all the measures previously recommended by the supervisory bodies, including: the abolition of the kafala system and its replacement with an open, regulated labour market; the abolition of the exit permit system; the enforcement of the laws on passport confiscation; putting an end to contract substitution and the charging of illegal recruitment fees; facilitating access for migrant workers to the justice system; reinforcing criminal investigations and prosecutions against those suspected of engaging in exploitative labour practices; reviewing the applicable penalties for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, to ensure their adequacy; and adopting the necessary amendments to extend to domestic workers the labour rights guaranteed by law.

They concluded by calling on the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission to review the present forced labour situation and initiate discussions on how best to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued relating to the vulnerable situation of migrant workers to conditions of forced labour.

The Committee noted that the outstanding issues raised by the Committee of Experts related to the need to review without delay Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system which currently restricted the possibility for migrant workers to leave the country or change employer, and placed the workers concerned in a situation of increased vulnerability, particularly where they were subjected to practices such as retention of their passports, restrictions on their freedom of movement, contract substitution and the non-payment, underpayment or late payment of wages. The issues raised by the Committee of Experts also related to the need to guarantee to migrant workers access to rapid and efficient complaints mechanisms as well as access to protection and assistance mechanisms when their rights were infringed; and the need to impose adequate penalties for violations of the Labour Code and the Law regulating the sponsorship system as well as for violations of the Penal Code relating to forced labour.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative outlining the recent measures taken to protect migrant workers. This included the drafting of a Bill to repeal the sponsorship system and to replace it by work contracts. Under this Bill, workers would be allowed to change employer after the end of their contract of a specific duration or after five years in the case of permanent contracts. Legislative amendments were also under way to allow workers to request a release permit from the competent government authority without referring back to the employer.

In addition, the Government stated that it had established a new and efficient complaints mechanism for migrant workers whereby complaints were settled directly between employers and workers through the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. Moreover, workers could submit their complaints in both Arabic and English as well as in seven other languages, and a hotline had been launched at the Ministry to receive complaints by telephone and electronic mail in order to respond to queries without delay. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour had held information symposia intended for employers and workers so as to raise their awareness of their rights and obligations. In addition, an office representing the Ministry was also set up in the judiciary so as to collaborate with workers who initiated legal proceedings against employers, and to provide them with legal aid in addition to providing interpreters who spoke the languages of the majority of workers, free of charge.

With regard to measures taken to protect domestic workers, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a Bill on domestic workers was currently being examined.

Finally, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services, particularly by expanding its geographical coverage, increasing the number of labour inspectors and providing them with modern computer equipment.

Taking into account the discussion that took place, the Committee urged the Government to:

• abolish the kafala system and replace it with a work permit that allows the worker to change employer. This includes abolishing the “no objection” certificate;
• work towards abolishing the exit permit system in the shortest possible time; in the interim, make exit permits available as a matter of right;
• vigorously enforce the legal provisions on passport confiscation;
• work with labour sending countries to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers;
• ensure that contracts signed in the sending countries are not altered in Qatar, and prosecute those responsible who have engaged in deception as to wages and working conditions;
• facilitate access to the justice system for migrant workers. This includes, but is not limited to, assistance with language and translation, the elimination of fees and charges related to bringing a claim, and disseminating information about the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; ensure that workers are able to access these systems without fear of reprisals, that these cases are processed expeditiously and that orders are enforced;
• continue to hire additional labour inspectors and increase material resources to them necessary to carry out labour inspections, in particular in workplaces where migrant workers are employed;
• ensure investigation and prosecution of those suspected of exploitation and prevent those found guilty from recruiting workers in the future;
• ensure that the penalties applicable under law for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, and penalties for violations of the Labour Law are adequate, and that these laws are effectively enforced; and
• ensure that domestic workers have equal labour rights.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government (see paragraph on trafficking in persons) as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in its supplementary report on the activities undertaken by the National Committee for Combating Human Trafficking (NCCHT). Accordingly, from 2019 to July 2020: (i) the Qatari House for Lodging and Humanitarian Care which provides the requisite assistance and protection to victims of trafficking was established; (ii) memoranda of understanding were signed with the Red Crescent and the Qatar Charity for the operation and management of the Qatari House and to support victims of trafficking, respectively; (iii) a dedicated prosecution office for human trafficking was set up within the Public Prosecution Office; and (iv) several training and awareness-raising workshops were conducted in partnership with the ILO, and the British and the United States Embassies on detecting cases of trafficking in persons and the process of dealing with and protecting victims of trafficking. Moreover, the NCCHT participated in marking the World Day Against Trafficking in Persons. The Government further indicates that from 2019 to 2020, 11 cases of trafficking in persons were referred to the NCCHT and a penalty of an average fine ranging between QAR5,000 and QAR20,000 (US$1,374 and US$5,494) was imposed on the six persons accused.

In addition, the Committee notes the Government’s information that two people accused of trafficking in persons were sentenced to ten years imprisonment followed by their deportation from the country. The defendants were charged with the violation of Act No.15 of 2011 on combating human trafficking and ordered to pay each victim an amount of QAR1 million (US$274,725) as compensation while the victims were provided with the necessary health care and accommodation in the Protection and Social Rehabilitation Centre. The Committee welcomes this information and encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that Act No.15 of 2011 on combating human trafficking is effectively applied and enforced. It also requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of prosecutions initiated, victims identified, and convictions and penalties imposed for the offences related to trafficking in persons.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 161 and 162 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on human resources management, civil servants may submit a request for resignation, which must be approved within 30 days. However, the approval may be postponed for a similar period of 30 days and the civil servant shall continue to work. The Government previously stated in this respect that these provisions are inherent to the nature of the civil service, and aim at ensuring continued operation of the service. The Committee also noted the Government’s information on the measures it was taking to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on human resources management in order to bring it into conformity with Articles 1 and 2.

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management is still going through the legislative channels because the amendment requires achieving a balance between the general interest and the freedom of a public official in leaving the service. Moreover, a new ministry has been set up by virtue of Decree No. 4 of 2016 which supervises the implementation of Act No. 8 of 2009. The Government adds that all information relating to public officials is currently being updated and information relating to the application of sections 161 and 162 of Act No. 8 of 2009 will be communicated as soon as the updating process on public officials is completed.

The Committee takes note of this information and once again recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on human resources management in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which such resignations were refused, the grounds for refusal and the total period during which the resignations were refused.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government (see points (i) to (v) under the national legal framework for migrant workers, and point (i) under access to justice and law enforcement), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

COVID-19 measures. The Committee appreciates the efforts made by the Government to provide information concerning various measures taken in 2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including holding remote sessions of the Labour Dispute Settlement Committee to decide on urgent labour issues and claims by domestic workers; resolving complaints and labour disputes via video conferencing; ensuring that employers pay their workers’ wages; and taking legal measures against companies violating the Wage Protection System.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers to conditions of forced labour. Background and context. The Committee previously noted that at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2014, 12 delegates to the ILC, under article 26 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution filed a complaint against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81). It also noted the discussions which took place at the 104th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) in June 2015, concerning the application by Qatar of the Convention. The Committee further noted that at its 331st Session (October–November 2017), the Governing Body decided to close the complaint against the Government of Qatar and support the technical cooperation programme between the Government of Qatar and the ILO and its implementation modalities. The technical cooperation programme is articulated around five pillars, including: improvement in payment of wages; enhanced labour inspection and occupational safety and health (OSH) systems; refinement of the contractual system that replaces the kafala system; improved labour recruitment procedures, increased prevention, protection and prosecution against forced labour; and promotion of the voice of workers.

1. National legal framework for migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the following issues: (i) the functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala); (ii) the procedure for issuing exit visas; (iii) recruitment fees and contract substitution; (iv) passport confiscation; (v) the late payment and non-payment of wages; and (vi) migrant domestic workers.

(i) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment were governed by Act No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor (section 180). The law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. The Committee also took note of Act No. 21 of 2015 which regulates the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers and which entered into force in December 2016. The Committee observed that the main new feature introduced by the Act of 2015 consisted of the fact that workers may change jobs without the employer’s consent at the end of a contract of limited duration or after a period of five years if the contract is of unspecified duration (section 21(2)) without the employer’s consent; whereas under the Act of 2009, the worker could not return to work in Qatar for two years in case the sponsor refused such transfer. However, it observed that the Act of 2015 did not seem to foresee termination by the expatriate worker before the expiry of the initial contract (that is with a notice period) without approval of the employer nor did it set out reasons and conditions for termination generally, other than in a few very specific cases. The Committee expressed the firm hope that new legislation would remove all the restrictions that prevent migrant workers from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse and would enable migrant workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice during the duration of the contract and without the employer’s permission.

Regarding the transfer of workers in abusive situations, the Committee notes that Act No. 21 of 2015 allows the Minister of Interior or its representative to approve the temporary transfer of a migrant worker to a new employer in cases involving lawsuits between a worker and his/her current employer, provided that the Ministry of Labour approves the transfer. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of workers transferred to new employers from December 2016 to January 2019 which reached a total of 339,420 permanent transfers. It notes that the number of transfers based on abuse reached 2,309 in 2019. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in its report to Minister of Interior Decree No. 25 of 2019 on the issuance of the executive regulations of Act No. 21 of 2015 regulating the entry, exit and residence of foreign nationals. The Committee further notes in the annual progress reports to the Governing Body on the ILO technical cooperation programme in Qatar (annual progress report) that the programme supported the drafting of amendments to Labour Act No. 14 of 2004 and Act No. 21 of 2015 regulating the entry and exit of expatriates and their residence with regard to termination of employment and the removal of the no-objection certificate so as to eliminate restrictions on workers’ freedom of movement to change jobs (GB.337/INS/5 paragraph 18). The Committee notes that amendments to Labour Act No. 14 of 2004 and Act No. 21 of 2015 to eliminate restrictions on workers’ freedom of movement to change jobs were approved by the Council of Ministers in September 2019, and referred to the Shura Council for consideration.

The Committee further notes the Government’s information in its supplementary report that the legislative amendments of 2020 have dismantled and abolished the kafala system in Qatar. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s information that the provisions of Labour Act No.14 of 2004 and Act No. 21 of 2015 concerning the termination of employment contracts and change of employment by workers have been amended by Decree Law No.18 of 2020 and Decree Law No. 19 of 2020, respectively. According to Decree Law No. 18, workers may terminate the employment contract during the probation period to transfer to another employer, provided they notify their current employer, in writing, of their intent to terminate the contract at least one month before the date of termination. This requires the new employer to compensate the current employer a portion of the recruitment fees and the air ticket, provided that the amount does not exceed the equivalent of two months of the worker’s basic wage. The law further permits either party to the employment contract, whether fixed-term or permanent, to terminate the employment contract after the probation period, in which case the party wishing to terminate the contract shall notify the other party in writing of their intent to terminate the contract, with a specific notice period of one or two months depending on the number of years of employment. Decree No. 19 further permits expatriate workers to change employer after notifying the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs (MADLSA) provided that their residency permit is valid or is within 90 days from the date of expiry, unless it has expired for reasons which are not within their control. The Committee further notes the Government’s information that in 2018 there were 8,653 cases involving a change of employer and from September 2019 to August 2020, there were 17,843 such cases. Welcoming these recent legislative developments, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of employment transfers and termination of employment contracts that have taken place, disaggregated on the basis of contracts of limited duration and contracts of unspecified duration and on the basis of gender and types of work, following the adoption of Decree No. 18 of 2020 and Decree No.19 of 2020. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate when the new employer must compensate the old employer for recruitment and airfare costs.

(ii) Procedure for issuing exit visas. The Committee previously noted that Act No. 4 of 2009 on entry and exit of foreign workers required migrant workers to obtain an exit permit signed by the sponsor in order to leave the country. It subsequently noted the adoption of Act No. 21 of 2015 on entry and exit of foreign workers which removed the obligation to have the exit permit signed by the sponsor to leave the country. Act No. 21 nevertheless provided that the employer may object to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker in which case the latter had the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee (section 7(2) and (3)). The Committee further observed that the Law did not enumerate the specific grounds on which the employer may object to the departure of the migrant worker from the country. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to remove the obstacles that limit the freedom of movement of migrant workers.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 13 of 2018 which amends section 7 of Act No. 21 and suppresses the exit permit requirement for migrant workers covered by Labour Act No. 14 of 2004. The Committee notes, however, that this new Act specifies that employers may submit for approval to the MADLSA a list of workers for whom a “no-objection” certificate would still be required, with a justification based on the nature of their work. Positions in which exit permits may be required are limited to the following highly skilled workers: chief executive officers, finance officers, managers responsible for the oversight of the company’s day-to-day operations and directors of ICT. The number of these workers per company shall not exceed 5 per cent of their workforce. As of May 2019, the number of companies that requested an exception up to a maximum of 5 per cent of the workforce was 12,430 companies, while the number of workers was 38,038. Given that Act No. 13 does not cover categories of workers outside of the scope of the Labour Act, the Committee notes that a Ministerial Decision is to be adopted before the end of 2019 to suppress the exit permit for all workers not covered by the Labour Act, notably domestic workers, workers in government and public institutions, workers employed at sea and in agriculture, as well as casual workers.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its supplementary report that Ministerial Decree No. 95 of 2019, which provides for broadening the scope of exit visas for workers who are not covered by the Labour Act and which abolishes the “no-objection” certificate requirement for workers to change their employer, has been adopted. It notes with satisfaction that Decree No. 95 of 2019 abolishes the exit permit requirement for migrants working in ministries; government bodies, public institutions and organizations; workers in the oil and gas sector and on the maritime vessels of affiliated companies; workers in agriculture and grazing, workers in private offices, and domestic workers. These categories of workers are entitled to leave temporarily or depart the country definitively during the validity of their employment contract. In the case of domestic workers, workers have to inform the employer at least 72 hours in advance of their intent to leave. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of Ministerial Decree No. 95 of 2019, indicating the number and category of workers, disaggregated by gender and types of work, to whom exit visas are granted without requiring a “no-objection” certificate from the employer.

