CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report in reply to its previous comments concerning the application of Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Government indicates that there are no measures envisaged by the Government to ensure pre-assignment medical examinations for workers significantly exposed to substances listed in Schedule 6 (formerly Schedule 5) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (COSHH). It adds that where employees are exposed to substances listed in column 1 of Schedule 6 and engaged in a process specified in column 2 of Schedule 6, those employees are automatically and immediately subject to health surveillance, to include medical surveillance, under the supervision of an Employment Medical Adviser (EMA) or appointed doctor. The frequency and nature of the surveillance is directed by the EMA or doctor but it must not exceed 12 months. If an EMA or appointed doctor certifies that such an employee should not be engaged in work which exposes him or her to that substance, or that he or she only be so engaged under specified conditions, the employer must comply. The Committee once again recalls that the medical supervision called for under this Article of the Convention includes pre-assignment medical examination, as determined by the competent authority. The Committee recalls that the pre-assignment medical examination would be the appropriate way for the EMA or appointed doctor to determine and certify whether an employee should not be engaged in work which exposes him or her to that substance, or that he or she should only be engaged under specified conditions. The Committee would once again point out that a pre-assignment medical examination would avoid the situation whereby an employee may take up such an assignment only to be certified medically unemployable after the periodic medical surveillance, even if the frequency and nature of such surveillance is directed by the EMA or doctor and that it must not exceed 12 months. The Government is requested to provide indications on the measures envisaged in this regard.

2. Further to its previous comments regarding the situation of noise and the ratification of the Convention in that respect, the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that the situation continues to be under review, and that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is taking forward a review of the relevant unratified ILO Conventions and the ratification of this Convention in respect of noise will be considered in the HSE's prioritized rolling programme for 1998-2001. The Government is requested to continue to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard in conformity with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

3. Further to its previous comments concerning the situation of vibration and the ratification of the Convention in that respect, the Committee notes with interest that in 1994 the HSE published guidance on hand-arm vibration for managers, technical staff and occupational health professionals which describes the hazard and effects, and gives advice on control programmes, vibration reduction, measurement and health surveillance. This has been supplemented by a book of case studies of methods of reducing vibration, by a range of simple leaflets and by concentrating in 1998/99 on hand-arm vibration in a major awareness campaign on the management of health risks. The HSE also issued simple guidance in 1996 on the risks of whole-body vibration and what employers can do to protect their workers. The Committee also notes with interest the information that the Government continues to keep its position towards the Convention under review with regard to ratification in respect of vibration and that such ratification will be considered in the HSE's prioritized rolling programme for 1998-2001. The Committee requests the Government to continue to keep the Office informed in this respect in conformity with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention.