All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1936)

Display in: French - Spanish

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 Convention No. 102 on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on social security, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 42 (workers’ compensation for occupational diseases) and Convention No. 102 (minimum standards) together.

Part II (Medical care). Articles 8, 10, 11, 69 and 70 of Convention No. 102. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the contingencies covered by medical care, the types of medical care benefits provided, the qualifying period for entitlement to medical care benefits, the causes of suspension of medical care benefits, and the right to complain and appeal of persons protected.

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit). Benefits to be taken into account. Universal credit. The Committee recalls that its previous comments on the application of Part III, notably Articles 15(a), 16, 17, 68, 69, 72(1) and Part IV, notably Articles 22, 23, 24 of the Convention, concerned the Statutory Sick Pay, Agricultural Sick Pay, and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contributory). The Committee notes however, from the indications provided by the Government in its report, that Parts III and IV of the Convention are now applied by the Universal Credit (UC), a social assistance benefit available to individuals and households of limited means, who may be at risk of falling into poverty, including in the event of sickness and unemployment. The Committee also notes the Government‘s indication that persons protected under the UC are all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits and who meet conditions of entitlement. The Committee further notes from the supplementary information provided by the Government that the UC is currently being phased in on the United Kingdom territory and that it is expected to be fully implemented by September 2024. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the state of implementation of the UC and on the effective population coverage of the UC.

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit), in conjunction with Article 69. Suspension of benefit. Claimant commitment. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that all claimants must accept a Claimant Commitment as a condition of entitlement to UC. As explained by the Government, the Claimant Commitment sets out what claimants have agreed to do to prepare for and look for work, or to increase their earnings if already employed. The Government further indicates that a couple living in the same household makes a joint claim for UC and that each member of a couple has his or her own Claimant Commitment, being an equal claimant and therefore, jointly and individually liable. The Government further points out that acceptance of the Claimant Commitment is a legal condition of entitlement for UC for the full household. Thus, the Government specifies, in a household with two adult claimants, where one of the claimants does not accept his or her Claimant Commitment, this may result in the household (both adults) not being eligible for UC. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the possibility to remove the Claimant Commitment’s requirement, in exceptional circumstances, where a claimant is unable to accept a Claimant Commitment. This may include, for example, claimants who have an appointee or someone acting on their behalf, claimants who are incapacitated in hospital and exceptional emergency situations. Where the claimant is physically or mentally unable to accept a Claimant Commitment and this is unlikely to change, or it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so due to terminal illness, the requirement to accept a Claimant Commitment is waived.

While taking note of the above, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not allow the suspension of the benefit for causes other than those mentioned in Article 69 of the Convention and that failure by another person to accomplish certain formalities should not deprive a person protected to his or her own right to sickness or unemployment benefit when he/she meets the qualifying conditions set forth in Part III or IV of the Convention, respectively. In order to assess the practical implications of the Claimant Commitment’s requirement on the effective provision of UC benefits, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases in which a claimant who would have otherwise met the conditions for entitlement to UC benefit was denied such entitlement due to the failure of another adult in the same household to accept a Claimant Commitment.

Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69. Work-related requirements in case of unemployment and reduction of the benefit. The Committee observes that sections 15–18 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012 establish four types of work-related requirements, each of which comprising a range of actions to be performed by claimants, including requirements to carry out work searches and to take up paid work. The Committee also notes the indication by the Government that under section 97(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016, restrictions on the type of work and the salary may be permitted where claimants have: (1) a strong and sustained work history in a specific occupation; (2) a health condition which may prevent them undertaking certain work or in certain locations. The period during which such restrictions are applied (“permitted period”) is up to three months at the discretion of a work coach who tests claimants’ prospects of finding this type of work. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in this regard, specifying that the permitted period is at the discretion of a work coach, as in some circumstances an inflexible approach (limiting the work of a similar nature or level of remuneration to the previous work) could hinder an individual’s ability to find work and damage future employment prospects by creating a longer spell of unemployment. The Committee further notes that if a claimant fails to comply with work-related requirements for no good reason, the amount of UC benefit is to be reduced for a certain period in accordance with sections 26 and 27 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012. The Committee recalls that Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69 of the Convention, provide protection against the suspension of unemployment benefit or the reduction of such benefit below the minimum level set out in its Article 22 (and the Schedule to Part XI), in case of refusal from the beneficiary to take up unsuitable employment, at least during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the amount and duration of the reduction applied to the benefit in case of refusal by a claimant to take up unsuitable employment, i.e. employment which does not match the criteria set out in section 94 of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95 of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016. The Committee also requests the Government to consider withholding such sanctions during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment and to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to this effect.

