Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1995, publiée 82ème session CIT (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.