(iii) Recruitment fees and contract substitution. The Committee previously encouraged the Government to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to migrant workers. It also requested the Government to ensure that contracts signed in sending countries are not altered in Qatar. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that amendments to section 33 of Labour Act No. 14 of 2004 provide that: “A licensee shall be prohibited from recruiting workers from abroad on behalf of third parties and from receiving any money for recruiting workers in the form of payment, recruitment fees or other costs”. The Government underlines that this provision has been added to the basic contracts signed by all migrant workers in order to clarify to employers and workers that the Qatari law prohibits employers from imposing any recruitment fees. The Committee further notes that the work of recruitment agencies is regulated by Ministerial Decree No. 8 of 2005 which ensures that recruitment is carried out by licensed companies and respects all workers’ rights. There are currently 349 recruitment agencies that have a valid license under this system. Moreover, Decree No. 8 holds recruitment agencies in the country responsible for selecting recruitment agencies in the country of origin that comply with the law. To this end, 36 bilateral agreements and 13 memoranda of understanding have been signed with workers’ countries of origin in order to provide legal protection for them prior to their employment. According to the Government, the MADLSA follows up on the work of the labour recruitment offices acting on behalf of a third party to recruit workers and inspects them periodically or without prior notice. The Government states that in 2019, 337 inspection visits have been carried out and four warnings have been issued. In addition, from January to 17 September 2020, 414 inspections were conducted, during which 36 warnings were issued, advice and guidance was provided in seven cases, and three reports were filed.

The Committee also takes note of the establishment of the electronic contract models for migrant workers including migrant domestic workers. According to the Government, in 2018, the total number of electronic contracts approved by the MADLSA covered 389,810 workers registered in the system of electronic contract. Furthermore, the Committee notes the establishment of the Qatar Visa Centre in the labour-sending countries in which fingerprint and medical screening procedures are carried out before the worker arrives in Qatar and the contract is signed electronically. The signing of the contract electronically by a worker allows him/her to read the contract in his/her native language, giving him/her a better chance to understand the contract and negotiate its terms if he/she is not satisfied with any of the terms included therein. The Committee notes that Visa Centres were opened in six labour-sending countries – Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India and the Philippines, with future plans to open Centres in Tunisia, Kenya and Ethiopia. All the services provided by the Centres are free and performed electronically, while the cost is borne by employers and paid through a bank transfer. Additionally, the Committee notes that in line with the ILO General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment, a “Fair Employment Programme” is being implemented with the Government of Bangladesh, as a pilot project in the construction sector.  The Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers, and to provide information on violations detected in this regard. Considering the establishment of the electronic contract system to be an important initiative which can contribute to reducing contract substitution, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of workers, including domestic workers registered in the electronic contract system.

(iv) Passport confiscation, late payment and non-payment of wages. The Committee notes that section 8(3) of Act No. 21 of 2015 prohibits passport confiscation and any person who violates this provision shall be sentenced to a maximum fine of 25,000 Qatari riyals (QAR) (US$6,800). According to the Government, the residency permit is now issued in a separate document and not included in passports. Ministerial Decree No. 18 of 2014 specifies the requirements and specifications of suitable accommodation for migrant workers, in a manner which enables migrant workers to keep their documents and personal belongings, including their passports. Surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018 by Qatar University’s Social and Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI) showed that passport retention became less common among entities covered by the Labour Act.

Regarding the implementation of the wage protection system (WPS), the Government indicates that the number of companies registered in the WPS was 80,913 and the percentage of workers whose salaries were transferred on time to their bank accounts increased to 92.3 per cent while the percentage of unpaid workers was at 7.7 per cent. The Committee further notes the Government’s information that currently 1,660,000 workers are registered in the WPS. The Government indicates that in January 2020, the WPS unit imposed a ban on 588 companies and later, in the wake of the complete closure and restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more companies were detected in breach of the WPS and further bans were imposed on 8,756 companies. Moreover, under Decree Law No.18 of 2020, sections 144 and 145 of the Labour Act were amended to include tougher penalties for violating the WPS concerning any delay in the payment of wages or dues to the worker or failure to pay the wages to the worker before their annual leave.

The Committee notes with interest the establishment of the “Workers’ Support and Insurance Fund” which aims to guarantee the payment of workers’ entitlements that are determined by Labour Disputes Settlement Committees in the event of a company’s insolvency and if it is unable to pay wages in order to avoid actions that may take time and affect the ability of workers to fulfil their obligations towards their families or others. The Fund also aims to facilitate the procedures for return of migrant workers, including domestic workers to their country of origin. The Fund is currently working on a pilot and partial basis, and final regulations will be adopted with a view to ensuring the Fund’s full operation by the end of 2019.

The Committee further notes the Government’s information that the Worker’s Support and Insurance Fund formed pursuant to Ministerial Decision No. 3 of 2019 is fully operational. The Decree allocates a sum equivalent to 60 per cent of the fees collected for workers’ permits to ensure diverse and adequate resources for paying the workers’ dues and providing them with support. The Government indicates that since its inception, the Fund has dispersed QAR13,917,484 (US$3,823,484) as financial relief to 5,744 workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the work done by the Workers’ Support and Insurance Fund in terms of enabling migrant workers to recover their entitlements. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of the WPS and the application in practice of sections 144 and 145 of the Labour Act, as amended by Decree No. 18 of 2020, including the penalties applied for the delay or non-payment of wages or dues to workers.

(v) Migrant domestic workers. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the draft Bill on Domestic Workers will be adopted. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 15 of 2017 on migrant domestic workers as well as the model contract approved by the MADLSA in September 2017. It notes that migrant domestic workers shall be entitled to: a paid probationary period (section 6); a monthly wage paid at the end of the month (section 8); maximum hours of work not exceeding ten hours a day (section 12); and a paid weekly rest holiday that is not less than 24 consecutive hours (section 13). The Committee further notes that migrant domestic workers can terminate their employment contract before the end of its duration in a number of cases, including: (i) failure of the employers to meet their obligations specified in the provisions of this Act; (ii) provision of misleading information during the conclusion of the employment contract; (iii) physical violence from the employers or a member of their families; and (iv) in the event of a serious danger which threatens a worker’s safety or health, provided that an employer was cognizant of the danger.

The Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of convictions and fines imposed on employers of female domestic workers in 2018. It notes that 16 cases of violence were reported followed by 12 convictions of an average of one month of imprisonment. The Committee further notes that from January to August 2020, a total of 159 complaints by domestic workers against employers were received, of which 55 cases were resolved, 80 cases are being processed, 22 cases have been referred to the court and two cases have been filed for further investigation. According to the Government, the MADLSA and the ILO will issue two manuals for domestic workers and employers of domestic workers, based on the projects of related organizations and the Migrant-Rights NGO. The Handbook on Domestic Workers will be printed in several languages and will provide information on the main provisions of Act No. 15 of 2017. The Handbook for Employers will be printed in Arabic and English and will also provide information based on the rights and responsibilities of employers as provided for in Act No. 15 of 2017. These manuals will be launched as part of a wider public awareness campaign on the rights and responsibilities of domestic workers and their employers in Qatar.  The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of Act No. 15 of 2017, indicating the number and nature of complaints filed by migrant domestic workers and the outcome of such complaints, including the penalties applied.

2. Access to justice and law enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (i) access to the complaints mechanism; and (ii) monitoring mechanisms for infringements of the labour legislation and imposition of penalties.

(i) Access to the complaints mechanism. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that access to the complaints mechanism is free of charge and the related devices are available in 11 languages. The Committee further notes the establishment of the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees (Cabinet Resolution No. 6 of 2018) mandated to take decisions within a period not exceeding three weeks in all disputes related to the provisions of the law or the work contract. According to the Government, each worker or employer must submit, in case a dispute arises between them, the case first to the competent department of the Ministry (Labour Relations Department), which takes the necessary measures to settle the dispute amicably. The agreement is documented in the minutes of the dispute settlement meetings and has an executory force. If the dispute is not settled or the worker or employer refuse the settlement of the competent department, the dispute shall be referred to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committee. The decision of the Labour Disputes Settlement Committee may be appealed within 15 days from the issuance of the decision (if in presence of parties), or as of the day following the issuance of the decision (if its decision was in absentia), and the competent Court of Appeal shall consider the appeal rapidly, and take its decision within 30 days as of the date of its first hearing. The Committee further notes that a Protocol was agreed upon between the MADLSA and the ILO which allows workers to submit complaints using the facilitation of the ILO Office in Doha. It also notes that, based on that Protocol, the ILO has lodged 72 complaints for 1,870 workers, resulting in the conclusion of 43 cases (1,700 workers). The remaining cases are either on appeal, pending the outcome of criminal cases, or in process (GB.337/INS/5 paragraph 46). In 2018, the total number of workers submitting a complaint reached 49,894 and were mainly cases related to the late payment of wages, travel tickets, end of service bonus and leave allowance. Out of these complaints, 5,045 cases were referred to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees and 93 cases were settled. In addition, from January 2019 to August 2020, a total of 24,351 workers submitted complaints, of which 1,810 were closed, 7,242 were referred to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committee, and 469 are under consideration. According to the Government’s report, wage arrears, non-payment for overtime work and the non-reimbursement to the worker of deductions, are some of the most frequent causes of complaints by workers, in addition to the above-mentioned causes. Moreover, the Government indicates that in June 2020, the MADLSA opened an office at its headquarters to implement the rulings of the Supreme Judicial Council, and facilitate and ensure the prompt completion of judicial transactions for workers. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to facilitate access of migrant workers to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees. It requests the Government to continue providing statistical information on the number of migrant workers who have had recourse to these Committees, the number and nature of the complaints as well as their outcome.

(ii) Monitoring mechanisms on the infringement of labour legislation and imposition of penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the number of labour inspectors reached 270 dedicated to migrant worker-related issues. In this regard, the Committee refers the Government to its detailed comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Regarding the applicable penalties, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 322 of the Penal Code No. 11 of 2004 stipulates that: “Whoever forcibly obliges somebody to work with or without a salary shall be liable to imprisonment of a term of up to six months and a fine not exceeding QAR3,000 (US$826), or one of these two penalties”. The number of criminal reports issued because of non-payment of wages during 2018, which were referred to the courts by the Office of Residence Affairs, reached 1,164 cases.

During 2015, the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Interior received 168 complaints related to passport retention, all of which were referred to the Public Prosecution. The majority of the complaints have been investigated, and the persons found to be in violation were forced to return the passports, and several arrest warrants were issued. In addition, 232 cases of passport confiscation were referred to the Public Prosecution in 2016 and 169 cases were referred to the Public Prosecution in 2017. In 2018, two cases of passport confiscation were reported and the average fine ranging from QAR5,000 to QAR20,000 (US$1,300 to US$5,000) was imposed on the two defendants. The Committee observes, however, that the penalties imposed consist only of fines. The Committee reminds the Government that, by virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, the exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and the penalties imposed by law shall be really adequate and are strictly enforced. Underlining once again the importance of effective and dissuasive penalties being applied in practice to those who impose forced labour practices, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that thorough investigations and prosecutions of those suspected of exploitation are carried out and that in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are actually applied to persons who impose forced labour on migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated as well as the number of judgments handed down in this regard. It also requests the Government to provide concrete information on the actual penalties applied, indicating the number of cases in which fines were imposed, the number of cases in which sentences of imprisonment were imposed as well as the time served.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 161 and 162 of Law No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management, civil servants may submit a request for resignation, which must be approved within 30 days. However, the approval may be postponed for a similar period of 30 days and the civil servant shall continue to work. The Government previously stated in this respect that these provisions are inherent to the nature of the civil service, and aim at ensuring continued operation of the service. The Committee also noted the Government’s information on the measures it was taking to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring it into conformity with Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 29.

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management is still going through the legislative channels because the amendment requires achieving a balance between the general interest and the freedom of a public official in leaving the service. Moreover, a new ministry has been set up by virtue of Decree No. 4 of 2016 which supervises the implementation of Act No. 8 of 2009. The Government adds that all information relating to public officials is currently being updated and information relating to the application of sections 161 and 162 of Act No. 8 of 2009 will be communicated as soon as the updating process on public officials is completed.

The Committee takes note of this information and once again recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which such resignations were refused, the grounds for refusal and the total period during which the resignations were refused.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers to conditions of forced labour. Background and context. The Committee previously noted that at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2014, 12 delegates to the ILC, under article 26 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution filed a complaint against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81). It also noted the discussions which took place at the 104th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) in June 2015, concerning the application by Qatar of the Convention. The Committee further noted that at its 331st Session (October–November 2017), the Governing Body decided to close the complaint against the Government of Qatar and support the technical cooperation programme between the Government of Qatar and the ILO and its implementation modalities. The technical cooperation programme is articulated around five pillars, including: improvement in payment of wages; enhanced labour inspection and occupational safety and health (OSH) systems; refinement of the contractual system that replaces the kafala system; improved labour recruitment procedures, increased prevention, protection and prosecution against forced labour; and promotion of the voice of workers.