Parts III (Sickness Benefit) and IV (Unemployment Benefit) in conjunction with Articles 71(3) and 72(2). Responsibility of the State for the due provision of benefits. (i) Delay for first payment to be made. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the time required to process UC claims and to make the first payment to new claimants. More specifically, it notes that claimants receive their first payment five weeks after the point of claim, as an assessment period of a calendar month is needed to calculate entitlement, followed by one week of payment processing. The Committee notes that, during this period, claimants can apply for advance payments corresponding to up to 100 per cent of the total expected monthly award, which can be paid back over a period of up to 12 months, and up to 16 months from October 2021. The Committee further notes the indication by the Government that the offer of an advance is subject to checks to make sure that the claimant can afford the repayments and that around 60 per cent of new claimants eligible for UC receive such advance. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the UC benefit is paid retroactively from the day the claim is made, in respect of the five weeks comprising the assessment period and payment processing during which advances are provided. While noting that the UC is at the inception stage, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider reducing the five-week delay for payment of the UC benefit as soon as possible with a view to avoid hardship for the persons protected who are essentially persons with small means.

(ii) Digital service. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the various means available to UC beneficiaries who do not have access to a computer or the internet to contact UC and access the various services and on the assistance provided to internet users to support online claims.

Part V (Old-age benefit). Article 26(2). Increased pensionable age. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the first review of the increase of the state pension age beyond 65 years, particularly with regard to the working ability, labour market participation and worklessness of persons aged 65–67. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on healthy life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy and employment rate of older persons as well as the Government’s indication that it has a number of research projects in the pipeline that are relevant to this question. The Committee further notes from the report that the next review of the state pension age beyond 65 years is scheduled for 2023 at the latest. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this review.

Article 28, in conjunction with Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). Replacement rate of old-age benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Pensions Act of 2014 introduced the new State Pension (nSP) for people reaching state pensionable age on or after 6 April 2016. The Government further indicates that the full rate of the nSP is based on 35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits and does not recognize dependants. Transitional arrangements are in place for those who have qualifying years before 6 April 2016, which take someone’s previous National Insurance contributions into account and mean that people could receive less or more than the full rate, depending on their National Insurance record. The Committee notes that the replacement rate of the nSP attains 77.4 per cent for a standard beneficiary of a man and a wife both of pensionable age, who have 30 qualifying years each and did not make National Insurance contributions or get National Insurance credits before 6 April 2016. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it is not currently appropriate to prorate the nSP and that data provided on the replacement rate is used to illustrate how the nSP calculation will work in the future using current rates. The Committee also notes that the calculation of the replacement rate are based on the assumption that each member in a couple has completed 30 qualifying years. In this regard, the Government explains that the UK National Insurance system awards qualifying years for appropriate work, self-employment and other forms of contributions to UK society (for example, caring for children, caring for dependent relatives including those with sickness and infirmity, seeking work or unable to work due to health conditions). The Government further points out that where there are two individuals in a household, the nSP system design ensures that each of them can build full entitlement over their working life, whether from work, credits from caring duties and other sources, or a combination of the two. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Part V of the Convention does not set out a qualifying period for a dependent spouse based on periods of employment or different forms of contribution, which means that entitlements based on such periods cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the benefit under the Convention. The Committee further observes that, according to the information provided by the Government, in the case of a household comprised of one individual, the replacement rate of the old-age pension is 38.7 per cent, which does not attain the 40 per cent replacement rate required by Article 28 in conjunction with Article 65 and the Schedule to Part XI of the Convention. The Committee notes however the Government’s indication that couples above state pensionable age with a low income may be entitled to Pension Credit: if their income falls below a minimum amount, which was £265.20 a week for couples in 2020–21, then it will be topped-up to a standard minimum amount. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide calculations on the basis of the Pension Credit (without adding family allowances), in accordance with Article 67 of the Convention.

Part X (Survivors’ benefit). Benefits to be taken into account. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that widowed parent’s allowance (WPA) and bereavement allowance are not available to new claimants since April 2017. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any periodical survivors’ benefits are available to persons protected whose breadwinner has died after April 2017, in accordance with Part X of the Convention.

