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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), communicated with the Government’s report and received on 13 October 2020, as well as the response of the Government, received on 29 October 2020.

COVID-19 measures. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Government to provide information in its report in relation to measures taken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (HSENI) in response to the COVID 19 pandemic, which include the provision of information and technical advice, and the establishment of dedicated helplines for workers, trade unions and the public to report concerns about workplace practices. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the HSE continues to engage with the tripartite stakeholders during this period.

Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. Number and conditions of service of labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted with concern the declining numbers of inspectors, and noted the TUC’s allegations concerning important staff recruitment and retention issues faced by the HSE due to limitations on career progression and unattractive wages, compared to similar positions in the private and public sectors.

As regards recruitment and retention measures, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the effectiveness of the HSE demonstrates that there are sufficient numbers of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of its duties. The Committee notes the statistics in the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20 indicating that there were 1,059 inspectors, visiting officers and regulatory compliance officers in the HSE as of March 2020, compared to 1,066 in March 2019. However, the Committee notes that the TUC alleges the existence of difficulties in reversing the declining numbers of inspectors and that there are only 290 full-time equivalent main grade regulatory inspectors for the whole of the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that additional financial and human resources have been secured to underpin the HSE’s approach to the COVID 19 pandemic. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the TUC, the additional staff secured using this financing can only be hired under fixed-term contracts, for this financial year. The TUC also indicates that the additional resources have been used to offer HSE staff overtime.

With regard to the conditions of service of inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it refutes the TUC’s observations, and maintains that the pay policy of the public sector is applied fairly. The Committee nevertheless notes the TUC’s reference to data from exit interviews in which departing HSE staff indicated to HSE that pay was the main or a significant factor for a large majority in their decision to leave. The TUC further alleges that the higher wages of temporary staff hired in the context of the pandemic have also led to dissatisfaction among the remaining staff. In response to the TUC’s observations, the Government asserts that it believes its funding to be adequate, including in relation to the response to COVID 19. The Committee recalls that, in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraphs 204 and 209, it underlined the importance of the levels of remuneration and career prospects of inspectors to attract, retain and protect high-quality staff from any improper influence. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of inspectors performing labour inspection in the HSE, and detailed information on the conditions of service of labour inspectors, including their actual remuneration scale and career prospects, in relation to comparable categories of government employees exercising similar functions, such as tax inspectors or police officers. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to recruit new labour inspectors or to improve the conditions of service of labour inspectors, with a view to retaining them within the labour inspection service. The Committee invites the Government to consider engaging in discussions with the social partners on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of any discussions undertaken.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(a). Financial resources of the labour inspection services. The Committee had previously noted the use of the Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme, which obliges employers in breach of occupational safety and health (OSH) requirements to cover HSE costs in identifying, investigating, rectifying and/or enforcing relevant violations. In this respect, the Committee noted the challenges, based on the Annual Report of the HSE 2018–19, relating to the effective management of the financial resources and the effect of the uncertain nature of FFI income on budgeting. The Committee also noted the TUC’s concerns regarding the risk of unintended consequences, such as employer reluctance to seek advice and technical information proactively from the HSE.

In response to the TUC’s observations, the Committee notes that the Government considers that there is no risk of employer reluctance, because the fee-paying work would arise in the first instance as a result of a non-fee-paying inspection or investigation. The Committee also notes that, in response to its request for the Government to take measures to address budgeting challenges, the Government indicates that funding is regularly discussed at the senior level of the HSE. The Committee notes that the Business Plan of the HSE 2019–20 refers to increasing the costs recovered from regulatory work, and to the submission of proposals for a future fees and charges strategy to the HSE board. The HSE further indicates in its Annual Report 2019–20, that it expects a significant reduction in its income due to its decreased ability to undertake cost recoverable and commercial work during the COVID-19 lockdown, and that this would inevitably result in a need for additional funding from the Government. Reaffirming that labour inspection is a vital public function, at the core of promoting and enforcing decent working conditions, and recognizing the particular challenges faced by the country in the COVID-19 context, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are allocated for labour inspection. As regards the cost recovery scheme, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether employers have been, or will be, surveyed about any reluctance or concerns they may have in seeking technical assistance and advice from HSE in light of FFI, and also detailed information on the strategy of the HSE regarding fees and charges, including income targets established for cost recovery work and the FFI scheme, if any. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the HSE’s proposals concerning funding, with respect to obtaining additional resources.