1. National legal framework for migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the following issues: (i) the functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala); (ii) the procedure for issuing exit visas; (iii) recruitment fees and contract substitution; (iv) passport confiscation; (v) the late payment and non-payment of wages; and (vi) migrant domestic workers.

(i) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment were governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor (section 180). The law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. The Committee also took note of Law No. 21 of 2015 which regulates the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers and which entered into force in December 2016. The Committee observed that the main new feature introduced by the Law of 2015 consisted of the fact that workers may change jobs without the employer’s consent at the end of a contract of limited duration or after a period of five years if the contract is of unspecified duration (section 21(2)) without the employer’s consent; whereas under the Law of 2009, the worker could not return to work in Qatar for two years in case the sponsor refused such transfer. However, it observed that the Law of 2015 did not seem to foresee termination by the expatriate worker before the expiry of the initial contract (that is with a notice period) without approval of the employer nor did it set out reasons and conditions for termination generally, other than in a few very specific cases. The Committee expressed the firm hope that new legislation would remove all the restrictions that prevent migrant workers from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse and would enable migrant workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice during the duration of the contract and without the employer’s permission.

Regarding the transfer of workers in abusive situations, the Committee notes that Law No. 21 of 2015 allows the Minister of Interior or its representative to approve the temporary transfer of a migrant worker to a new employer in cases involving lawsuits between a worker and his/her current employer, provided that the Ministry of Labour approves the transfer. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of workers transferred to new employers from December 2016 to January 2019 which reached a total of 339,420 permanent transfers. It notes that the number of transfers based on abuse reached 2,309 in 2019. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in its report to Minister of Interior Decree No. 25 of 2019 on the issuance of the executive regulations of Law No. 21 of 2015 regulating the entry, exit and residence of foreign nationals. The Committee further notes in the annual progress reports to the Governing Body on the ILO technical cooperation programme in Qatar (annual progress report) that the programme supported the drafting of amendments to Labour Law No. 14 of 2004 and Law No. 21 of 2015 regulating the entry and exit of expatriates and their residence with regard to termination of employment and the removal of the no-objection certificate so as to eliminate restrictions on workers’ freedom of movement to change jobs (GB.337/INS/5 paragraph 18).

The Committee notes that amendments to Labour Law No. 14 of 2004 and Law No. 21 of 2015 to eliminate restrictions on workers’ freedom of movement to change jobs were approved by the Council of Ministers in September 2019, and referred to the Shura Council for consideration. Welcoming this recent legislative development that will enable migrant workers to leave their employment after having given reasonable notice, the Committee trusts that the amendments will be adopted shortly by the Shura Council and requests the Government to provide information on their adoption and entry into force as well as on their application, including data on the number of employment transfers that have taken place, disaggregated on the basis of contracts of limited duration and contracts of unspecified duration and on the basis of gender.

(ii) Procedure for issuing exit visas. The Committee previously noted that Law No. 4 of 2009 on Entry and Exit of Foreign Workers required migrant workers to obtain an exit permit signed by the sponsor in order to leave the country. It subsequently noted the adoption of Law No. 21 of 2015 on Entry and Exit of Foreign Workers which removed the obligation to have the exit permit signed by the sponsor to leave the country. Law No. 21 nevertheless provided that the employer may object to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker in which case the latter had the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee (section 7(2) and (3)). The Committee further observed that the Law did not enumerate the specific grounds on which the employer may object to the departure of the migrant worker from the country. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to remove the obstacles that limit the freedom of movement of migrant workers.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Law No. 13 of 2018 which amends section 7 of Law No. 21 and suppresses the exit permit requirement for migrant workers covered by Labour Law No. 14 of 2004. The Committee notes, however, that this new Law specifies that employers may submit for approval to the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs (MADLSA) a list of workers for whom a “no-objection certificate” would still be required, with a justification based on the nature of their work. Positions in which exit permits may be required are limited to the following highly-skilled workers: chief executive officers, finance officers, managers responsible for the oversight of the company’s day-to-day operations and directors of ICT. The number of these workers per company shall not exceed 5 per cent of their workforce. As of May 2019, the number of companies that requested an exception up to a maximum of 5 per cent of the workforce was 12,430 companies, while the number of workers was 38,038. Given that Law No. 13 does not cover categories of workers outside of the scope of the Labour Law, the Committee notes that a Ministerial Decision is to be adopted before the end of 2019 to suppress the exit permit for all workers not covered by the Labour Law, notably domestic workers, workers in government and public institutions, workers employed at sea and in agriculture, as well as casual workers. The Committee trusts that the Ministerial Decision to be adopted by the end of 2019, which extends the coverage of Law No. 13 of 2018 thereby removing the requirement to obtain exit permits for all migrant workers, will be adopted in the very near future. It requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

(iii) Recruitment fees and contract substitution. The Committee previously encouraged the Government to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to migrant workers. It also requested the Government to ensure that contracts signed in sending countries are not altered in Qatar. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that amendments to section 33 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2004 provide that: “A licensee shall be prohibited from recruiting workers from abroad on behalf of third parties and from receiving any money for recruiting workers in the form of payment, recruitment fees or other costs”. The Government underlines that this provision has been added to the basic contracts signed by all migrant workers in order to clarify to employers and workers that the Qatari law prohibits employers from imposing any recruitment fees. The Committee further notes that the work of recruitment agencies is regulated by Ministerial Decree No. 8 of 2005 which ensures that recruitment is carried out by licensed companies and respects all workers’ rights. There are currently 349 recruitment agencies that have a valid license under this system. Moreover, Decree No. 8 holds recruitment agencies in the country responsible for selecting recruitment agencies in the country of origin that comply with the law. To this end, 36 bilateral agreements and 13 memoranda of understanding have been signed with workers’ countries of origin in order to provide legal protection for them prior to their employment. According to the Government, the MADLSA follows up on the work of the labour recruitment offices acting on behalf of a third party to recruit workers and inspects them periodically or without prior notice. The Government states that in 2019, 337 inspection visits have been carried out and four warnings have been issued.

The Committee also takes note of the establishment of the electronic contract models for migrant workers including migrant domestic workers. According to the Government, in 2018, the total number of electronic contracts approved by the MADLSA covered 389,810 workers registered in the system of electronic contract. Furthermore, the Committee notes the establishment of the Qatar Visa Centre in the labour-sending countries in which fingerprint and medical screening procedures are carried out before the worker arrives in Qatar and the contract is signed electronically. The signing of the contract electronically by a worker allows him/her to read the contract in his/her native language, giving him/her a better chance to understand the contract and negotiate its terms if he/she is not satisfied with any of the terms included therein. The Committee notes that Visa Centres were opened in six labour-sending countries – Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India and the Philippines, with future plans to open Centres in Tunisia, Kenya and Ethiopia. All the services provided by the Centres are free and performed electronically, while the cost is borne by employers and paid through a bank transfer. Additionally, the Committee notes that in line with the ILO General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment, a “Fair Employment Programme” is being implemented with the Government of Bangladesh, as a pilot project in the construction sector. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers, and to provide information on violations detected in this regard. Considering the establishment of the electronic contract system to be an important initiative which can contribute to reducing contract substitution, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of workers, including domestic workers registered in the electronic contract system.

(iv) Passport confiscation, late payment and non-payment of wages. The Committee notes that section 8(3) of Law No. 21 of 2015 prohibits passport confiscation and any person who violates this provision shall be sentenced to a maximum fine of 25,000 Qatari riyals (QAR) (US$6,800). According to the Government, the residency permit is now issued in a separate document and not included in passports. Ministerial Decree No. 18 of 2014 specifies the requirements and specifications of suitable accommodation for migrant workers, in a manner which enables migrant workers to keep their documents and personal belongings, including their passports. Surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018 by Qatar University’s Social and Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI) showed that passport retention became less common among entities covered by the Labour Law.

Regarding the implementation of the wage protection system (WPS), the Government indicates that the number of companies registered in WPS was 80,913 and the percentage of workers whose salaries were transferred on time to their bank accounts increased to 92.3 per cent while the percentage of unpaid workers was at 7.7 per cent. The Committee notes with interest the establishment of the “Workers’ Support and Insurance Fund” which aims to guarantee the payment of workers’ entitlements that are determined by Labour Disputes Settlement Committees in the event of a company’s insolvency and if it is unable to pay wages in order to avoid actions that may take time and affect the ability of workers to fulfil their obligations towards their families or others. The Fund also aims to facilitate the procedures for return of migrant workers, including domestic workers to their country of origin. The Fund is currently working on a pilot and partial basis, and final regulations will be adopted with a view to ensuring the Fund’s full operation by the end of 2019. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the work achieved by the Workers’ Support and Insurance Fund in terms of enabling migrant workers to recover their entitlements.

(v) Migrant domestic workers. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the draft Bill on Domestic Workers will be adopted.

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Law No. 15 of 2017 on migrant domestic workers as well as the model contract approved by the MADLSA in September 2017. It notes that migrant domestic workers shall be entitled to: a paid probationary period (section 6); a monthly wage paid at the end of the month (section 8); maximum hours of work not exceeding ten hours a day (section 12); and a paid weekly rest holiday that is not less than 24 consecutive hours (section 13). The Committee further notes that migrant domestic workers can terminate their employment contract before the end of its duration in a number of cases, including: (i) failure of the employers to meet their obligations specified in the provisions of this Law; (ii) provision of misleading information during the conclusion of the employment contract; (iii) physical violence from the employers or a member of their families; and (iv) in the event of a serious danger which threatens a worker’s safety or health, provided that an employer was cognizant of the danger.

The Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the number of convictions and fines imposed on employers of female domestic workers in 2018. It notes that 16 cases of violence were reported followed by 12 convictions of an average of one month of imprisonment. According to the Government, the MADLSA and the ILO will issue two manuals for domestic workers and employers of domestic workers, based on the projects of related organizations and the Migrant-Rights NGO. The Handbook on Domestic Workers will be printed in several languages and will provide information on the main provisions of Law No. 15 of 2017. The Handbook for Employers will be printed in Arabic and English and will also provide information based on the rights and responsibilities of employers as provided for in Law No. 15 of 2017. These manuals will be launched as part of a wider public awareness campaign on the rights and responsibilities of domestic workers and their employers in Qatar. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of Law No. 15 of 2017, indicating the number and nature of complaints filed by migrant domestic workers and the outcome of such complaints, including the penalties applied.

2. Access to justice and law enforcement. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on: (i) access to the complaints mechanism; and (ii) monitoring mechanisms for infringements of the labour legislation and imposition of penalties.

(i) Access to the complaints mechanism. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that access to the complaints mechanism is free of charge and the related devices are available in 11 languages. The Committee further notes the establishment of the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees (Cabinet Resolution No. 6 of 2018) mandated to take decisions within a period not exceeding three weeks in all disputes related to the provisions of the law or the work contract. According to the Government, each worker or employer must submit, in case a dispute arises between them, the case first to the competent department of the Ministry (Labour Relations Department), which takes the necessary measures to settle the dispute amicably. The agreement is documented in the minutes of the dispute settlement meetings and has an executory force. If the dispute is not settled or the worker or employer refuse the settlement of the competent department, the dispute shall be referred to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committee. The decision of the Labour Disputes Settlement Committee may be appealed within 15 days from the issuance of the decision (if in presence of parties), or as of the day following the issuance of the decision (if its decision was in absentia), and the competent Court of Appeal shall consider the appeal rapidly, and take its decision within thirty days as of the date of its first hearing. The Committee further notes that a Protocol was agreed upon between the MADLSA and the ILO which allows workers to submit complaints using the facilitation of the ILO Office in Doha. It also notes that, based on that Protocol, the ILO has lodged 72 complaints for 1,870 workers, resulting in the conclusion of 43 cases (1,700 workers). The remaining cases are either on appeal, pending the outcome of criminal cases, or in process (GB.337/INS/5 paragraph 46). In 2018, the total number of workers submitting a complaint reached 49,894 and were mainly cases related to the late payment of wages, travel, tickets, end of service bonus and leave allowance. Out of these complaints, 5,045 cases were referred to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees and 93 cases were settled. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to facilitate access of migrant workers to the Labour Disputes Settlement Committees. Please continue to provide statistical information on the number of migrant workers who have had recourse to these Committees, the number and nature of the complaints as well as their outcome.

(ii) Monitoring mechanisms on the infringement of labour legislation and imposition of penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the number of labour inspectors reached 270 dedicated to migrant worker-related issues. In this regard, the Committee refers the Government to its detailed comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Regarding the applicable penalties, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 322 of the Penal Code No. 11 of 2004 stipulates that: “Whoever forcibly obliges somebody to work with or without a salary shall be liable to imprisonment of a term of up to six months and a fine not exceeding QAR3,000 (US$826), or one of these two penalties”. The number of criminal reports issued because of non-payment of wages during 2018, which were referred to the courts by the Office of Residence Affairs, reached 1,164 cases.