Article 62 (Calculation of the level of benefit), in conjunction with Article 63 (Qualifying period). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the level of survivors’ benefit (36.18 per cent) was lower than 40 per cent required by the Convention. The Committee observes from the information provided by the Government that the total amount of the survivors’ benefit is £156.95 which comprises the basic WPA of £121.95, the Child Benefit of £21.05 for the eldest qualifying child, and of £13.95 for the second qualifying child. The Committee further observes that the replacement rate of the survivors’ benefit is 40,44 per cent. The Committee, however, notes from the Government’s indication that the standard basic rate (100 per cent) of the WPA is provided to a survivor in case a deceased spouse or civil partner had qualifying years for about 90 per cent of the years in his/her working life. If a deceased spouse or civil partner had fewer qualifying years than the number needed for the standard basic rate a smaller basic rate will be paid. The Committee further notes that the WPA of £121.95, which is taken into account in the calculations of the replacement rate, is the standard basic rate (100 per cent). In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 63(1)(a) of the Convention sets out a minimum qualifying period of 15 years of contribution or employment upon completion of which the replacement rate of survivors’ benefit shall be not less than 40 per cent. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide calculations of the replacement rate of the survivors’ benefit to which a spouse or civil partner of a deceased person with 15 years of contribution would be entitled.

Part X (Survivors’ benefit), Article 69. Suspension of benefit. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the ground for suspension of survivors’ benefit.

Article 2 of Convention No. 42. List of occupational diseases. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the burden of proof is regulated with respect to diseases which are covered by the Convention but not included in the national list of occupational diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that “where claims are made for injuries or diseases in cases of accidental exposure the claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that an accident occurred”. The Committee recalls that the Schedule appended to the Convention establishes a legal presumption of the vocational origin of the diseases listed in it whenever the workers concerned are employed in the corresponding trades, industries and processes, and relieves the worker of bearing the burden of proving the occupational origin of a disease and the costs of complex and lengthy judicial proceedings. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that persons protected do not have burden of proof with respect to occupational diseases not covered by the national list but covered by the Convention, particularly: (i) all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays; and (ii) poisoning by all halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, to give full effect to Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which the Workmen’s Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42), is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or to accept Part VI of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits and occupational diseases. Ratification of Convention No. 121 will involve the automatic denunciation of the outdated Convention No. 42. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group) and to consider ratifying Convention No. 121 and/or accepting Part VI of Convention No. 102 as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

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

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit. Benefits to be taken into account. Universal credit. The Committee recalls that its previous comments on the application of Part III, notably Articles 15(a), 16, 17, 68, 69, 72(1) and Part IV, notably Articles 22, 23, 24 of the Convention, concerned the Statutory Sick Pay, Agricultural Sick Pay, and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contributory). The Committee notes however, from the indications provided by the Government in its report, that Parts III and IV of the Convention are now applied by the Universal Credit (UC), a social assistance benefit available to individuals and households of limited means, who may be at risk of falling into poverty, including in the event of sickness and unemployment. The Committee also notes the Government‘s indication that persons protected under the UC are all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits and who meet conditions of entitlement. The Committee further notes, as indicated by the Government, that UC is currently being phased in on the United Kingdom territory and that it is foreseen to be fully implemented by the end of 2023. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the implementation of the UC and on the number of residents protected under the UC.

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit), in conjunction with Article 69. Suspension of benefit. Claimant commitment. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that all claimants must accept a Claimant Commitment as a condition of entitlement to UC. As explained by the Government, the Claimant Commitment sets out what claimants have agreed to do to prepare for and look for work, or to increase their earnings if already employed. The Claimant Commitment is based on the claimants’ personal circumstances and is not required in case claimants are physically or mentally unable to accept it and this is unlikely to change, or it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so due to terminal illness. The Government further indicates that a couple living in the same household makes a joint claim for UC and that each member of a couple has his or her own Claimant Commitment, being an equal claimant and therefore, jointly and individually liable. The Government further points out that acceptance of the Claimant Commitment is a legal condition of entitlement for UC for the full household. Thus, the Government specifies, in a household with two adult claimants, where one of the claimants does not accept his or her Claimant Commitment, this may result in the household (both adults) not being eligible for UC. The Committee also observes that section 3(3) of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013, lists a number of cases in which a person who is a member of a couple may make a claim as a single person, e.g. if the person is not in the United Kingdom, under 18 years or a prisoner. The Committee recalls that the Convention does not allow the suspension of the benefit for causes other than those mentioned in Article 69 of the Convention and that failure by another person to accomplish certain formalities should not deprive a person protected to his or her own right to sickness or unemployment benefit when he/she meets the qualifying conditions set forth in Part III or IV of the Convention, respectively. The Committee thus requests the Government to indicate whether it is possible, in cases other than those specified in section 3(3) of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013, for a person to make an individual claim despite living in the same household as his/her partner.

Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69. Work-related requirements in case of unemployment and reduction of the benefit. The Committee observes that sections 15–18 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012 establish four types of work-related requirements, each of which comprising a range of actions to be performed by claimants, including requirements to carry out work searches and to take up paid work. The Committee also notes the indication by the Government that under section 97(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016, restrictions on the type of work and the salary may be permitted where claimants have: (1) a strong and sustained work history in a specific occupation; (2) a health condition which may prevent them undertaking certain work or in certain locations. The period during which such restrictions are applied (“permitted period”) is up to three months at the discretion of a work coach who tests claimants’ prospects of finding this type of work. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in this regard, specifying that the permitted period is at the discretion of a work coach, as in some circumstances an inflexible approach (limiting the work of a similar nature or level of remuneration to the previous work) could hinder an individual’s ability to find work and damage future employment prospects by creating a longer spell of unemployment. The Committee further notes that if a claimant fails to comply with work-related requirements for no good reason, the amount of UC benefit is to be reduced for a certain period in accordance with sections 26 and 27 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012. The Committee recalls that Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69 of the Convention, provide protection against the suspension of unemployment benefit or the reduction of such benefit below the minimum level set out in its Article 22 (and the Schedule to Part XI), in case of refusal from the beneficiary to take up unsuitable employment, at least during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the amount and duration of the reduction applied to the benefit in case of refusal by a claimant to take up unsuitable employment, i.e. employment which does not match the criteria set out in section 94 of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95 of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016. The Committee also requests the Government to consider withholding such sanctions during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment and to provide information of the measures taken or envisaged to this effect.

Parts III (Sickness Benefit) and IV (Unemployment Benefit) in conjunction with Articles 71(3) and 72(2). Responsibility of the State for the due provision of benefits.

(i) Delay for first payment to be made. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the time required to process UC claims and to make the first payment to new claimants. More specifically, it notes that claimants receive their first payment five weeks after the point of claim, as an assessment period of a calendar month is needed to calculate entitlement, followed by one week of payment processing. The Committee notes that, during this period, claimants can apply for advance payments corresponding to up to 100 per cent of the total expected monthly award, which can be paid back over a period of up to 12 months, and up to 16 months from October 2021. The Committee further notes the indication by the Government that the offer of an advance is subject to checks to make sure that the claimant can afford the repayments and that around 60 per cent of new claimants eligible for UC receive such advance. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the UC benefit is paid retroactively from the day the claim is made, in respect of the five weeks comprising the assessment period and payment processing during which advances are provided. While noting that the UC is at the inception stage, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider reducing the five-week delay for payment of the UC benefit as soon as possible with a view to avoid hardship for the persons protected who are essentially persons with small means.

(ii) Digital service. The Committee notes, as indicated by the Government and on the Government’s website that all UC claimants have to have an online UC account to manage their claims and that the UC “live service” is no longer available for new claims (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-full-service-and-live-service). The Committee further notes the indication by the Government that the organization Citizens Advice (England and Wales) and Citizens Advice Scotland is mandated and funded by the Government to deliver new “Help to Claim” support to claimants making a new UC claim on a test basis for 12 months since April 2019. As further specified by the Government, “Help to Claim” offers tailored, practical support to help people make a UC claim up to receiving their first full correct payment on time and is available online, through web-chat, through a Freephone number and face to face through local Citizens Advice services. While noting the availability of support to claimants to use online facilities, the Committee observes that full digital service may limit the effective access of certain persons to UC benefit, due, in particular to the costs associated with the use of the Internet and the purchase of a computer and other information and communications technology equipment. The Committee further observes that persons who are not computer literate or who have a disability or a sickness which makes the use of a computer difficult may also be prevented from making a claim or accomplishing the required formalities for entitlement to the benefit. Recalling that, in accordance with Article 71(3) of the Convention, the State bears the general responsibility for the due provision of the benefits and shall take all measures required for this purpose, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the persons protected who do not have access to a computer or the Internet, as well as those who are not able to use it, can effectively access UC. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the “Help to Claim” support.

Article 28, in conjunction with Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). Replacement rate of old-age benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Pensions Act of 2014 introduced the new State Pension (nSP) for people reaching state pensionable age on or after 6 April 2016. The Government further indicates that the full rate of the nSP is based on 35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits and does not recognize dependants. Transitional arrangements are in place for those who have qualifying years before 6 April 2016, which take someone’s previous National Insurance contributions into account and mean that people could receive less or more than the full rate, depending on their National Insurance record. The Committee notes that the replacement rate of the nSP attains 76.4 per cent for a standard beneficiary of a man and a wife both of pensionable age, who have 30 qualifying years each and did not make National Insurance contributions or get National Insurance credits before 6 April 2016. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it is not currently appropriate to prorate the nSP and that data provided on the replacement rate is used to illustrate how the nSP calculation will work in the future using current rates. The Committee also notes that the calculation of the replacement rate are based on the assumption that each member in a couple has completed 30 qualifying years. In this regard, the Government explains that the UK National Insurance system awards qualifying years for appropriate work, self-employment and other forms of contributions to UK society (for example, caring for children, caring for dependent relatives including those with sickness and infirmity, seeking work or unable to work due to health conditions). The Government further points out that where there are two individuals in a household, the nSP system design ensures that each of them can build full entitlement over their working life, whether from work, credits from caring duties and other sources, or a combination of the two. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Part V of the Convention does not set out a qualifying period for a dependent spouse based on periods of employment or different forms of contribution, which means that entitlements based on such periods cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the benefit under the Convention. The Committee further observes that, according to the information provided by the Government, in the case of a household comprised of one individual, the replacement rate of the old-age pension is 36.7 per cent, which does not attain the 40 per cent replacement rate required by Article 28 in conjunction with Article 65 and the Schedule to Part XI of the Convention. The Committee notes however the Government’s indication that couples above state pensionable age with a low income may be entitled to Pension Credit: if their income falls below a minimum amount, which was £248.80 a week for couples in 2018–19, then it will be topped-up to a standard minimum amount. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide calculations on the basis of the Pension Credit, in accordance with Article 67 of the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the annual increase of Pension Credit as compared to the increase of the cost-of-living index and the index of earnings.

Article 62 (Calculation of the level of benefit) in conjunction with Article 63 (Qualifying period) of Convention No. 102. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the level of survivors’ benefit (36.18 per cent) was lower than 40 per cent required by the Convention. In its reply, the Government indicates that the 36.18 per cent of replacement level is based on the reduced basic rate of survivors’ benefit payable in case a number of qualifying years constitutes at least 25 per cent of the breadwinner’s working life in total. The Government refers to Article 63(3) of the Convention according to which the 40 per cent of replacement rate can be reduced by a further ten points in cases where only the minimum qualifying conditions are satisfied. The Committee recalls that Article 63(3) of the Convention allows lowering the replacement rate by ten points where a benefit is secured to the survivors of a breadwinner who had completed five years of contribution, employment or residence prior to his/her death. The Committee asks the Government to provide further explanations as to how the condition that the breadwinner had completed a qualifying period of at least 25 per cent of his/her working life prior to his/her death for his/her survivors to be entitled to a benefit corresponds to the qualifying period of five years of contribution, employment or residence set out in Article 63(3) of the Convention.

Part X (Survivors’ benefit), Article 69 of Convention No. 102. Suspension of benefit. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the ground for suspension of survivors’ benefit.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which the Workmen’s Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42), is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or to accept Part VI of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits and occupational diseases. Ratification of Convention No. 121 will involve the automatic denunciation of the outdated Convention No. 42. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group) and to consider ratifying Conventions Nos 121 and/or 102 (Part VI) as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

For a number of years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend the list of occupational diseases so as to extend the protection ensured by the Industrial Injuries (II) Scheme to cover: (i) all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays; and (ii) poisoning by all halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series.