Articles 10 and 16. Resources of the labour inspection system and inspection visits. 1. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the reform of the labour inspection strategy regarding the planning and targeting of workplaces for inspections, and underlined the importance of ensuring that often-vulnerable categories of workers are not excluded from protection because they are not employed in high-risk workplaces or sectors, or are employed in sectors where labour inspection is considered too resource-intensive. In this regard, the TUC had alleged that some potentially dangerous workplaces were going without inspection because regional variations and other anomalies were not taken into account in the HSE’s approach.

The Committee notes the statistics contained in the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20, which refer to 13,300 inspections completed in 2019–20, including approximate numbers of inspections in different industries. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to the ongoing reflection and improvement work on the intelligence-led system allowing for the targeting of workplaces (“Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”), including benchmarking visits to provide a comparison for performance. The Government indicates that following this evaluation, steps were taken to ensure that resources were diverted to sectors where issues were identified. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in particular, that it is important to continue to monitor sectors outside existing higher risks groups, and that it considers vulnerable workers in the establishment of inspection priorities and programmes. The Committee also notes the TUC’s observations that the high rate of injuries in low-risk workplaces puts into question the approach of the HSE. The TUC states that the risk-ranking is based on the factory inspectorate model, and is not adapted to workplaces of today, where risks related to various occupational diseases, including COVID-19 infection and occupational cardiovascular disease, as well as psychosocial risks, may affect workers of all types. The TUC also expresses concerns that the data available for the “Find-it targeting tool” is limited, and that the decrease in inspector numbers will have an effect on the quality and quantity of the available data. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s response to the TUC’s observations, indicating that the HSE has dedicated staff undertaking work on psychosocial risks and that data on the subject is recorded and reported annually, thus informing prioritization and resource allocation. The Committee requests the Government to provide further detailed information on the manner in which vulnerable categories of workers, or workers in sectors outside identified higher risks groups, are taken into account in the HSE’s inspection priorities and programmes. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of inspections conducted, disaggregated by industry, as well as information on the outcome of the assessment undertaken of the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”, including their impact on the quality and quantity of labour inspection visits.

2. Strategies for compliance in lower-risk small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee previously noted that long-standing problems, such as helping smaller businesses to manage risks proportionately, were one of the targets of the period covered by the Annual Report of the HSE 2018–19. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the HSE has given advice and guidance to address the needs of SMEs on its website, and is currently reviewing the impact of this guidance. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the measures taken by the HSE on the compliance of SMEs with the relevant legal provisions, and to continue to provide information on measures taken to achieve this objective. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of its review on the impact of the guidance provided.

Articles 17 and 18. Prompt legal proceedings for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted a decrease in the number of cases brought by the HSE in which a verdict or conviction has been reached, and requested information on the HSE’s assessment regarding the reasons for this decrease. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that changes to sentencing guidelines for health and safety prosecutions in February 2016 have increased the level of penalties available, which has led to prosecutions taking longer, and that it is still reviewing the factors impinging on prosecution work. The Committee notes that, according to the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20, there were 355 prosecution cases where a verdict has been reached in the period covered by that report, as compared to 396 in 2018–19 and 509 in 2017–18. The Committee also notes the observations of the TUC, agreeing that the change in sentencing guidelines is slowing down prosecutions, as the prospect of potential increased fines has meant longer sentencing hearings. According to the TUC, the work in this respect takes a significant amount of inspector time and resources and these resource implications must be addressed. The TUC also urges the Government to include trade unions in the ongoing review. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that there have been no changes to HSE policy for decision-making and that it remains committed to prosecuting where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to do so. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on its assessment of the factors impinging on the HSE’s prosecution work and on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the situation, including increased allocations for inspector time and resources, and to provide information on any consultations held on this matter. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on the role of inspectors in the process, including the time and resources dedicated to these legal proceedings as a proportion of overall inspector time and resources.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), received on 30 August 2019.

Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. Number and conditions of service of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the observations of the TUC refer to substantial budgetary cuts within the last ten years leading to an insufficient number of labour inspectors (including technical experts) to effectively enforce compliance with the labour legislation (for example, in the areas of asbestos and fire safety) and that this number is further declining. The TUC adds that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) faces important retention and recruitment issues, in view of limitations on career progression and unattractive wages in relation to similar positions in the private and public sectors. The Committee notes with concern from the statistical information provided by the Government in its report, in response to the Committee’s request, that the number of labour inspectors decreased from 1,432 to 990 between 2011–12 and 2018–19. In this respect, it notes the indication of the TUC that the actual number of labour inspectors is significantly lower, as managers and technical experts are included in the Government’s figures. Recalling that the number of labour inspectors shall be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of their duties, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in this regard, and to provide information on the measures it is taking with respect to recruitment and retention. It requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of labour inspectors, and to provide its comments with respect to the indication of the TUC on issues arising from the current classification of technical experts and managers as inspectors.

Articles 10, 15(c) and 16. Resources of the labour inspection system and inspection visits. 1. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the reform of the labour inspection strategy, including: (i) targeting inspections in higher-risk sectors; (ii) reducing inspections in areas of concern but where inspections are unlikely to be effective; and (iii) discontinuing inspections in low-risk sectors, except where a workplace was underperforming concerning occupational safety and health (OSH). It also noted that it was planned to reduce the number of inspections in non-major hazard industries, from 2010–11 onwards, by one third every year. In this respect, the Committee considered that while the planning and targeting of inspection activities may be an appropriate method to achieve improved coverage of workplaces by labour inspection, it was important to ensure that often-vulnerable categories of workers (such as workers in small enterprises and workers in agricultural areas) are not excluded from protection due to the fact that they are employed in workplaces or sectors that are not necessarily identified as being high risk, or in sectors where labour inspection is considered too resource-intensive to undertake.

The Committee notes from the statistical information provided by the Government, in response to its request, that the number of OSH inspections undertaken between 2011–12 and 2018–19 remained relatively stable with around 20,000 visits a year and only slightly decreased by about 2,000. However, the Committee also notes the Government’s indication, in response to a request for disaggregated information on the workplaces concerned by these visits, that inspection data is only available in a published format as a general total. The Committee notes the Government’s indications, in response to the Committee’s request on the means used by the labour inspectorate to detect underperformance in the area of OSH of workplaces that are not expected to be subject to inspections, that randomly selected visits (benchmarking visits) are undertaken. The Government indicates that the full results of the intelligence-led system for targeting workplaces and the determination of inspection targets through the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool” are not yet available, but indicates that the process is generally effective in identifying sites, although it is important to continue to monitor sectors outside higher risks groups already identified. The Committee also notes that the TUC indicates that because regional variations and other anomalies are not taken into account in the intelligence-led system, some potentially dangerous workplaces are going entirely without inspection. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of labour inspections undertaken, and to provide its comments as regards the observations made by the TUC. The Committee also once again requests the Government to ensure that specific and detailed information on the number of inspections undertaken by the HSE is available, disaggregated by the number of workplaces covered by inspection in small, medium-sized and large enterprises and the sectors concerned. It also requests the Government to provide the full results of the assessment of the intelligence-led system for targeting of workplaces including the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool” once they are available.

2. Strategies for compliance in lower-risk small and medium-sized workplaces (SMEs). The Committee previously noted that in the context of the Government’s strategy to focus inspections on particular sectors, assistance is provided to employers in lower-risk SMEs to meet their legal obligations in the area of OSH (through the establishment of a register of accredited OSH consultants, guidance and online risk assessment tools, free access to advice on OSH and awareness-raising activities). The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to the Committee’s request, that self-assessments in workplaces are not legally required, and that their use is therefore not monitored by the HSE inspectorate. The Committee also notes from the 2018–19 report of the HSE that long-standing problems such as helping smaller businesses to manage risks proportionately were one of the targets of the period covered by the report. The Committee requests the Government to provide an assessment of the impact of the assistance provided to employers in lower-risk SMEs on compliance with the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(a). Financial resources of the labour inspection services. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that it was envisaged to further extend the Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme, which, since 2012, obliges employers in breach of OSH requirements to cover the costs of the HSE in identifying, investigating, rectifying and/or enforcing relevant violations. The Committee noted the Government’s reference to generally positive findings as regards the impact of the FFI scheme on the improvement of OSH management. However, it also noted some concerns in an earlier HSE report as regards the dependence of the HSE on the income from that scheme, the potential damage to the reputation of the HSE concerning impartiality and independence, and questions on whether the HSE has an income target for the FFI scheme.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to the Committee’s request, that about 7.5 per cent of the budget of the HSE is forecast to be recovered through the FFI, that the hourly rate for the FFI has increased from April 2019 and that the HSE is considering options to further increase the scope of fees and charges to recover more of the cost of its regulatory activities. In this respect, the Committee also notes with concern from the 2018–19 report of the HSE that managing the financial resources effectively remains a challenge and that the uncertain nature of the income that is derived from the FFI creates challenges for budgeting. As regards the potential damage to the reputation of the HSE, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a query and dispute process was introduced for the FFI scheme. The Committee also notes the indications of the TUC that, while the Government attempts to introduce money-raising elements to inspection, to partially reduce the impact of big reductions in public funding, they come with a risk of unintended consequences, such as employer reluctance to proactively seek advice and technical information from the HSE for fear of being found in material breach. The Committee recalls that, in conformity with Article 11, it is essential for member States to allocate the necessary material resources so that labour inspectors can carry out their duties effectively. The Committee emphasizes that labour inspection is a vital public function, at the core of promoting and enforcing decent working conditions. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are allocated for labour inspection, and to provide information on the concrete steps taken to address the challenges identified by the HSE with respect to budgeting. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the budgetary situation of the HSE, and the proportion of its budget raised from the FFI scheme. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the TUC observations on the risk of unintended consequences.

Articles 17 and 18. Prompt legal proceedings for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee notes the Government’s reference, in response to the Committee’s request for information on the number of infringements detected and measures taken as a result in each year since the reform, to the HSE’s website as regards prosecutions and enforcement action. The Committee notes from the 2018–19 report of the HSE that, between 2015–16 and 2018–19, there has been a significant fall in the number of cases brought by the HSE in which a verdict or conviction has been reached from 672 convictions (out of 711 cases with a verdict) in 2015–16 to 361 convictions (out of 396 cases with a verdict) in 2018–19. The report states that the HSE is currently examining the reasons for this decrease, including the possible impact of having a larger number than usual of inspectors in training. In this respect, the Committee also notes the reference of the TUC to a substantial decline in the enforcement activities of the labour inspection services mainly due to a decline in the staff number and inspections. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors are effectively enforced, in conformity with Article 18 of the Convention. In this respect, it requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the assessment regarding the reasons for the above-mentioned decrease. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of infringements detected and the measures taken as a result, disaggregated by workplaces covered in small, medium-sized and large enterprises and the sectors concerned.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Reform of the occupational safety and health (OSH) inspection system. The Committee previously noted the Government’s information on the reform of the national OSH inspection system implemented from 2011 with the launch of the “Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone” programme and requested more detailed information on the new system, particularly with regard to the following issues: (i) the reduction in the number of labour inspections; (ii) the increase in alternative forms of compliance such as self-assessments undertaken by private consultants; and (iii) the holding of employers financially liable for interventions in workplaces where they violate labour law provisions.

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 10, 15(c), 16, 17 and 18 of the Convention. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the Government’s decision to modify the labour inspection strategy. The Government indicated that this is to reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses and to make the OSH inspection system more effective. This is to be done by: (i) targeting inspections in higher-risk sectors (such as the construction industry or high-risk manufacturing and transport); (ii) reducing inspections in areas of concern but where inspections are unlikely to be effective (such as agriculture, quarries, health and social care); and (iii) discontinuing inspections in low-risk sectors (such as low-risk manufacturing and transport), although workplaces would still be subject to inspection in the case of underperformance concerning OSH. The Committee further noted that the identification of non-major hazard industries was made on the basis of a new targeting and intelligence system and that it was planned to reduce the number of inspections in non-major hazard industries, from 2010 to 2011 onwards, by one third every year. The Committee also noted the concerns previously expressed by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) that workplaces with identified lower safety risks do not necessarily have a lower incidence of cases of occupational disease, and that they should therefore not be categorized as low risk.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to its request to provide information on the abovementioned selection process of workplaces for inspection, that inspections are targeted in line with sector strategies (which are determined based on the size and demographics of sectors, the incidence of occupational accidents and diseases and ill-health rates, potential future risks, and so forth) and indicators of serious risks in the area of OSH (gathered from labour inspections, concerns raised by workers, information transmitted by other sources such as individuals or entities, and so forth). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the sector strategies will be reviewed in 2016 by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to set inspection priorities for the next three years, with the participation of the social partners. In addition, the Committee notes that inspection targets are determined through the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”.