During 2015, the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Interior received 168 complaints related to passport retention, all of which were referred to the Public Prosecution. The majority of the complaints have been investigated into, and the persons who were found to be in violation were forced to return the passports, and several arrest warrants were issued. 232 cases of passport confiscation were referred to the Public Prosecution in 2016 and 169 cases were referred to the Public Prosecution in 2017. In 2018, two cases of passport confiscation were reported and the average fine ranging from QAR5,000 to QAR20,000 (US$1,300 to US$5,000) was imposed on the two defendants. The Committee observes, however, that the penalties imposed consist only of fines. The Committee reminds the Government that, by virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, the exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and the penalties imposed by law shall be really adequate and are strictly enforced. Underlining once again the importance of effective and dissuasive penalties being applied in practice to those who impose forced labour practices, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that thorough investigations and prosecutions of those suspected of exploitation are carried out and that in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are actually applied to persons who impose forced labour on migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated as well as the number of judgments handed down in this regard. It also requests the Government to provide concrete information on the actual penalties applied, indicating the number of cases in which fines were imposed, the number of cases in which sentences of imprisonment were imposed as well as the time served.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 161 and 162 of Law No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management, civil servants may submit a request for resignation, which must be approved within 30 days. However, the approval may be postponed for a similar period of 30 days and the civil servant shall continue to work. The Government previously stated in this respect that these provisions are inherent to the nature of the civil service, and aim at ensuring continued operation of the service. The Committee also noted the Government’s information on the measures it was taking to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring it into conformity with Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 29.

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management is still going through the legislative channels because the amendment requires achieving a balance between the general interest and the freedom of a public official in leaving the service. Moreover, a new ministry has been set up by virtue of Decree No. 4 of 2016 which supervises the implementation of Act No. 8 of 2009. The Government adds that all information relating to public officials is currently being updated and information relating to the application of sections 161 and 162 of Act No. 8 of 2009 will be communicated as soon as the updating process on public officials is completed.

The Committee takes note of this information and once again recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which such resignations were refused, the grounds for refusal and the total period during which the resignations were refused.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)

The Committee notes that at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2014, 12 delegates to the ILC, under article 26 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution filed a complaint against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of Convention No. 29 and Convention No. 81.

At its 322nd Session (November 2014), the Governing Body had before it a report by its Officers regarding the complaint. The complainant alleges that the problem of forced labour affects the migrant worker population of roughly 1.5 million. From the moment migrant workers begin the process of seeking work in Qatar; they are drawn into a highly exploitative system that facilitates the exaction of forced labour by their employers. This includes practices such as contract substitution, recruitment fees (for which many take out large, high interest loans) and passport confiscation. The Government of Qatar fails to maintain a legal framework sufficient to protect the rights of migrant workers consistent with international law and to enforce the legal protections that currently do exist. Of particular concern, the sponsorship law, among the most restrictive in the Gulf region, facilitates the exaction of forced labour by, among other things, making it very difficult for a migrant worker to leave an abusive employer.

At its 323rd Session (March 2015), the Governing Body decided to request the Government to submit to the Governing Body for consideration at its 325th Session (November 2015), information on action taken to address all issues raised in the complaint.

The Committee notes that at its 325th Session (November 2015), the Governing Body decided to request the Government to receive a high-level tripartite visit, before the 326th Session (March 2016), to assess all the measures taken to address all issues raised in the complaint, including measures taken to effectively implement the newly adopted law relating to the regulation of the entry and exit of expatriates and their residency. It also requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support an integrated approach to the annulment of the sponsorship system, the improvement of labour inspection and occupational safety and health systems, and giving a voice to workers.

The Committee notes that an invitation was extended by the Minister of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs on behalf of the Government of Qatar in a communication of 4 February 2016 to the ILO to undertake a high-level tripartite visit to the country. This high-level visit was undertaken by the Chairperson and Vice- Chairs of the Governing Body from 1 to 5 March 2016.  ¹

At its 326th Session (March 2016), recalling its November 2015 decision and taking into account the Assessment contained in the report of the high-level tripartite visit, the Governing Body decided to: (a) request the Government of Qatar to follow up on the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation, particularly with respect to the most vulnerable migrant workers; (b) request the Government of Qatar to report on the follow-up to the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation to be discussed at the 328th Session (November 2016) and on the implementation of Law No. 21 of 2015 upon its entry into force to the 329th Session (March 2017).

The Committee notes that at its 328th Session (November 2016), the Governing Body, recalling the decisions adopted in its 325th Session (November 2015) and 326th Session (March 2016) and taking into account the reports submitted by the Government on its follow-up to the high-level tripartite visit’s assessment, decided to: (a) request the Government of Qatar to provide information to the Governing Body at its 329th Session (March 2017) on measures taken to effectively implement Law No. 21 of 2015 relating to the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers upon its entry into force; (b) in light of the discussions that took place at its 328th Session (November 2016), request the Government of Qatar to report to the Governing Body at its 329th Session (March 2017) on further follow-up to the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation; (c) request the Government of Qatar to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support an integrated approach to the annulment of the sponsorship system, the improvement of labour inspection and occupational safety and health systems, and giving a voice to workers; and (d) defer further consideration on the appointment of a commission of inquiry until its 329th Session (March 2017), in light of the information referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the tripartite committee (representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution)

The Committee previously noted that, at its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) alleging non-observance of Convention No. 29 by Qatar. This tripartite committee concluded that certain migrants in the country might find themselves in situations of forced labour on account of a number of factors such as contract substitution, restrictions on their freedom to leave their employment relationship or the country, the non-payment of wages and the threat of retaliation. The Governing Body adopted the tripartite committee’s conclusions and called upon the Government to:

• -review without delay the functioning of the sponsorship system;
• -ensure without delay access to justice for migrant workers, so that they can effectively assert their rights;
• -ensure that adequate penalties are applied for violations.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee notes the detailed discussion which took place at the 104th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) in June 2015, concerning the application by Qatar of the Convention.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. National legal framework for migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government’s report dated 23 September 2016. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2016.

(i) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala)

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment are governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor. The law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. The Committee took due note of the Government’s indication that a bill has been drafted to repeal the system of sponsorship and to replace it by work contracts and trusted that the new legislation on migrant workers would be drafted in such a way as to protect them against any form of exploitation. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to abolish the kafala system and replace it with a work permit that allows the worker to change employer.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that section 21 of the new law (Law No. 21 of 27 October 2015) allows migrant workers, with the permission of the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour, to switch employers at the end of his/her labour fixed-term contract; thus, workers will still be tied to the employer for the duration of the contract. Further, there appears to be no limit to the duration of a fixed-term contract. In the case of an indefinite term contract, the worker cannot change jobs for the first five years of that contract. It is still not possible during the duration of the contract to change jobs without the permission of the employer (and the Ministry of Interior). Section 22 provides that the Ministry of Interior may allow a worker to transfer jobs temporarily in case there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the recruiter, and if the Ministry of Labour also approves. Again, it is unstated on what basis either Ministry could refuse such a request. It appears from the law that they have absolute discretion.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, the Law of 2015, which will enter into force in December 2016, will repeal the kafala system by a system where the labour contract would regulate the labour relationship between parties and this would mean that workers will be able to change employers following the completion of an employment contract of definite duration. As for contracts of indefinite duration, the Law of 2015 authorizes a migrant worker to transfer to a new employer after five years of employment in the previous job.

The Committee takes note of Law No. 21 of 2015 which regulates the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers and which enters into force in December 2016. The Committee observes that section 22 allows for the temporary transfer of an expatriate worker to another employer if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the employer (section 22(1)), or if there is evidence of the employer’s abuse (section 22(2)). The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 21(1), an expatriate worker may transfer to another employer before the end of the labour contract upon the approval of the employer, the competent authority and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee notes that similar provisions already exist under Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. The Committee observes that the main new feature introduced by the Law of 2015 consists of the fact that workers may change jobs without the employer’s consent at the end of a contract of limited duration or after a period of five years if the contract is of unspecified duration (section 21(2)) without the employer’s consent; whereas under the Law of 2009, the worker could not return to work in Qatar for two years in case the sponsor refused such transfer. However, it observes that the Law of 2015 does not seem to foresee termination by the expatriate worker before the expiry of the initial contract (that is with a notice period) without approval of the employer nor does it set out reasons and conditions for termination generally, other than in a few very specific cases. Lastly, it notes that according to section 48 of the Law of 2015, the Minister of the Interior shall issue regulations to implement it.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the new legislation will remove all the restrictions that prevent migrant workers from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse and will enable migrant workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice during the duration of the contract and without the employer’s permission. It requests the Government to ensure that the Regulations implementing Law No. 21 of 2015 contain clear and objective criteria on the grounds and reasons for termination of employment. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of Law No. 21 of 2015, including data on the number of employment transfers that have taken place following the entry into force of Law No. 21 of 2015 in December 2016, disaggregated on the basis of contracts of limited duration and contracts of unspecified duration and also on the basis of gender.

(ii) Procedure for issuing exit visas

The Committee previously noted that, workers may not leave the country temporarily or permanently unless they have an exit permit issued by the sponsor.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to work towards abolishing the exit permit system in the shortest possible time and in the interim, make exit permits available as a matter of urgency.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that under section 7 of Law No. 21 of 2015, a worker no longer directly asks the employer for the exit permit but rather a competent government authority (72-hours in advance). However, the law provides that the employer can still object to the granting of an exit permit to the worker. If the employer refuses to grant permission, the worker can appeal to a government-sanctioned Committee on Alien Departure Grievances. The Law provides no guidance whatsoever as to what may be the legitimate basis for an employer to object to the exit permit. It is also left unstated how and on what basis the worker may appeal the employer’s decision. The law leaves these important issues to a ministerial decree to be developed at some future point.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Law of 2015 allows workers to apply directly to the Government for an exit permit without going back to the employer. If the employer objects to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker, the latter shall have the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee, the Permanent Committee on Grievances which was established by a ministerial decree in February 2016. This Permanent Committee will be presided by the Ministry of Interior and its membership includes the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Committee. In accordance with section 48 of the Law, the Minister of Interior has established a committee to draft the by-laws necessary to give effect to this law.

The Committee notes that Law No. 21 of 2015 removes the obligation to have the exit permit signed by the sponsor to leave the country, which was required by Law No. 4 of 2009. The Law of 2015 requires migrant workers to notify the competent authority at least three days prior to the departure date (section 7(1) of the Law of 2015). The Committee nevertheless observes that even under the new law, the employer may object to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker in which case the latter shall have the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee (section 7(2) and (3)). The Committee further observes that the Law does not enumerate the specific grounds on which the employer may object to the departure of the migrant worker from the country. The Committee expects that the new legislation will remove the obstacles that limit the freedom of movement of migrant workers and requests the Government to ensure that the regulations implementing Law No. 21 of 2015 contain clear criteria on the grounds for which the employer may object to a worker’s departure from the country, and on the time frame by which a worker may appeal the employer’s objection. Moreover, such grounds should not amount to restrictions which may prevent workers who might be victims of abusive practices from leaving the country.

(iii) Recruitment fees and contract substitution

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to work with sending countries to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers and to ensure that contracts signed in the sending countries are not altered in Qatar.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that although the matter of recruitment fees is outside its jurisdiction, it has adopted a few measures to regulate the process of recruitment of workers from abroad through signing a few agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with labour-sending countries. Through the meetings of the joint committees set out in the bilateral agreements and MoUs, and which exceed 35 agreements and five MoUs, the Government has also encouraged such countries to use the services of recruitment agencies which are certified in both labour-sending and receiving countries. The Ministry has communicated lists of names of certified and operational recruitment agencies to the embassies of the labour-sending countries in order to safeguard workers’ rights. The Government also encouraged such countries to be guided by the model employment contracts attached to such agreements. Moreover, to ensure that contracts are not modified after the workers’ arrival in Qatar, the Labour Code obliges the competent authority at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs to certify all employment contracts. In 2015, the Ministry certified 467,639 employment contracts. The Ministry will also be soon working with an electronic contract system. This will facilitate the approval of contracts and enable workers to obtain a copy of their contract, which would allow them to be cognizant of their rights. Furthermore, no entry visa will be granted to a migrant worker for the purpose of work, except under a contract signed directly between the recruiting party and the new expatriate worker, in accordance with section 4 of Law No. 21 of 2015.

The Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs monitors the work of labour recruitment agencies and inspects them periodically or through unannounced visits. To this end, the competent department at the Ministry carried out 1,815 inspection visits in 2015, which resulted in the following penalties:

• -182 warnings;
• -the preparation of four infringement reports to recruitment agencies;
• -the withdrawal of 15 permits of recruitment agencies for their violation of the law;
• -the revoking of permits of 80 recruitment agencies based on the requests of their owners. It is to be recalled that there were 286 foreign labour recruitment agencies by the end of 2015, and 302 recruitment agencies in 2016.

The Government also indicates that it signed a contract with VFS Global, which provides technological services to governments and diplomatic missions throughout the world, through its 2,251 centres which process entry visas and its operational centres in 125 countries. The company services approximately 50 contracting governments. This company will work with the Ministry of the Interior. The company will also provide the various services at specific centres in the destination country which include obtaining a general visa; submitting an electronic request; reception service at visa centres; data entry; receiving fees; registering biometric data in accordance with the specifications of the Ministry of the Interior; and checking the status of visas. All these services will help in facilitating the procedures which govern the issue of entry visas.

Moreover, the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs will implement the electronic linking project with a number of labour-sending countries through VFS Global. This project aims to provide additional protection to workers before their recruitment abroad in addition to improving the monitoring of recruitment practices in labour-sending countries. VFS Global shall also verify the soundness of documents related to workers’ certificates and qualifications. Consequently, the project will ensure that labour contracts signed by a worker in his/her home country are not tampered with, in addition to avoiding any fictitious labour contracts.