The Government indicates in its report that, in addition to the list of prescribed diseases, the II Scheme also provides compensation for diseases or injuries which are a recognizable outcome from accidental occupational exposure, but there is no statutory list of all diseases covered by accident provisions. The Government also states that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) advises the Government when it is satisfied that there is evidence that a condition is more likely than not to be caused by a particular occupation. In its 2002 report, for example, the IIAC recommended removing several occupational diseases from the prescribed list as the chemical exposures necessary to cause the disease would only occur in accidental situations: poisoning by tetrachloroethane (a halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon) was thus removed from the list of prescribed diseases in 2003 as it was considered adequately covered by the accident provisions of the II Scheme. The Government adds that the IIAC will continue to monitor newly published scientific evidence about the occupational incidence of ionizing radiation and toxicity from exposure to certain industrial chemicals and provide the Government with advice on whether the evidence fits the legal requirements for inclusion in the II Scheme.

The Committee notes that although it is different in nature from the system established by the Convention, the II Scheme operating in the United Kingdom appears to ensure equivalent protection to that guaranteed by the Convention in respect of certain diseases and substances that are not any longer included as such in the list of occupational diseases considering the advancement of industrial techniques and operations. The Committee would like the Government to provide complementary information on the manner in which the burden of proof is regulated in such cases and asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments as regards the manner in which the national legislation compensates the diseases listed in the Schedule to the Convention, in particular in respect of diseases caused by certain halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series which are not included in the list of occupational diseases.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the list of occupational diseases mentions only a number of disorders caused by electromagnetic or ionizing radiations, whereas the Schedule to the Convention covers all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays. In its report, the Government indicates in this respect that Schedule A1 of prescribed diseases was amended in 2000 and now includes significant exposure to electromagnetic radiations or to ionizing particles. While taking due note of this information, the Committee is bound to remind the Government once again that by listing certain symptoms and pathological manifestations restrictively, the legislation introduces a more limited system of coverage than the one envisaged by the Convention, which is drafted in general terms so as to ensure compensation for all disorders, even atypical or new ones, which might occur as the result of poisoning by or the action of an agent. The legislation in force thereby deprives the workers concerned of the benefit of the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease.

2. The Committee further observes that the schedule of prescribed diseases does not cover certain halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, whereas the Convention is drafted in general terms to cover poisoning by all such substances. In this respect, entries C.26 to C.29 of the schedule of prescribed diseases enumerate in a restrictive manner the diseases caused by the substances referred to, in contrast with the approach adopted by the Convention. The Committee therefore trusts that, in the context of the review process, the Government will have no difficulty in supplementing the national list of prescribed occupational diseases so as to include all diseases caused by any halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, irrespective of whether they result from cases of acute or chronic poisoning.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report referring, among other issues, to the modifications made to the national list of occupational diseases. With reference to its previous comments, it notes in particular with satisfaction the 2005 amendment to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, 1985, including among the occupations liable to cause anthrax infection the handling, loading, unloading or transport of animals of a type susceptible to infection with anthrax or of the products or residues of such animals. The Committee also notes that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) is currently undertaking an overall review of the list of occupational diseases for which benefits are paid in order to update and simplify it and that the principles of Convention No. 42 will be borne in mind in this context.

The Committee is also raising a number of other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Referring to its observation, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the list of occupational diseases mentions only a number of disorders caused by electromagnetic or ionizing radiation, whereas the schedule to the Convention covers all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays. In this regard, it notes with interest from the information supplied by the Government that the authorities have agreed to add leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and certain cancers to the list of occupational diseases than can be caused by electromagnetic radiation or ionizing particles. The Government considers, following the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s (IIAC) advice, that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to add other diseases to the abovementioned list. In these circumstances the Committee is bound once again to remind the Government that by listing certain symptoms and pathological manifestations restrictively the legislation introduces a more limited system of coverage than the one provided by the Convention which is drafted in general terms so as to ensure compensation for all disorders, even atypical or new ones, which might occur as the result of poisoning by or the action of an agent. The legislation thus deprives the workers concerned of the benefit of the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized, first, that the list of occupational diseases covers only certain halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, whereas the Convention was drafted in general terms to cover poisoning by all such substances and, secondly, that the items in the list (Nos. C.26 to C.29) give a restrictive enumeration of the diseases caused by these substances, contrary to the Convention. In reply, the Government indicates once again that the accident provisions of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act will adequately cover for poisoning by most of the other compounds. It adds that the IIAC is currently undertaking a review of the list of prescribed diseases with regard to exposure to chemicals and will take account of the concerns of the Committee in its consideration. The Committee notes this information. It trusts therefore that in the review process the Government will have no difficulty in supplementing the national list of prescribed occupational diseases so as to cover all diseases caused by any halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, irrespective of whether they resulted from cases of acute or chronic poisoning.

3. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments concerning anthrax infection, the Government indicates once again that the list of work liable to cause this infection is in conformity with the prescriptions of the Convention and that this infection is, moreover, extremely rare in the United Kingdom. The Committee believes that in these circumstances it will be easy for the Government to include the loading, unloading or transport of merchandise in general in the prescribed list of activities that may cause this infection, thus complying formally with the requirements of the Convention on this point, which aims to establish the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease to the benefit of workers who have to handle merchandise of such a varied nature that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the merchandise handled has been in contact with infected animals or parts of animals.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the need to supplement the list of prescribed occupational diseases so as to conform with the Convention in regard to poisoning by the halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, disorders due to ionizing radiation and anthrax infection. In its report, the Government states that it is advised in this sphere by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) which is an independent body and includes representatives from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) as well as experts in the field of occupational health. The IIAC is currently undertaking a long-term review of the list of occupational diseases in order to update and simplify the scheme. In particular, the Council is to confirm that the statutory requirements for prescription for compensation for an occupational disease continue to be satisfied and to identify any amendments required to ensure that they reflect current scientific knowledge.

The Committee takes note of this general information. It also notes with interest that the IIAC recommendations relating particularly to the addition of new diseases among those that can be caused by electromagnetic or ionizing radiation have been accepted. Despite these amendments, national legislation still does not ensure full application of the Convention. The Committee hopes that in the framework of the review process for the list of occupational diseases it will be possible to adopt measures which will take into account the points raised in the direct request which is being addressed to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the following points:

(a) With regard to the fact that the list of occupational diseases mentions only a number of disorders caused by electromagnetic radiation or ionizing particles, whereas the schedule to the Convention covers all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays, the Government states once again that in the opinion of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) there is insufficient evidence of the need to add any further cancers caused by ionizing radiation to the prescribed list. It adds that the IIAC Research Working Group continued to monitor closely all new epidemiological evidence on this topic. In these circumstances the Committee is bound once again to point out that by listing certain symptoms and pathological manifestations restrictively the legislation introduces a more limited system of coverage than the one provided for in the Convention which is drawn up in such a way as to ensure compensation for all disorders, even atypical or new ones, which might occur as the result of poisoning by or the action of an agent, as it deprives the workers concerned of the benefit of the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease.

(b) In its previous observation the Committee pointed out that the list of occupational diseases still covered only certain halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, whereas the Convention was drafted in general terms so as to cover poisoning by all such substances. It also pointed out that, unlike the Convention, the items introduced in the list in 1988 (Nos. C. 26 to C. 29) give a restrictive enumeration of the diseases caused by these substances. In reply, the Government states that, together with the IIAC, it believes that the list of prescribed occupational diseases fully covered those compounds in the halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon group which were known to have caused chronic poisoning in the United Kingdom. Poisoning by most other compounds is covered satisfactorily by the provisions regarding industrial accidents to the extent that, in case of poisoning, a claim for disablement benefit can be made under the Social Security Act. The Committee notes this information with interest. It hopes that the Government will have no difficulty in completing the national list of prescribed occupational diseases so as to cover all diseases caused by any halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, irrespective of whether they resulted from cases of acute or chronic poisoning (as already provided for in the national list for many other chemical agents, see Nos. C. 4, C. 7, etc.).

(c) With regard to anthrax infection, the Government indicates that it has received no evidence that the present terms of prescription for anthrax were inadequate and that there has been only one work-related recorded case of compensated anthrax in the United Kingdom in the past five years. While noting this information, the Committee believes that it will be all the easier for the Government to include the "loading, unloading or transport of merchandise" in the prescribed list of activities that may cause this infection, in order to formally comply with the requirements of the Convention on this point, which aims to establish the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease to the benefit of workers who have to handle merchandise of such a varied nature that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the merchandise handled has been in contact with infected animals or parts of animals.