The Committee considers that the planning and targeting of inspection activities based on several indicators including in collaboration with the social partners may be an appropriate method to achieve improved coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. At the same time, it considers it important that governments ensure that certain, often vulnerable, categories of workers (such as workers in small and micro-enterprises and workers in agricultural areas) are not excluded from protection due to the fact that they are employed in workplaces or sectors that are not necessarily identified as being high risk, or in sectors where labour inspection is considered too resource intensive to undertake. The Committee requests further information regarding the effects of the OSH reform on the coverage of workplaces by labour inspection, including on the reviewed sector strategies and the workplaces that were targeted as a result. In this regard, it requests that the Government provide statistics on the number of labour inspections undertaken in each year since the implementation of the reform in 2011, including information on the number of workplaces covered by inspection (in small, medium-sized and large enterprises) disaggregated by the sector concerned, as well as the number of infringements detected and measures taken as a result. The Committee also requests that the Government provide statistical information on the number of labour inspectors and the budget allocations in each year since the reform.

The Government is also requested to provide further information on the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”, as well as clarification on whether indicators such as a high incidence of vulnerable workers play a role in determining priorities for inspection. The Committee also once again requests that the Government provide information on the means used by the labour inspectorate to detect underperformance in the area of OSH of workplaces that are currently not expected to be subject to inspections. The Committee further recalls that absolute confidentiality regarding the source of any complaint is required by the Convention, and requests that the Government indicate how confidentiality is preserved since the HSE is acting on intelligence transmitted by various sources as described.

Articles 3(1)(b), 5(a), 9 and 13. Strategies for compliance in lower-risk small and medium-sized workplaces (SMEs). In its previous comment, the Committee noted the initiatives in the envisaged reform, aimed at assisting employers particularly in lower-risk SMEs in meeting their legal obligations in the area of OSH. These included the establishment of a register for properly accredited OSH consultants to provide employers with easy access to accurate advice on OSH, and the development of guidance and online risk assessment tools. The Committee notes as set out above that the Government’s strategy is to focus inspections on particular sectors and that the Government’s strategy in relation to SMEs is to promote the use of private consultants. This is supplemented by the awareness-raising activities of the HSE, including through the Estates Excellence programme administered by the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), a public sector research establishment, which has offered free support to more than 6,700 businesses since 2010. The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to its previous request for information on the use of OSH consultants and the risk-assessment tools, that no information is available on the impact on compliance as a result of their use.

The Committee considers that self-assessments may provide a way to expand the reach of labour inspection activities if the results of this process might be used by the labour inspectorate as a source of information for identifying violations, planning visits, and designing prevention strategies, as long as they are complementary to, and do not replace, labour inspection. However, the Government has provided no information in this regard. In the absence of a reply to its previous request concerning the existence of a legal requirement in this regard, the Committee once again requests that the Government provide information on whether the use of self-assessments in workplaces not subject to inspection is voluntary or mandatory. Should there be a legal requirement to carry out self-assessments, the Committee requests that the Government provide information on the extent to which compliance with this obligation is monitored and enforced, particularly whether dissuasive sanctions are imposed for incomplete or inaccurate reporting regarding violations; and any data gathered in this respect. The Committee also requests that the Government indicate whether the results of self-inspections are fed into the inspection programming process and to indicate that all workplaces remain liable to inspection by the labour inspectorate.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(a). Fee for Intervention (FFI) scheme. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that it was envisaged to further extend the FFI cost recovery scheme, which, since 2012, obliges employers in breach of OSH requirements to cover the costs of the HSE in identifying, investigating, rectifying and/or enforcing relevant violations. The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to the Committee’s request concerning the impact of this scheme, that independent reviews generated generally positive findings, including that the adverse impact on duty holders was significantly less than expected and that the FFI provides incentives for the improvement of OSH management. Moreover, the Government expresses its view that businesses in serious breach of OSH laws, rather than the taxpayer, should bear the costs of the HSE in helping them put things right.

However, the Government also acknowledges that some concerns were identified in the triennial review report of the HSE (referenced through a web link in the Government’s report) concerning the relationship between labour inspectors and those it regulates. The Committee notes that the triennial review report of the HSE raises specific concerns in relation to the FFI scheme as regards: a potential damage to the reputation of the HSE concerning impartiality and independence; the dependence of the HSE on the income from the FFI scheme (approximately £20 million (US$24.8 million) per year), without which its services are likely to be seriously impacted; and questions on whether the HSE has an income target to achieve through the FFI scheme.