The Committee notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that while acknowledging the various recent measures taken by the Government, the tripartite delegation heard on several occasions that migrant workers had, prior to their arrival, been subject to high recruitment fees by recruitment agencies in their country of origin, which in turn contributes to the vulnerability of these workers. In addition, the tripartite delegation observed that contract substitution is widespread in Qatar especially for workers working for small companies and manpower companies (paragraphs 59 and 62 of the Report).

Taking due note of the recent initiatives taken by the Government, the Committee strongly encourages it to expand the scope of these measures so as to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable workers, and that contracts signed in the sending countries are not altered in Qatar, especially for the most vulnerable workers. It requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard, including the results achieved through the application in practice of the electronic contract system.

(iv) Passport confiscation

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to vigorously enforce the legal provisions on passport confiscation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that in addition to Law No. 21 of 2015 which prohibits passport confiscation and includes criminal penalties against this practice, there is coordination between the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior in order to avoid confiscating workers’ passports. Thus, in 2015 the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of the Interior received 168 complaints related to passport confiscation. The complaints were all referred to the Public Prosecutor, the majority of which were examined. This investigation resulted in obliging the employers found in violation to return the confiscated passports, and a few judgments were handed down so as to arrest persons in violation, resulting in the imprisonment of a few. In 2015, there were 40 convictions compared to 67 in 2014. The Government indicates that there were a lower number of convictions in 2015 due to the positive impact of the dissuasive measures taken in 2014.

Moreover, the National Committee for Human Rights also received 338 complaints relating to passport confiscation, during the period from January 2016 to April 2016 (91 complaints in January, 84 in February, 83 in March and 80 in April. In the Government’s view, the number of monthly complaints have decreased in view of the Human Rights’ Committee’s referral to public prosecution when an employer is found in violation.

The Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that, while noting the measures taken to punish employers who confiscate passports of migrant workers, as well as to introduce stiffer penalties in new Law of 2015, the tripartite delegation observed that the number of complaints processed are much smaller than the number of instances of passport confiscation taking place in the country. In effect, the tripartite delegation had the opportunity to meet with a large number of workers working in small enterprises who indicated that employers systematically confiscated their passports upon their arrival in Qatar. Many stated that in addition to having their passports confiscated, their identity cards were frequently not renewed by their employer, leaving them undocumented and vulnerable to deportation. While acknowledging the legislative measures taken by the Government to protect migrant workers against these practices, the tripartite delegation was of the view that efforts to enforce these legislative prohibitions need to be considerably stepped up to guarantee effective protection to migrant workers against these abusive practices (paragraph 60 of the Report).

The Committee recalls that the practice of passport retention is a serious problem that may increase migrant workers’ vulnerability to abuse, by leaving workers undocumented, reducing their freedom of movement and preventing them from leaving an employment relationship. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure that legislation is regularly monitored, to investigate such abuses and to sanction employers who are in breach of the legislation. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of complaints regarding the issue of passport confiscation, as well as the number of penalties that have been applied in practice.

(v) Late payment and non-payment of wages

With respect to the issue of the protection of wages, the Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that Law No. 1 of 2015 which amends several sections of the Labour Code promulgated by Act No. 14 of 2014 has been promulgated. It provides for dissuasive penalties on employers who are in violation of this Code. Order No. 4 of 2015 taken by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, and which relates to the rules of the wage protection system of workers who are prescribed by the Labour Code was also promulgated. A Wage Protection Unit was set up by virtue of Order No. 19 of 2014 taken by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs. This unit monitors the implementation of the wage protection system (WPS) for workers prescribed by the Labour Code. The WPS will oblige employers to transfer a worker’s wages to the financial institution within seven days as of the day of its entitlement. In the event of a violation, the Minister will be granted the authority of refusing any new work permit or all transactions between the Ministry and the employer found in violation of this order. This system ensures full monitoring of the transfer of wages of all workers covered by the Labour Code to their bank accounts, in addition to detecting any person found in violation. The Government describes how the WPS has evolved and provides statistics on the evolution in the number of undertakings which joined the WPS from April 2016 (24,323) to 30 July 2016 (34,940) as well as the evolution in the number of workers included in the WPS from April 2016 (1,271,730) to 30 July 2016 (1,675,097).

The Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that it is mostly the large companies that are implementing the WPS which does not appear to be implemented vis-à-vis the workers working for small companies which are subcontracted by larger companies, or for workers of manpower companies (that sponsors a large number of workers and then contract out these workers to other companies). While acknowledging that the WPS is a recent measure and will take time to function effectively, the tripartite delegation considers it essential that the WPS be implemented by all companies including SMEs, joint ventures and foreign-owned companies so as to benefit all migrant workers in Qatar (paragraph 55 of the Report).

Considering the establishment of the WPS to be a positive measure which, if implemented effectively, could contribute to address the recurring issue of the non-payment or delayed payment of wages, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that Law No. 1 of 2015, Order No. 4 of 2015, Order No. 19 of 2014 and the WPS are effectively implemented, so that all wages are paid on time and in full, and employers face appropriate sanctions for the non-payment of wages. It also requests the Government to provide information on the penalties applied for the non-payment of wages.

(vi) Migrant domestic workers

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken from the legislative and practical standpoint to provide effective protection for domestic workers. The Committee noted that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that domestic workers have equal labour rights. The Committee also noted the ITUC’s observations of 2015 that more than half of all female migrant workers in Qatar are employed in private homes. Migrant domestic workers are excluded from the legal frameworks which mean that they are denied the protections provided to all other workers under the Qatar Labour Law and cannot lodge claims at the Labour Court or complain to the Ministry of Labour in the event they find themselves in an abusive or exploitative situation. The ITUC points out that the abuse of domestic workers can involve physical and sexual abuse. Moreover, multiple investigations have revealed that migrant domestic workers are subject to forced labour conditions, with many having their passports confiscated and being denied wages, rest periods, annual and sick leave and freedom of movement.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs certifies the employment contracts of domestic workers in spite of their exclusion from the provisions of Qatar’s Labour Code, in order to safeguard their rights specified in such contracts. The Ministry also monitors the work of the domestic workers’ recruitment agencies, and inspects them periodically through unannounced visits in order to verify the non-exploitation of such workers and safeguard their rights. A few domestic workers’ recruitment agencies were shut down because they violated the provisions of the Labour Code and the Ministerial Order which regulate the work of such agencies. Moreover, migrant domestic workers are currently regulated by the provisions of the national civil law, as they fall outside of the scope of the Labour Law. However, a draft bill on migrant domestic workers is under preparation and is being reviewed to verify its conformity with the provisions of ILO Convention No. 189 concerning decent work for domestic workers.

In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of taking effective action to ensure that the system of employment of migrant domestic workers does not place the workers concerned in a situation of increased vulnerability, particularly when they are subjected to abusive employer practices, such as retention of passports, non-payment of wages, deprivation of liberty, and physical and sexual abuses. Such practices might cause their employment to be transformed into situations that could amount to forced labour. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in law and in practice, to ensure that migrant domestic workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour. In this regard, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft Bill on Domestic Workers will be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and will be adopted in the very near future. Pending its adoption, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Bill on Domestic Workers to the Office.

2. Access to justice and law enforcement

(i) Access to the complaints mechanism

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to facilitate access to the justice system for migrant workers, including providing them with assistance with language and translation, the elimination of fees and charges related to bringing a claim, and disseminating information about the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. It also requested that these cases be processed expeditiously.

The Committee notes that in its 2015 observations, the ITUC refers to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers which highlights obstacles to access justice of migrant workers, especially in the construction industry or domestic service. These obstacles include language as a barrier to getting information and registering a complaint. Migrant workers also very frequently fear the police, institutions and retaliation from their employers.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs has played an important role in awareness raising. For instance, it makes field visits to large companies where it meets workers at their workplaces and at their homes so as to inform them of their rights and obligations as well as receive any complaint or observations they may have so as to remedy them without delay. Furthermore, the Ministry has held information symposia intended for employers and workers so as to raise their awareness of their rights and obligations. It has also ensured the translation into five languages, printing and distribution of newsletters, and the distribution of the Migrant Workers’ Manual among workers and the labour sending embassies. The Ministry also launched the Best Communication Programme in 2014 in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport and Communications in order to achieve a comprehensive digital strategy. The first phase of the programme was completed successfully in partnership with government bodies and civil society. Over 100 such centres are now operational in the country. The programme seeks to enable employers to provide tools of information technology, communications and the Internet at workers’ temporary accommodation where workers are trained by volunteers in basic computer skills in order to enable them to access key work-related rights and other information in different languages, and to familiarize themselves with the use of ATMs and money transfer options with a view to ensuring the safe withdrawal and handling of wages.

In addition, the National Human Rights Committee, as well as the Human Rights Department and the Search and Follow-Up Department at the Ministry of the Interior and the Labour Relations Department at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs help expatriate workers to submit their grievances, as well as process their complaints. In this regard, the Government provides statistics on the number of complaints submitted, the types of complaints as well as their outcome in 2014, 2015 and the first half of 2016:

• -Complaints in 2014: 9,401 complaints were submitted by workers against employers to the Labour Relations Department at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs. 6,787 complaints were settled which represents 72.19 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. Some 1,822 complaints were shelved,  ² representing 19.38 per cent. Some 782 complaints were referred to court, which represents 8.32 per cent.
• -Complaints in 2015: 6,111 complaints were submitted to the Labour Relations Department. 4,176 were settled which represents 68.3 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. 1,313 complaints were shelved, representing 21.5 per cent. 614 complaints were referred to the courts, representing 10 per cent.
• -Complaints from 1 January 2016–31 July 2016: 2,407 complaints were submitted to the Labour Relations Department. Some 1,312 were settled which represents 54.5 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. Some 731 complaints were shelved, representing 30.4 per cent. 362 complaints were referred to the courts, representing 15 per cent.

While noting the above information, the Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that the tripartite delegation recognized that the various initiatives taken by the Government can contribute to making the complaints system more accessible to migrant workers. At the same time, the tripartite delegation learned that large numbers of migrant workers, especially those working in small companies who are subcontracted by larger companies, as well as workers of manpower companies, do not in practice access these complaints mechanisms and some are not even aware of their existence. The tripartite delegation was therefore of the view that these initiatives should be complemented by a range of actions, including awareness-raising measures developed and implemented in collaboration with representatives of migrant communities, to sensitize the most vulnerable migrant workers with a view to closing the operational gaps between these mechanisms and the persons that should be using them (paragraph 58 of the Report).

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to take measures to improve the functioning of the available complaints mechanisms so that migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers, can have rapid and effective access to these mechanisms with a view to enabling them, in practice, to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to sensitize the general public and competent authorities on the issue of migrant workers subject to forced labour and to educate employers on their responsibilities and their obligations so that all the actors concerned might be able to identify cases of labour exploitation and to denounce them, and to protect the victims. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that victims receive psychological, medical and legal assistance, and to provide information on the number of persons receiving such assistance from shelters or other institutions as well as the number of shelters that exist for such purposes.

(ii) Monitoring mechanisms for infringements of the labour legislation

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to continue to hire additional labour inspectors and increase material resources available to them necessary to carry out labour inspections, in particular in workplaces where migrant workers are employed.

The Committee notes the detailed information in the Government’s report on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services, as well as to increase the number of labour inspectors, on the total number of labour inspection visits carried out, on the number of judicial proceedings and sentences concerning wage arrears, holiday pay and overtime. The Committee underlines the important role of labour inspection in enforcing the labour rights of migrant workers and strongly encourages the Government to continue strengthening mechanisms monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers and to ensure that penalties are effectively applied for the infringements registered. In this regard, it requests the Government to refer to its detailed comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

(iii) Imposition of penalties

The Committee had previously asked the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and the penalties applied to employers who impose forced labour. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that the penalties applicable under law for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, and penalties for violations of the Labour Law are adequate, and that these laws are effectively enforced. The Committee notes that in its 2015 observations, the ITUC refers to the 2014 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers according to which prosecution services are influenced by high-level persons and powerful businesses and have complete discretion as to whether cases are pursued. The Special Rapporteur also noted significant allegations of impartiality and bias by judges including allegations of discrimination against migrants in favour of Qataris. According to the ITUC, guaranteeing the effective enforcement of penalties for forced labour would be assisted by judicial reform of the type recommended by the Special Rapporteur.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that article 130 of the Constitution recognizes that the judicial authority shall be independent and shall be vested in the courts which shall make their judgments according to the law. Moreover, the Public Prosecution is an independent and impartial judicial authority which is responsible for the investigation of most complaints and verifies the sound enforcement of the law. The Government points out that the State has set up workers’ circuits within the structure of the labour relations department specialized in examining workers’ lawsuits. Four workers’ circuits will be added to the current ones. They will be based in the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs, whose aim is to help workers to initiate their lawsuits before the courts, which will help expedite the procedures, as well as take quick decisions in their respect. Two more workers’ circuits specialized in implementing the provisions related to workers’ issues will also be added to ensure that workers obtain without delay their rights, after the judgments have been handed down. An office affiliated to the Ministry has also been set up in the State’s tribunals. Its aim is to help workers who would like to initiate legal proceedings to obtain their rights, free of charge. In this case, workers do not assume any expenses or fees for the lawsuits submitted by them before the courts. The office is also equipped with qualified staff and translators who are proficient in the workers’ most prevalent languages so as to communicate with them, irrespective of their nationalities and languages.

In this regard, the Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government on workers’ lawsuits as well as judgments handed down. In 2014, the workers’ circuit (full bench) at the court handed down 603 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it with 231 lawsuits withdrawn. Meanwhile, there are 1,478 lawsuits which are under deliberation at the court’s sessions. The workers’ circuit (partial bench) also handed down 1,513 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it and 2,364 lawsuits were annulled.  ³ Meanwhile, there are 5,400 lawsuits being discussed at the court’s sessions. In 2015, the workers’ circuit (full bench) at the court handed down 793 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it with 222 lawsuits withdrawn. Meanwhile, there are 1,607 lawsuits which are under deliberation at the court’s sessions. The workers’ circuit (partial bench) also handed down 1,219 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it. Moreover, 3,556 lawsuits were annulled. At present, there are 6,772 lawsuits which are before the court’s sessions.

The Committee notes that a certain number of judgments were handed down in 2014, 2015 and the first quarter of 2016 pursuant to workers filing lawsuits. However, it notes an absence of information on the outcome of these judicial decisions and whether penalties of fines and/or imprisonment were imposed subsequently.

The Committee also observes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that the tripartite delegation had the opportunity to meet with several groups of migrant workers, mostly of Philippine and Nepalese origin including those in the Sailiya Workers’ Accommodation which is housing thousands of workers working for small companies who are subcontracted by larger companies, as well as for workers of manpower companies (a company that sponsors a large number of workers and then contracts these workers out to other companies). Concerns raised by migrant workers related to the payment of wages (non-payment, late payment and/or reduction of agreed wages), passport confiscation, long hours of work, refusal by employers to give a no-objection certificate to workers (even after their contract had expired), the non-renewal of their identity cards by the employer and difficulty in transferring sponsorship. They indicated that the complaints process was not easily accessible and that courts’ processes were lengthy. Some workers had faced retaliation by their employers after filing complaints, including one who was sent to the deportation centre after the employer filed a criminal complaint against her.

The tripartite delegation spoke with several workers who had filed complaints to the labour courts or to the High Court where decisions were pending for several months, often because the employer was not present during the proceedings. These workers had been waiting for a decision for several months for their salaries to be paid and for their passports to be returned so that they could return home, relying on their community solidarity as they are left with no income (paragraph 43 of the Report).

While noting that victims of forced labour have access to justice, the Committee considers that any act of retaliation for accessing justice mechanisms must be swiftly sanctioned and workers provided a full and effective remedy. Moreover, underlining the importance of effective and dissuasive penalties being applied in practice to those who impose forced labour practices, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that thorough investigations and robust prosecutions of those suspected of exploitation are carried out and that in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are actually applied to persons who impose forced labour on migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated as well as the number of judgments handed down in this regard. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide concrete information on the actual penalties applied, indicating the number of cases in which fines were imposed, the number of cases in which sentences of imprisonment were imposed as well as the time served.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

End Note

1. 1 - The report of the high-level tripartite visit is contained in Appendix II to GB.326/INS/8(Rev.).
2. 2 - “shelved” means that both parties did not follow up on the complaint with the Department or that the complainant was not entitled as a result of his/her complaint.
3. 3 - The annulment of a lawsuit does not mean it has been deleted and the resulting legal consequences have been removed. It means that it has been taken off the list of lawsuits, without a final decision taken thereon. However, the lawsuit will remain pending the adoption of procedures for the renewal of its examination.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 161 and 162 of Law No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management, civil servants may submit a request for resignation, which must be approved within 30 days. However, the approval may be postponed for a similar period of 30 days and the civil servant shall continue to work. The Government previously stated in this respect that these provisions are inherent to the nature of the civil service, and aim at ensuring continued operation of the service. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether, for reasons related to the interests of the service, the approval of the resignation may be postponed for various periods or only for two periods of 30 days.

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report on the measures it is taking to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Law No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring it into conformity with Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 29. In this regard, the Government indicates that it has prepared a Bill on Human Resources Management which is currently going through the legislative channels in view of the importance of amending this provision on accepting resignations. Thus, the new section will read as follows: “A resignation shall be accepted within 30 days as of the day on which it is submitted. Otherwise, it will be considered as having been accepted by law.”

The Committee takes note of this information and once again recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the amendment of section 161 of Act No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which resignations were refused, the grounds for refusal and the total period during which the resignations were refused.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)

The Committee notes that at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2014, 12 delegates to the ILC, under article 26 of the ILO Constitution filed a complaint against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of Conventions Nos 29 and 81.

At its 322nd Session (November 2014), the Governing Body had before it a report by its Officers regarding the complaint. The complainants allege that the problem of forced labour affects the migrant worker population of roughly 1.5 million. From the moment migrant workers begin the process of seeking work in Qatar, they are drawn into a highly exploitative system that facilitates the exaction of forced labour by their employers. This includes practices such as contract substitution, recruitment fees (for which many take out large high interest loans) and passport confiscation. The Government of Qatar fails to maintain a legal framework sufficient to protect the rights of migrant workers consistent with international law and to enforce the legal protections that currently exist. Of particular concern, the sponsorship law, among the most restrictive in the Gulf region, facilitates the exaction of forced labour by, among other things, making it very difficult for a migrant worker to leave an abusive employer.

At its 323rd Session (March 2015), the Governing Body decided to request the Government to submit to the Governing Body for consideration at its 325th Session (November 2015), information on the action taken to address all the issues raised in the complaint. The Committee notes that, in light of the reports submitted by the Government, the Governing Body at its 325th Session (November 2015) decided to request the Government to receive a high-level tripartite visit, before the 326th Session (March 2016), to assess all the measures taken to address all the issues raised in the complaint, including the measures taken to effectively implement the newly adopted Law relating to the regulation of the entry and exit of expatriates and their residence. It also requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support an integrated approach to the annulment of the sponsorship system, the improvement of labour inspection and occupational safety and health systems, and giving a voice to workers. Finally, the Governing Body decided to defer further consideration on setting up a commission of inquiry until its 326th Session (March 2016).

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee notes the Government’s report dated 4 September 2015, as well as the detailed discussion which took place at the 104th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2015 concerning the application of the Convention by Qatar. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2015.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Forced labour of migrant workers. The Committee previously noted that, at its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the ITUC and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) alleging non-observance of Convention No. 29 by Qatar. The tripartite committee concluded that certain migrants in the country might find themselves in situations of forced labour on account of a number of factors, such as contract substitution, restrictions on their freedom to leave their employment relationship or the country, the non-payment of wages and the threat of retaliation. The Governing Body adopted the tripartite committee’s conclusions and called upon the Government to:

• -review without delay the functioning of the sponsorship system;
• -ensure without delay access to justice for migrant workers, so that they can effectively assert their rights;
• -ensure that adequate penalties are applied for violations.

(a) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala). In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment is governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor. This sponsor must do all the necessary paperwork to obtain the residence permit for the worker and, once the procedures for this permit are completed, the employer is obliged to return the passport to the worker. The Law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. Furthermore, workers may not leave the country temporarily or permanently unless they have an exit permit issued by the sponsor. If the sponsor refuses to grant the worker an exit visa, a special procedure is provided for under the Law. The Committee took due note of the Government’s indication that a bill has been drafted to repeal the system of sponsorship and to replace it by work contracts, and it expressed the hope that the new legislation on migrant workers would be drafted in such a way as to protect them against any form of exploitation, tantamount to forced labour.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to abolish the kafala system and replace it with a work permit that allows the worker to change employer. It also urged the Government to work towards abolishing the exit permit system in the shortest possible time and, in the interim, to make exit permits available as a matter of right.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that, although the Government has been promising to repeal the kafala system and replace it with a contract system for a long time, no progress has been made on the approval or implementation of such a new Law. Moreover, workers will still be tied to the employer for up to five years under the new Law. It is already theoretically possible to change employer in case of exploitation by petitioning the Government, but this happens extremely infrequently. Furthermore, as reported by the Government to the Governing Body, there is a proposed release permit under the new Law, but it is not clear under what circumstances that permit can be obtained. Moreover, while another proposal suggests that workers may obtain an exit visa and leave the country within 72 hours, the employer may object and prevent workers from leaving.

The Committee notes Law No. 21 of 27 October 2015, which regulates the entry and exit of expatriates and their residence, and which will enter into force one year from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, that is, on 27 October 2016. The Committee notes that, by virtue of sections 8 and 9 of Law No. 21, the competent authority shall issue a residence permit to an expatriate worker, and it is the employer who is responsible for completing the procedures relating to the residence permit and for returning the passport or travel document to the expatriate worker, except upon the written request of the worker. Moreover, section 22 allows for the temporary transfer of an expatriate worker to another employer if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the employer (section 22(1)), or if there is evidence of abuse by the employer (section 22(2)). The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 21(1), an expatriate worker may transfer to another employer before the end of the labour contract with the approval of the employer, the competent authority and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee notes that similar provisions already exist under Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. The Committee observes that the main new features of Law No. 21 consist of the following: (i) an expatriate worker may transfer to another employer immediately after the end of a contract of limited duration or after a period of five years if the contract is of unspecified duration (section 21(2)) without the employer’s consent, whereas, under Law No. 4 of 2009, the worker could not return to work in Qatar for two years in the event that the sponsor refuses such transfer; and (ii) an expatriate worker shall notify the competent authority at least three days prior to the departure date (section 7(1) of Law No. 21 of 2015) while under Law No. 4 of 2009, the exit permit had to be signed by the sponsor. The Committee nevertheless observes that, even under the new Law, the employer may object to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker, in which case the latter shall have the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee (section 7(2) and (3) of Law No. 21 of 2015). The Committee further notes that the requirement by the employer to reimburse the recruitment fees incurred by the worker by virtue of section 20 of Law No. 4 of 2009 appears not to have been taken on board in Law No. 21 of 2015.

The Committee notes with regret that, pursuant to Law No. 21 of 2015, employers will continue to play a significant role in regulating the departure of their employees, and that Law No. 21 does not seem to foresee termination by the expatriate worker before the expiry of the initial contract (that is, with a notice period) without the approval of the employer, nor does it set out reasons and conditions for termination generally, other than in a few very specific cases. The Committee also notes the absence of information in the Government’s report on the frequency of transfers to a new employer under Law No. 4 of 2009, or the number of cases of passport confiscation. The Committee considers that a number of provisions of the new Law, which still places restrictions on the possibility for migrant workers to leave the country or to change employer, prevent workers who might be victims of abusive practices from freeing themselves from these situations. This also applies to the practice of withholding passports, which deprives workers of their freedom of movement.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Law No. 21 of 2015 is modified, as a matter of urgency, so as to provide migrant workers with the full enjoyment of their rights at work and to protect them from abusive practices and working conditions that may amount to forced labour, such as passport confiscation by employers, high recruitment fees, wage arrears and the problem of contract substitution. In this regard, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the legislation, once modified, will be applied effectively and will make it possible to:

• -suppress the restrictions and obstacles that limit the freedom of movement of migrant workers and prevent them from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse;
• -authorize workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice (in this regard, the Government is requested to provide information on the number of employment transfers that take place in practice);
• -review the procedure for issuing exit visas;
• -effectively enforce the legal provisions on the prohibition of passport confiscation (in this regard, the Government is requested to provide information on the number of cases of passport confiscation detected in practice);
• -ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers, or that they are reimbursed subsequently by the employer if this is the case;
• -ensure that contracts signed in sending countries are not altered in Qatar.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of violations detected and penalties applied.

(b) Migrant domestic workers. The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate the legislative and practical measures taken to provide effective protection for domestic workers.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that domestic workers have equal labour rights.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s observations that more than half of all women migrant workers in Qatar are employed in private homes. Migrant domestic workers are excluded from the legal frameworks which means that they are denied the protection provided to all other workers under the Qatar Labour Law and cannot lodge claims with the Labour Court or complain to the Ministry of Labour in the event that they are in an abusive or exploitative situation. The ITUC points out that abuse of domestic workers can involve physical and sexual abuse. Moreover, multiple investigations have revealed that migrant domestic workers are subject to forced labour conditions, with many having their passports confiscated and being denied wages, rest periods, annual and sick leave and freedom of movement.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although migrant domestic workers are not covered by the Labour Law, they are protected by general provisions of the national legislation. The Government also states that there is a bill on domestic workers which is currently being examined by the competent legislative authorities in Qatar.

In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of taking effective action to ensure that the system of employment of migrant domestic workers does not place the workers concerned in a situation of increased vulnerability, particularly when they are subjected to abusive employer practices, such as retention of passports, non-payment of wages, deprivation of liberty, and physical and sexual abuse. Such practices might cause their employment to be transformed into situations that could amount to forced labour. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in law and practice, to ensure that migrant domestic workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that could amount to the exaction of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of investigations into alleged force labour practices affecting migrant domestic workers, including their number, instances in which passports have been confiscated, wages denied and freedom of movement restricted. In this regard, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft bill on domestic workers will be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and will be adopted in the very near future.