The Committee therefore once again hopes that the national list of registered occupational diseases will be supplemented in conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this connection.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to re-examine its position towards supplementing the list of prescribed occupational diseases so as to conform to the Convention with regard to poisoning by the halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, disorders due to ionizing radiation and anthrax infection. In its reply, the Government emphasizes that there was no intention to limit the coverage of its legislation so as deliberately to exclude certain disorders and that the incidence of all occupational diseases continues to be monitored and the list of diseases supplemented when it is considered necessary. It adds that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) continues to keep the principles of the Convention in mind when considering whether the list of prescribed diseases for which benefit may be paid should be enlarged or amended. The Government, however, believes that all diseases which can be attributed with reasonable certainty to the nature of particular employments, rather than being a risk common to all persons, are in fact included in the list of prescribed occupational diseases, as required by the Convention.

The Committee notes this general statement. It also notes a number of specific regulations adopted by the Government to include certain new diseases and toxic substances in the list of prescribed occupational diseases, as well as the recommendations made to this effect by the IIAC, supplied by the Government with its report. It observes, however, that these measures still do not contain the necessary modifications to ensure that full effect is given to the Convention in the national legislation. It is therefore bound once again to draw the Government's attention to the points it raised in the request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

In the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee has expressed the hope that the list of occupational diseases in the national legislation will be supplemented so as to conform to the Convention with regard to poisoning by the halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, disorders due to ionising radiation and anthrax infection. In this connection, the Committee notes that the new list of prescribed diseases in schedule 1 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 (No. 967), as amended, does not contain the necessary modifications to ensure that full effect is given to the Convention. It must therefore draw the Government's attention to the following points:

(a) In reply to the Committee's previous comment that in the list of occupational diseases a number of disorders caused by electromagnetic radiation or ionising particles were enumerated restrictively, whereas the schedule to the Convention covers all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays, the Government states that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council concluded, in December 1986, that there was insufficient evidence of the need to add any further cancers caused by ionising radiation to the prescribed list. While noting this information, the Committee must point out that the Convention is deliberately worded in very general terms so as to cover all the pathological manifestations caused by the substances or agents listed in the schedule to the Convention when they affect workers engaged in the trades, industries or processes listed in the same schedule. By listing certain symptoms and pathological manifestations restrictively the legislation introduces a more limited system of coverage than the one provided for in the Convention which is drawn up in such a way as to ensure compensation for all disorders, even atypical or new ones, which might occur as the result of poisoning by or the action of an agent, as it deprives the workers concerned of the benefit of the presumption of the occupational origin of the disease. The Committee also recalls that the item concerning disorders due to ionising radiations in the list of prescribed diseases remains unchanged in relation to the 1959 list and does not appear to permit the compensation as occupational diseases of certain pathological manifestations such as, as was already pointed out in 1971, bronchogenic carcinoma of miners of radioactive ores or workers exposed to radon, lesions of the eye other than cataract, such as iritis and keratitis due to ionising radiation, or lesions of internal organs (in particular the thyroid) due to the action of radio-isotopes.

(b) The Government indicates in its report that four diseases caused by the halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series have been added to the above list of diseases (items Nos. C.26, C.27, C.28, C.29). While noting this information with interest, the Committee observes that, despite this addition, the list of occupational diseases still covers only certain halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series whereas the Convention is drafted in general terms so as to cover poisoning by all the halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series. Furthermore, the new items - C.26 to C.29 - added to the list of occupational diseases in 1988 give a restrictive enumeration of the diseases caused by the substances mentioned, unlike the Convention (see point (a) above).

(c) With regard to anthrax infection, the Government states that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council does not consider that the present wording of the activities that may cause this infection, i.e.: "contact with animals infected with anthrax or the handling (including the loading, unloading or transport) of animal products or residue" is inadequate. The Committee can only stress once again that, by including also the "loading, unloading or transport of merchandise", the Convention aims to establish the presumption of occupational origin of the disease to the benefit of workers engaged in these activities, so as to protect workers who have to handle merchandise of such a varied nature that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the merchandise handled has been in contact with infected animals or parts of animals.

The Committee none the less notes the Government's statement that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council continues to keep the principles of Convention No. 42 at the forefront of its mind. It therefore hopes that the Government will be able to re-examine the matter in the light of its comments and will be able to take the necessary measures to supplement, in accordance with the Convention, the national list of occupational diseases in respect of the above-mentioned points. It asks the Government to provide detailed information on progress made in this respect.