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

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ratification: 1949)

Other comments on C081

Observation

Direct Request

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments

2011

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the report submitted by the Government, dated 28 August 2013, and the observations made by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) dated 29 August 2013.

Articles 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23 of the Convention. Reform of the occupational safety and health (OSH) and labour inspection system. The Committee notes the Government’s indications on the plans to reform the national OSH system, which is described in more detail in the report “Good health and safety, good for everyone”, referenced by the Government and available on the website of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The Committee notes that according to this information, while the system of labour inspection continues to apply to all workplaces, it is envisaged, in the context of the Government’s objective to ease the burden of bureaucracy on businesses and to make inspections more effective, to: (i) target inspections in higher-risk sectors (such as the construction industry or high-risk manufacturing areas); (ii) reduce inspections in areas of concern but where inspections are unlikely to be effective and are therefore not proposed (such as agriculture, quarries, health and social care); and (iii) discontinue inspections in low-risk sectors (such as low-risk manufacturing and transport). However, in the case of underperformance in the area of OSH, workplaces are still subject to inspection. The Committee further notes that the identification of non-major hazard industries is made on the basis of a new targeting and intelligence system and that it was planned to reduce the number of inspections, from 2010–11 onwards, by one third every year (that is, around 11,000 inspections).

The Committee also notes the initiatives in the envisaged reform, which are aimed to assist employers, particularly in lower-risk small and medium-sized businesses, in meeting their legal obligations in the area of OSH. These include: (i) a review for simplified and modernized OSH regulation and legislation; (ii) the establishment of a register for properly accredited OSH consultants to provide employers with easy access to accurate advice on OSH, which can be removed from the register if they fail to maintain the required standards; and (iii) the development of a new “Health and Safety Made Simple” guidance, in addition to the online risk assessment tools already provided by the HSE for offices, shops, charity shops and classrooms.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that, in the framework of these reforms, it is envisaged to extend the cost recovery scheme “Fee for Intervention”, which came into effect in October 2012, and obliges employers in breach of OSH requirements to cover the costs of the HSE to identify, investigate, rectify or enforce such violations.

The Committee further notes, from the information provided in the Government’s previous report (for 2009–11) and the current report (2011–13), that the number of labour inspectors has decreased from 1,455 to 1,367, and that it is envisaged to reduce office accommodation with a view to becoming more efficient and less office dependent (provision of updated communication equipment, out-of-office connection to HSE’s electronic systems and more innovative ways for staff to maintain contact with their line managers and colleagues).

In this regard, the Committee notes that the TUC objects to the Government’s statement that “the system of labour inspection continues to apply to all workplaces”, given that the Government’s report admits that “inspection no longer takes place in lower-risk sectors where it is not effective in terms of outcomes”. The TUC further contests that these workplaces are low risk, given their high level of cases of occupational diseases, even if this statement might be correct as far as their safety record is concerned. Finally, the trade union indicates that there is no evidence that inspections in these workplaces are not effective in terms of outcomes. The Committee asks the Government to provide any comments it deems appropriate with regard to the observations made by the TUC.

The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the abovementioned plans to reform the OSH and labour inspection system, particularly with regard to: (i) the functioning of the new targeting and intelligence system and the selection process of workplaces liable to inspection, including the involvement of the social partners in this process; (ii) the voluntary or mandatory nature of self-assessments and the use of OSH consultants in workplaces not liable to inspection in the new system; and (iii) any means used by the labour inspectorate to detect underperformance in the area of OSH in these workplaces.

Please also provide information on the impact of these reforms (including the Fee for Intervention scheme) on the compliance with OSH requirements (number of infractions detected and legal provisions to which they relate, development in the number of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases, etc.), as well as information on the development in terms of the numbers of inspection visits and the human and material resources available to the labour inspectorate.