(c) Access to justice. The Committee previously noted that, although the legislation provides for the establishment of different complaints mechanisms, workers seemed to encounter certain difficulties in using them. The Committee also noted that the Labour Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs had been equipped with tablets to register complaints, available in several languages, and the number of interpreters had been increased. In addition, a free telephone line and email have been made available to workers so that they can lodge complaints, which are dealt with by a team specially trained for this task. Finally, an office had been set up within the court to help workers initiate legal proceedings and to assist them throughout the whole judicial process.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to facilitate access to the justice system for migrant workers, including providing them with assistance with language and translation, the elimination of fees and charges related to bringing a claim, and disseminating information about the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. It also called for these cases to be processed expeditiously.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s reference to the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers which highlights obstacles to access to justice for migrant workers, especially in the construction industry and domestic service. These obstacles include language as a barrier to getting information and registering a complaint. Migrant workers also very frequently fear the police, institutions and retaliation from their employers.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Constitution of Qatar provides legal protection to migrant workers by granting them the right to have recourse to the courts. The Committee also notes the detailed information provided by the Government to the Governing Body in March and November 2015 on the various measures taken to assist migrant workers to have access to the available complaints mechanisms (GB.323/INS/8(Rev.1), Appendix II, paragraph 10, and GB.325/INS/10(Rev.), Appendix II, paragraphs 10 and 18). The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue taking measures to improve the functioning of the available complaints mechanisms so that migrant workers can have rapid and effective access to these mechanisms with a view to enabling them, in practice, to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal. It requests the Government to provide information on the number of complaints filed by migrant workers and their outcomes. The Committee also asks the Government to take the necessary measures to sensitize the general public and the competent authorities on the issue of migrant workers subject to forced labour and to educate employers on their responsibilities and obligations so that all the actors concerned are able to identify cases of labour exploitation, denounce them, and protect the victims. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that victims receive psychological, medical and legal assistance, and to provide information on the number of persons receiving such assistance from shelters or other institutions, as well as the number of shelters that exist for such purposes.

(d) Monitoring mechanisms for infringements of labour legislation. The Committee previously noted that the Government had provided statistics on the number of judicial proceedings and sentences concerning wage arrears, holiday pay and overtime.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to continue to recruit additional labour inspectors and increase the material resources available to them necessary to carry out their duties, in particular labour inspections in workplaces where migrant workers are employed.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that even though the number of labour inspectors increased from 200 to 294 and more interpreters were hired, this number remains insufficient as it is clear that there exist a large number of workplaces that have yet to be inspected, or inspected properly. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether inspectors have the training and resources to fulfil their tasks.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the inspectors of the Labour Inspection Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, who are trained in the detection of violations and the drafting of infringement reports, carry out surprise and periodic inspection visits of undertakings. They initiate legal proceedings against undertakings found in violation. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government to the Governing Body in November 2015 on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services, particularly by expanding their geographical coverage, increasing the number of labour inspectors, raising their status and providing them with modern computer equipment The Government also provides information on the total number of labour inspection visits carried out from January to August 2015, as well as the number of cases filed by workers concerning complaints related to travel tickets, end of service bonus holiday allowance and wage arrears (GB.325/INS/10(Rev.), Appendix II, paragraphs 11–16). With regard to the protection of wages, the Government refers to Law No. 1 of 2015 and Order No. 4 of 2015, which create a special wage protection unit in the Labour Inspection Department, to monitors the implementation of the wage protection system for workers and which establish the requirement for employers to pay wages directly by bank transfer. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to pursue its efforts to strengthen mechanisms to monitor the working conditions of migrant workers and to ensure that penalties are effectively applied for the infringements detected. In this respect, it calls on the Government to continue training labour inspectors and making them aware of the issues at stake, so that the inspectorate can identify and put an end to practices that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers and expose them to forced labour practices. Lastly, the Committee refers to the comments that it is making under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

(e) Imposition of penalties. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and the penalties applied to employers who impose forced labour.

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that adequate penalties are applicable in law for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, and penalties for violations of the Labour Law, and that these laws are effectively enforced.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s reference to the 2014 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, according to which prosecution services are influenced by high-level persons and powerful businesses and have complete discretion as to whether cases are pursued. The Special Rapporteur also noted significant allegations of partiality and bias of judges, including allegations of discrimination against migrants in favour of Qataris. According to the ITUC, guaranteeing the effective enforcement of penalties for forced labour would be assisted by judicial reform of the type recommended by the Special Rapporteur.

The Committee notes with concern that, although the Government refers to provisions in the national legislation that guarantee the freedom of work and penalize the imposition of forced labour (section 322 of the Penal Code and Law No. 15 of 2011 on combating trafficking in persons), it does not provide any information on the judicial proceedings initiated on the basis of these provisions. In this respect, the Committee notes that the situation of migrant workers in Qatar has been examined by many United Nations bodies, which have all expressed their considerable concern at the large number of migrant workers who are victims of abuse (A/HRC/27/15 of 27 June 2014, A/HRC/26/35/Add.1 of 23 April 2014 and CEDAW/C/QAT/CO/1 of 10 March 2014). Recalling that the absence of penalties applied to persons imposing forced labour creates a climate of impunity that is likely to perpetuate these practices, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are applied in practice to those who impose forced labour. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that thorough investigations and prosecutions are carried out of those suspected of exploitation and to prevent those found guilty from recruiting migrant workers in the future. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and the penalties handed down.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Articles 1(1), and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to sections 161 and 162 of Law No. 8 of 2009 on Human Resources Management, civil servants may submit a request for resignation, which must be approved within 30 days. However, the approval may be postponed for a similar period of 30 days and the civil servant shall continue to work. The Government previously stated in this respect that these provisions are inherent to the nature of the civil service, and aim at ensuring continued operation of the service.

The Committee once again recalls that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, for reasons related to the interests of the service, the approval of the resignation may be postponed for various periods or only for two periods of 30 days. Please provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which such resignations were refused, the grounds for refusal and the total period during which the resignations were refused.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Follow-up to the recommendations of the tripartite committee (representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Forced labour of migrant workers. The Committee notes that, at its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) alleging non-observance of Convention No. 29 by Qatar. This tripartite committee concluded that certain migrants in the country might find themselves in situations of forced labour on account of a number of factors such as contract substitution, restrictions on their freedom to leave their employment relationship or the country, the non-payment of wages, and the threat of retaliation. The tripartite committee considered that the Government should take further measures to fulfil its obligation to suppress the use of forced labour in all its forms, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Governing Body adopted the tripartite committee’s conclusions and called upon the Government to:

• -review without delay the functioning of the sponsorship system;
• -ensure without delay access to justice for migrant workers, so that they can effectively assert their rights;
• -ensure that adequate penalties are applied for violations.

(a) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala). The Committee notes that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment are governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor. This sponsor must do all the necessary paperwork to obtain the residence permit for the worker and, once the procedures for this permit are completed, the employer is obliged to return the passport to the worker (section 19). The Law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. Furthermore, workers may not leave the country temporarily or permanently unless they have an exit permit issued by the sponsor (section 18). If the sponsor refuses to grant the worker an exit visa, a special procedure is provided under the Law (section 12). The Committee notes the tripartite committee’s observation that although some provisions of Law No. 4 of 2009 provide a certain protection to workers, their practical application raises difficulties, such as the requirement to register workers, which results in the confiscation of passports; it also noted the apparent infrequency of transfers of sponsorship. The tripartite committee also pointed out that a number of provisions of the Law, by restricting the possibility for migrant workers to leave the country or change employer, prevents workers who might be victims of abusive practices to free themselves from these situations. This also applies to the practice of withholding passports, which deprives workers of their freedom of movement.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that a bill has been drafted to repeal the system of sponsorship and to replace it by work contracts. Under this bill, workers would be authorized to change employer when their limited contract expires or after five years in the case of permanent contracts. The Government points out that amendments are also being considered to allow workers to leave their employer after obtaining authorization from the competent government authority. It adds that efforts will be stepped up to ensure that workers’ passports are not withheld and that employers who infringe this obligation are penalized as provided for under the Law.

The Committee trusts that the new legislation on migrant workers will be enacted in the near future, and will be drafted in such a way as to provide them with the full enjoyment of their rights at work and protect them against any form of exploitation, tantamount to forced labour. The Committee hopes that, to attain this objective, the legislation will make it possible to:

• -suppress the restrictions and obstacles that limit these workers’ freedom of movement and prevent them from terminating their employment relationship in case of abuse;
• -authorize workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice;
• -review the procedure of issuing exit visas;
• -guarantee access to rapid and efficient complaint mechanisms to enforce workers’ rights throughout the country; and
• -guarantee workers the access to protection and assistance mechanisms when their rights are infringed.

(b) Access to justice. The Committee notes the tripartite committee’s observation that although the legislation provides for the establishment of different complaints mechanisms, the workers seem to encounter certain difficulties in using them. The tripartite committee considered that measures should be taken to remove such obstacles, such as by raising the awareness of workers to their rights, protecting suspected victims of forced labour and reinforcing cooperation with labour-supplying countries. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the bill stipulates that migrant workers should submit their complaint to the Labour Relations Department under the Ministry of Labour which will examine the matter immediately, and that workers will not be charged legal fees. This Department has been equipped with tablets to register complaints, available in several languages, and the number of interpreters has been increased. In addition, a free telephone line and email have been made available to workers so that they might lodge their complaints, which are dealt with by a team specially trained for this task. Finally, an office has been set up within the Court to help workers initiate legal proceedings and to assist them throughout the whole judicial process.

Duly noting this information, the Committee recalls that the situation of vulnerability of migrant workers requires specific measures to assist them in asserting their rights without fear of retaliation. The Committee urges the Government to continue taking measures to strengthen the capacity of these workers to enable them, in practice, to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal. The Committee also asks the Government to take the necessary measures to sensitize the general public and competent authorities on the issue of migrant workers subject to forced labour so that all the actors concerned might be able to identify cases of labour exploitation and to denounce them, and to protect the victims. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that victims receive psychological, medical and legal assistance, and to provide information on the number of shelters existing, the number of persons benefiting from this assistance, and on the bilateral agreements signed with the labour-supplying countries. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken from the legislative and practical standpoint to provide effective protection for domestic workers.

(c) Application of penalties. Penalties for infringements of the labour legislation. The Committee notes that the tripartite committee observed the lack of information on the penalties imposed for infringements of the labour legislation and of the Law regulating the sponsorship system. It emphasized that the detection and remedying of such violations contribute to the prevention of forced labour practices. The Committee notes that the Government has provided statistics on the number of judicial proceedings and sentences concerning wage arrears, holiday pay and overtime. From January to June 2014, 448 proceedings were initiated and 379 sentences handed down. As regards the matter of wage arrears, the Government refers to a bill proposing to establish a special wage protection unit within the Labour Inspection Department, which would make it an obligation for employers to pay wages directly by means of a bank transfer. The Government also provides information on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services, particularly by expanding its geographical coverage, increasing the number of labour inspectors, raising their status, and providing them with modern computer equipment. As a result, the number of inspection visits increased from 46,624 in 2012 to 50,538 in 2013. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue strengthening mechanisms monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers and effectively applying penalties for the infringements registered. In this respect, it calls upon the Government to continue training the labour inspectorate and making it aware of the issues at stake, so that it might identify and put an end to practices that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers and expose them to forced labour, namely, the confiscation of passports, wage arrears, the abusive practices of placement agencies and, in particular, the matter of recruitment expenses and labour contract substitutions. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether the labour inspectorate cooperates with the Public Prosecutor’s Office to ensure that the infringements registered give rise to prosecution. Finally, the Committee refers to the comments it makes under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Imposition of penalties. The Committee notes that the tripartite committee called upon the Government to take effective measures to ensure that adequate penalties are applied to employers who impose forced labour, in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that, although the Government refers to provisions in the national legislation that guarantee the freedom of work and penalize the imposition of forced labour (section 322 of the Penal Code and Law No. 15 of 2011 on combating trafficking in persons), it does not provide any information on the judicial proceedings initiated on the basis of these provisions. In this respect, the Committee notes that the situation of migrant workers in Qatar has been examined by many United Nations bodies, who have all expressed their considerable concern at the large number of migrant workers who are victims of abuse (documents A/HRC/26/35/Add.1 of 23 April 2014 and CEDAW/C/QAT/CO/1 of 10 March 2014). Recalling that the absence of penalties applied to persons imposing forced labour creates a climate of impunity, likely to perpetuate these practices, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are actually applied to persons who impose forced labour. The Committee asks the Government to ensure that, given the seriousness of this crime, the police and prosecution authorities act of their own accord, irrespective of any action taken by the victims. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and the penalties handed down.

The Committee also notes that, at its 322nd Session (November 2014), the Governing Body declared receivable the complaint alleging non-observance by Qatar of Convention Nos 29 and 81, made by delegates to the 103rd Session (2014) of the International Labour Conference, under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, and it asked the Government and employers and workers of Qatar to provide relevant information that will be examined at its next session (March 2015).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Representation made pursuant to article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The Committee notes that the Governing Body, at its 317th Session (March 2013), declared as admissible the representation submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) alleging non-observance of the Convention by Qatar. The representation will be examined in the near future by the Governing Body. Pending this examination, the Committee has decided to defer its consideration of the issue of trafficking in persons and exploitation of migrant workers amounting to forced labour.

Articles 1(1), and 2(1) of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that the Human Resources Act (No. 8 of 2009), which repealed the Civil Service Act (No. 1 of 2001), contains provisions regarding the resignation of civil servants (sections 161 and 162) similar to those of the previous Act, under which a request for resignation can be either accepted or refused, and therefore the service is not automatically terminated after the expiration of the notice period of 30 days.

The Committee once again notes the Government’s statement that provisions governing resignation remain unchanged because of the nature of the civil service, and that these provisions aim at ensuring continued operation of the service.

Referring to its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention (paragraph 290).

