Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1995, publiée 83ème session CIT (1996)

Referring to its observation under the Convention the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points:

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that in its observations the TUC points to the absence of legislation on hours of work (and holiday entitlement), indicating that the Government strongly resisted the introduction of such legislation. The TUC also refers to the abolition of the wages councils as well as to legislation protecting young people at work; it also states that only safety, health and welfare at work are subject to inspection.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding the TUC's comments in its next report. It notes in this connection that the Agricultural Wages Board, the proposed abolition of which was also under review, has since been retained.

Article 5. The Committee notes the TUC's comments that trade union representation in the Health and Safety Commission has been reduced, contrary to this Article of the Convention which required that there should be collaboration between the labour inspectorate and workers' organizations. The Committee notes from the Government's reply that the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act, 1974, provides for the appointment of three Commissioners after consultation with such organizations representing employees as the Secretary of State for Employment considers appropriate, and that this has been the practice since 1975 when the Commission was first set up.

The Committee further notes the Government's indication in its report for the period ending June 1993 that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate spends less than 1 per cent of its time (about one inspector-year per year) on enforcement covered by the Convention, this relating to enforcement of the Ionizing Radiation Regulations for which they receive the same training as other Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors. In its most recent report the Government indicates that the multidisciplinary team now also includes human factors specialists as part of the expertise available to the inspecting officer. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report particulars on labour inspection in the nuclear installations, including on the results achieved through the new composition of the teams.

Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to the TUC all areas of the HSE were at the time it presented its comments subject to market testing, including the inspectorate, and areas of the HSE had already been contracted out, leading to uncertainty in other parts of the service. The TUC considered that this situation meant that the inspectorate and other staff in the HSE which support the work of the inspectorate were not assured of stability of employment.

The Committee notes from the Government's reply that indeed certain activities were being market-tested and that similar exercises would follow. The Committee notes that the Government has however indicated that there were no plans to market-test the main inspectorates. The Committee recalls that this Article of the Convention requires that the inspection staff be composed of public officials with the status and conditions of service that assure their stability of employment and independence of changes of government and of improper external influences. It draws the Government's attention to the explanations provided in paragraphs 136 to 148 of its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection in this regard and wishes to emphasize its view that any such arrangements should guarantee the independence and stability of employment of the inspectors and that the real test of this independence was the inspector's unquestioned ability to point out, without fear of open or covert reprisal, that the methods followed in an undertaking were contrary to the law and ought therefore to be changed. Please provide full particulars regarding the impact of the market testing exercises on the independence and stability of employment of inspectors.

Articles 10 and 16. In its observations, the TUC states that the Government's 1993 report fails to show that the number of inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate, taking into account factors such as the number, nature, size and situation of the workplace as well as the number of workers and the complexity of the legal provisions. According to the TUC, which refers to estimates by the HSE, registered firms are being inspected only once every seven years. The construction sector, which is given a high priority in inspection, has been inspected nationally on average once every five years and in certain areas only on a response and not on a regular basis. Referring to the privatization policy, and more particularly to the British Rail, the TUC considers that this process is placing an additional burden on an already understaffed organization. According to the TUC the Government is not analysing the needs and resources required for maintaining and improving the national health and safety enforcement agency and to permit not only enforcement but also the provision of advice to employers on raising health and safety standards.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its reply of 1993 that over the last five years the number of inspectors had increased and in the local authority the number of inspections had grown by 5 per cent between 1990/91 and 1991/92 with 1,360 "full-time equivalent" inspectors in 1991/92. The Government states that the rating system used by HSE to plan its inspection programme has ensured that preventive inspection is applied systematically and most frequently to those premises where the need is greatest and monitoring desirable. The Committee notes that in relation to the railway sector the Government has given indications on the foreseen development, stating among others that the monitoring role of the inspectorate would need to be enhanced as the railway industry developed and that the total number of railway inspectors was set to rise to 46 as compared to 25 in 1990.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that in 1994 as far as HSE's budget was concerned, the latter would be receiving a net grant of 1.9 million ( 6 million more than the 1993 level of funding) which represented a substantial commitment by the Government to workplace health and safety. It also notes from the Government's 1995 report that inspectors are deployed between industrial sectors according to risks and that the construction sector continues to be a high priority in this respect. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on the developments in this regard, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the TUC.

Article 14. The Committee notes that in its observation the TUC states that the 1990 Labour Force Survey (LFS) shows that only a third of those accidents reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) were reported, while for the self-employed the figures were as low as 5 per cent. In the TUC's opinion one reason for the lack of effectiveness of the system of reporting has to be linked to inadequate resourcing of the enforcing authorities including the HSE and local authorities, both for enforcement and for providing advice and assistance to employers. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the LFS has been instigated by HSE to uncover the full extent and the sectors which were clearly under- reporting. As a result of this survey and a review of RIDDOR, HSE developed a strategy for dealing with accident reporting and the provision of improved accident data. While this strategy leaves enforcement and inspection procedures to operational divisions it is accepted that inspectors would pay greater attention to employers' compliance with RIDDOR at routine visits. The Government has also indicated that the LFS has given HSE data to predict accident frequencies for employers by size and by sector, which would make it possible to target those workplaces which appear not to report. The Committee requests the Government to provide further particulars on developments and on the results achieved through the new strategy.

Article 15. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's reply to the TUC's comments that there are no plans to privatize the inspectorates, which privatization the TUC has feared would result in the inspectorate having a direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their inspection.

Article 17. The Committee notes that the TUC questions the sufficiency of resources provided to HSE to enable it to help employers seeking to improve their health and safety management systems. The TUC states that the number of staff employed in the Factory Inspectors section of the Field Operations Division has fallen from 1,236 in 1990 to 638 in 1992. The TUC also states that a recent Government review of health and safety legislation, said to have been aimed at lifting the burden of such legislation from employers, has found that it was not the legislation which employers considered a problem but finding the help and resources to enable them to comply. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the TUC's comparison of the number of inspectors was incorrect and that the high figures it had cited (such as 1,236 for 1990) could only be approached if the total number of all staff (inspectors and support staff) were included. The Government indicates that the actual number of Factory Inspectors in the Field Operations Division was 583 in 1990, 638 in 1992, 649 in 1993 and 664.5 in 1995. Advice is given by inspectors routinely to employers on all health and safety aspects of their operations, including the management of health and safety during visits and by various other methods. The Committee requests the Government to provide further particulars on any developments in this regard.

Article 18. The Committee notes that the TUC while welcoming the increase in penalties for health and safety offences regrets the reluctance on the part of HSE to enforce legislation arising from EC (EU) Health and Safety Directives. According to the TUC unless an employer knows that prosecution is likely in cases of health and safety offences, large sections of industry will fail to adopt a positive approach to implementing health and safety legislation. The Committee notes the Government's reply that inspectors are not reluctant to pursue formal enforcement when warranted and that HSC/E has never said that EC (EU) Directives would not be enforced. The Government had also indicated that enforcement should not be judged on prosecution action alone which was one of several such weapons available to HSE inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide more particulars on formal enforcement results.