E/C.12/1994/8 page 4 that the right to strike, although recognized in theory, cannot be exercised in practice because the Industrial Relations Act, 1973, requires a 21-day cooling-off period and empowers the minister to refer any industrial dispute to compulsory arbitration, enforceable by penalties involving compulsory labour. This has the effect of making most strikes illegal. Participation in a strike not approved by a court is a sufficient ground for dismissal. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern that the respective recommendations submitted in May 1992 by the Special Law Review Committee set up to review, inter alia, the Industrial Relations Act (Garrioch Committee) have not yet been released by the Government. Instead, the proposed Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which is to replace the Industrial Relations Act, appears in some respect to be even less favourable to trade unions. The Committee still shares the hope of the ILO Committee of Experts that the Government will limit compulsory labour to services whose interruption is likely to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. However, it cannot but state a certain tendency on the part of the Government of Mauritius to use labour legislation to block trade union recognition and dismiss workers. The Committee’s general impression is that Mauritius is returning to its original tradition according to which Government supports firm control by employers over their workers. 11. Regarding article 9, the Committee notes that according to the report submitted by the Government of Mauritius to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1992 (para. 188), no employment insurance exists. 12. Concerning article 10, the Committee notes with regret that Mauritian child labour legislation is not strictly enforced. It further takes note of the Government’s own view expressed in its recent report to CEDAW (para. 263), that Mauritius does not have a comprehensive system of family benefits through which all families benefit in a universal manner, and that the system of family allowances should be reviewed because the present regulations penalize the very families that need the allowance most (para. 275). 13. Regarding the right to food, the Committee is concerned about the fact that in June 1993 the Mauritian Government abolished subsidies on rice and flour without replacing them by a system that would guarantee food security for the most vulnerable groups of the population. 14. Regarding the right to housing, the Committee expresses its concern about the discontinuation of the Government’s programme for providing low-cost housing in Mauritius. In this regard, the Housing Development Company Ltd., established in 1992, is in no position to replace the former Central Housing Authority, as was sadly demonstrated after the recent cyclone Hollanda. Further, concern is expressed with regard to Government harassment of hundreds of homeless people who built shacks on "State land". 15. With regard to article 12, the Committee notes the deplorable state of mental health care in Mauritius. It is also concerned about information according to which half of the maternal deaths since 1982 have been due to complications following abortion, which is prohibited by law.