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislative text referred to above is amended in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, for example by eliminating the possibility to reject a resignation after the expiration of a notice period or by limiting provisions preventing workers from leaving their employment to emergency situations. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 161 and 162, indicating the number of cases in which such resignations were refused and the grounds for refusal.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of the Anti-human Trafficking Law No. 15 of 2011. It notes that the Law defines in detail the elements constituting the crime of trafficking in persons, and establishes a penalty of seven years of imprisonment, which may be increased where the crime is committed under aggravating circumstances. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Supreme Judicial Council has been asked to provide information on the court decisions regarding the crime of trafficking in persons.

The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on the effect given to this Law in practice, including information on the legal proceedings which have been instituted against perpetrators and indicating the penalties imposed. Please also supply copies of relevant reports, studies and other documents, including any available statistics regarding this matter.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Freedom of public officials to leave their service. The Committee previously noted that the Human Resources Act (No. 8 of 2009), which repealed the Civil Service Act (No. 1 of 2001), contains provisions regarding the resignation of civil servants (sections 161 and 162) similar to those of the previous Act, under which civil servants could not leave their service until their resignation had been accepted by the competent authorities; resignation was deemed to be accepted if the authority failed to decide upon its refusal or acceptance within 30 days from the date of the application. The Committee observed that under the above provisions, a request for resignation can be either accepted or refused, and therefore the service is not automatically terminated after the expiration of a notice period.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated indication in its reports that provisions governing resignation remain unchanged because of the nature of the civil service, and that these provisions aim at ensuring continued operation of the service. It also notes statistical data showing the number of resignations registered during the period 2003–11.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 96–97 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, e.g. by eliminating the possibility to reject a resignation after the expiration of a notice period or by limiting provisions preventing workers from leaving their employment to emergency situations. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 161 and 162 in practice, indicating the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation, as well as the number of cases in which such resignations were refused and the grounds for refusal.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), and 2 (paragraph 1), of the Convention. Freedom of public officials to leave their service. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Civil Service Act (No. 1 of 2001), under which civil servants could not leave their service until their resignation had been accepted by the competent authorities; resignation was deemed to be accepted if the authority failed to decide upon its refusal or acceptance within 30 days from the date of the application.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Civil Service Act of 2001 has been repealed and replaced by the Human Resources Act (No. 8 of 2009), which contains provisions governing the civil service, including those regarding the resignation of civil servants (sections 161 and 162). The Government indicates that sections 161 and 162 lay down the same provisions concerning resignation as in the repealed 2001 Act.

The Committee observes that, under the above provisions, a request for resignation can be either accepted or refused, and therefore the service is not automatically terminated after the expiration of a notice period. While having duly noted the Government’s statements that provisions governing resignation remain unchanged because of the nature of the civil service, and that these provisions aim at ensuring continued operation of the service, the Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 96–97 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, where the Committee has considered that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, e.g. by eliminating a possibility to reject a resignation after the expiration of a notice period or by limiting provisions preventing workers from leaving their employment to emergency situations. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of sections 161 and 162 in practice, indicating the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation, as well as the number of cases in which such resignations were refused and the grounds for refusal. Please also communicate a copy of the Human Resources Act (No. 8 of 2009).

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), 2 (paragraph 1), and 25. Trafficking in persons. Penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced labour. The Committee notes with interest the information on various measures taken to prevent and suppress trafficking in persons provided by the Government in the attached document entitled “Qatar’s efforts in combating human trafficking” issued by Qatar’s Foundation to Combat Human Trafficking. It also notes the Government’s explanations concerning the application of sections 297, 321 and 322 of the Penal Code, which criminalize slavery, forced labour and forced prostitution.

The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on measures taken to punish persons engaging in human trafficking, including information on any legal proceedings which have been instituted and indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Right of public officials to resign. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Service Law (No. 1 of 2001), under which civil servants cannot leave their work until their resignation is accepted by the competent authorities; the decision on the application to resign should be taken within 30 days from the date of the application; resignation is deemed to be accepted if the authority fails to decide upon its refusal or acceptance within the said period. The Committee pointed out that statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length are incompatible with the Convention. It also recalled in this connection that such provisions, which make it possible to retain workers in their employment, could be held compatible with the Convention only where they are necessary to cope with cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its 2005 report that the acceptance of resignation by the competent authority is a merely procedural measure which gives it an opportunity to ensure the continuity of the service. It has also noted statistical information concerning the resignations accepted in 2007 in the Government sector provided by the Government in its latest report. Referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 96 and 97 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee reiterates its hope that, on the future occasion of the revision of the civil service legislation, the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the above sections 109 and 110 into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, indicating not only the number of resignations accepted, but also the number of resignations refused, as well as the reasons for refusal, and to supply copies of decisions handed down under section 93 of the Law on the appeal against refusal.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25. Trafficking in persons. Penal sanctions for the illegal exaction of forced labour. Referring to its 2000 general observation concerning trafficking in persons, as well as to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons of 25 April 2007 (A/HRC/4/23/Add.2), the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged, both in the legislation and in practice, in order to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons. Please also provide information on any legal proceedings which have been instituted under sections 321, 322 and 297 of the Penal Code, which criminalize slavery, forced labour and forced prostitution, indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Right of public officials to resign. The Committee previously referred to sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Service Law (No. 1 of 2001), which repealed Law No. 9 of 1967, with respect to the public service, and noted that the new Law contains provisions similar to those of the repealed Law: officials cannot leave their work until their resignation is accepted by the competent authorities; the decision on the application to resign should be taken within 30 days from the date of the application; resignation is deemed to be accepted if the authority fails to decide upon its refusal or acceptance within the said period.

The Committee drew the Government’s attention to paragraphs 67 and 68 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which the Committee has considered that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee also recalled in this connection that the above provisions, which make it possible to retain workers in their employment, could be held compatible with the Convention only where they are necessary to cope with cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s indication in the report that the acceptance of resignation by the competent authority is a merely procedural measure which gives it an opportunity to ensure the continuity of the service, as well as the Government’s earlier statement that this procedure resembles the prior notice rule, the Committee reiterates its hope that, on the future occasion of the revision of the civil service legislation, the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring the above sections 109 and 110 into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, and having also noted the Government’s previous indication that it is extremely rare for public administration to turn down an official’s resignation, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, indicating a number of resignations accepted and refused, as well as the reasons for refusal, and to supply copies of decisions handed down under section 93 of the Law on the appeal against refusal.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

1. Right of public officials to resign. The Committee previously referred to sections 78 and 79 of Law No. 9 of 1967 respecting the public service, according to which officials could not leave their work until their resignation had been accepted by the competent authorities. The Committee has noted from the Government’s report that the above legislation was repealed by the Civil Service Law No. 1 of 2001. It has noted, however, that sections 109 and 110 of the new Law contain provisions similar to those of the repealed sections 78 and 79 referred to above: officials cannot leave their work until their resignation is accepted by the competent authorities; the decision on the application to resign should be taken within 30 days from the date of the application; resignation is deemed to be accepted if the authority fails to decide upon its refusal or acceptance within the said period.

The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 67 and 68 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which the Committee has considered that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. The Committee also recalls in this connection that the above provisions, which make it possible to retain workers in their employment, do not affect the observance of the Convention only where they are necessary to cope with cases of emergency within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 2(d), of the Convention.

While noting the Government’s indications in the report that it is extremely rare for public administration to turn down an official’s resignation, as well as a possibility to appeal against a Minister’s decision to refuse an application to resign, under section 93 of the Law, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Service Law No. 1 of 2001 into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, indicating the number of resignations accepted and refused, as well as the reasons for refusal, and to supply copies of decisions handed down under section 93 on the appeal against refusal.

2. The Committee has noted the legislative texts supplied by the Government with its report, as well as the Government’s indication that there is no law on military service. Referring to the Government’s previous indication concerning preparation of a new Penal Code, the Committee hopes that a copy will be communicated to the ILO, as soon as it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Trafficking of children with a view to their exploitation as camel jockeys. In its earlier comments, the Committee raised its concern on the situation of children involved in camel races who are subjected to exploitation and are placed in conditions in which they cannot freely give their consent, nor can such consent validly be provided by their parents in their place. It requested the Government to take all the necessary measures, in cooperation with the other governments concerned, with a view to eliminating the trafficking of children for their use as camel jockeys and to punish those responsible through the strict application of the appropriate penal sanctions.

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous observation on the subject. It notes that the Government has ratified the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and has already sent its first and second reports on the application of that Convention. In so far as Article 3(a) of Convention No. 182 provides that the worst forms of child labour include "all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour", the Committee is of the view that the problem of the trafficking of children for the purpose of exploiting their labour can be examined more specifically under Convention No. 182. The protection of children is enhanced by the fact that Convention No. 182 requires States which ratify it to take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its comments on the application of Convention No. 182.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government on certain other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Also referring to its observation, the Committee notes the Government’s reports and requests it to provide information on the following points.

1. Right of public officials to resign. The Committee notes sections 78 and 79 of Law No. 9 of 1967 respecting the public service, which governs the resignation of public officials (provided by the Government with its first report). Under the terms of section 79, officials may not leave their work until their resignation has been accepted by the competent authorities. It also notes section 78, under which resignation is deemed to be accepted where the authority does not decide upon its refusal or acceptance within a period of 30 days. In this respect, the Committee notes that the authority may decide to postpone the resignation where reasons related to the work so require, or where the official is subject to a disciplinary procedure. The Committee also notes that officials who are in breach of their duties, particularly if they stop working before receiving acceptance of their resignation, may be liable to the disciplinary penalties envisaged in sections 62 and 64 of Law No. 9 of 1967.

The Committee draws attention to paragraphs 67 and 68 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which the Committee indicated that the effect of statutory provisions preventing termination of employment of indefinite duration by means of notice of reasonable length, is to turn a contractual relationship based on the will of the parties into service by compulsion of law, and is thus incompatible with the Convention. In this respect, the Committee also recalls that the above Laws, which make it possible to retain workers in their employment, are in conformity with the Convention only where they are necessary to cope with cases of emergency, within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the reasons for which a resignation may be postponed, and to supply copies of judicial decisions handed down under section 79 of the Law respecting the public service.

The Committee also notes the information contained in the Government’s latest report to the effect that Law No. 1 of 2001, respecting the public service, has been enacted with implementing regulations No. 13 of 2001. This legislation establishes the right of employees bound by a contract to the administration to bring an end to their contract without being obliged to provide reasons, providing that the administration is informed thereof at least 30 days in advance (section 4 of the model contract annexed to the Law). The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Law and its implementing regulations.

2. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the legislative texts relating to the defence of the internal and external security of the State (and particularly the provisions respecting military service), the state of emergency, as well as the provisions implementing the prison regulations, the Code of Penal Procedure and the legislative texts regulating begging and vagrancy.

3. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its general observation of 2000. It notes in particular:

-  sections 193 to 196 of the Penal Code No. 14 of 1971, which make any person imposing forced labour on another person, or importing, exporting, selling or owning a person or acting as an owner, or exploiting a person for the purposes of prostitution, liable to sentences of imprisonment of up to ten years;

-  sections 204 to 207, repressing the exploitation of third persons for the purposes of prostitution;

-  sections 183 and 184 of the Penal Code, intended to protect victims and witnesses against any threats;

-  the agreement of the Council of Ministers at its meeting on 17 July 2002 on the principle of establishing a National Human Rights Commission, the objectives of which would include collaborating with regional and international organizations, as well as with national organizations working on the issue of human rights and freedoms. The Committee notes in this respect that the decision to establish the above Commission will be forwarded to the ILO, once it has been enacted.

4. The Committee also notes the information contained in the Government’s latest report, to the effect that a new Labour Code and Penal Code are under preparation. It hopes that copies of these Codes will be provided to the Office once they have been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee raises its concern on the situation of children involved in camel races who are subjected to exploitation and are placed in conditions in which they cannot freely give their consent, nor can such consent validly be provided by their parents in their place.

Trafficking of children with a view to their exploitation as camel jockeys. The Committee notes the information contained in the concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/15/Add.163 of 6 November 2001), according to which very young children from Africa and South Asia are trafficked with a view to their exploitation as jockeys in camel races. It also notes the comments of the above Committee that such racing seriously prejudices the education and health of the children, particularly in view of the risk of serious injury to the jockeys.

The Committee also notes the report by Anti-Slavery International, submitted to the Humans Rights Commission at its 26th Session. This report emphasizes the dangers to which children involved in camel racing are subjected and also mentions a study carried out in Bangladesh according to which over 1,600 boys were victims of trafficking during the 1990s. The study shows that most of these boys were under ten years of age and that they were certainly used as jockeys in the Gulf States.

In this respect, the Committee notes the information provided by the representatives of the Government at the 28th Session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/SR.734), according to which the involvement of children in camel racing is a priority for the Government. It also notes the Government’s statement that certain laws protecting child jockeys have been adopted and that measures are to be taken to increase the minimum age of jockeys.

The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the laws adopted with a view to protecting child jockeys from the exaction of forced labour, and copies of the legislative texts intended to increase the minimum age of jockeys, once they have been adopted.

The Committee recalls its general observation published in 2001 under the Convention, in which it requested governments to provide information on, among other matters, measures designed to strengthen the active investigation of organized crime with regard to trafficking in persons, including international cooperation between law enforcement agencies, with a view to preventing and combating trafficking in persons.

The Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures, in cooperation with the other governments concerned, with a view to eliminating the trafficking of children for their use as camel jockeys and to punish those responsible through the strict application of the appropriate penal sanctions. It hopes that the Government will provide full particulars on the measures taken, and particularly on the legal action taken against persons involved in trafficking and the penalties imposed upon them.

The Committee also addresses a direct request to the Government concerning other points.