The Committee considers that, in conformity with Article 11, it is essential for member States to allocate the necessary material resources so that labour inspectors can carry out their duties effectively. It is of the view that the regular allocation of resources shall be guaranteed irrespective of external conditions not under the control of the labour inspectorate. The Committee also recalls the principle provided for in Article 6 that labour inspectors shall carry out their tasks with impartiality, and the principle in Article 15(a) which provides that labour inspectors shall be prohibited from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision. Recalling that it was previously envisaged to further extend the FFI scheme, the Committee requests that the Government provide information on the current scope of application of this scheme (such as its application in certain sectors, in cases of specific or serious violations, etc.). The Committee further requests that the Government provide information on the budgetary situation of the HSE, and the proportion of its budget raised from the FFI scheme. Please also provide information, where applicable, on any measures taken by the Government to avoid potential damage to the reputation of the HSE concerning impartiality and independence.

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

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.

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Legislation. The Committee refers the Government to its observation and notes with interest the information pertaining to numerous government web sites publishing laws and regulations on occupational safety and health that came into effect during the period covered by the Government’s report.

Article 5(a) of the Convention. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other government departments. The Committee also notes with interest the various cooperation agreements that the Health and Safety Executives for Great Britain and Northern Ireland have concluded with other government departments and authorities. Noting the agreements on specific health and safety issues in the agricultural sector, particularly in Northern Ireland, and also noting from information available at the International Labour Office that the Government envisages re-examining the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), with a view to possible ratification, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of any developments in this regard.

Article 18. More effective penalties for breaches of the law. The Committee notes with interest that the Health and Safety (Offences) Act of 2008 introduced new penalties, including the possibility of imprisonment, and that it came into force in January 2009. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide statistics on the enforcement of these new provisions indicating any impact they may have on compliance with the legislation during the period covered by the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Health and Safety Executive’s web site www.hse.gov.uk/index.htm publishes numerous documents and information on many topics, such as surveys on the occupational hazards, including psychological risks, to which men and women workers are
most frequently exposed in a number of industries, together with measures
to reduce or even eliminate them. It notes, for example, the web page www.hse.gov.uk/lead/index.htm, which focuses on lead exposure and the specific risks incurred by men, women and young people who work with lead, and provides useful guidance for identifying and eliminating such hazards. The Committee firmly hopes that the information provided will be put to good use throughout the United Kingdom, as a supplement to the obligations under the Convention, and that other countries will also take advantage of it, in the interest not only of protecting men and women workers, but also of improving the economic performance of enterprises. The Committee notes with interest in this connection the information sent by the Government showing, through a study of developments in work days lost due to various health disorders, the close link between protection and productivity, which was also noted by the Committee in its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection (paragraph 374).

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the copies of the numerous laws and regulations on occupational safety and health adopted during the period covered by the report.

1. Article 5(a) of the Convention. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other services and institutions. The Committee notes with interest the information on the various agreements and protocols concluded between the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and other government departments and services with a view to improving the application of the Convention.

2. Article 5(b). Collaboration between the labour inspectorate and employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes with interest that, in accordance with this provision, since early 2005, the HSE has developed collaboration with the social partners in the context of a new programme intended to improve the quality and quantity of worker involvement in health and safety risk management with a view to prevention. This collaboration gives effect to the commitments made by the HSE in its Collective Declaration on worker involvement of 2004, the text of which can be viewed on the web site: www.hse.
gov.uk/workers/involvement/involvement.pdf. The Government indicates that an early result has been the joint revision of web pages by the HSE and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on the site www.hse.gov.uk/workers, which provides workers with information and advice to help them become more involved in health and safety decision-making. The Committee hopes that, as announced by the Government, this collaboration will enable the partners to exchange information on the benefits of worker involvement for workers and employers alike and will encourage more workers to become workplace health and safety representatives.

3. Labour inspection and work by children and young persons. The Committee takes due note of the developments during the period covered by the Government’s report in this field of the activity of the labour inspectorate. It notes with interest the development of initiatives, including those on the Internet, and the production of video packs, and the activities of inspectors in schools and universities to increase awareness among young persons on occupational risks and their prevention. In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction the initiatives taken with very young children in the context of the pilot project “Risk Watch Initiative”, which seeks to raise awareness among children of potential risks to health and security in everyday life so as to encourage greater understanding of occupational risks when they reach working age.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s replies to its previous comments and the annual inspection reports transmitted.

Taking note of the research results on the issue of child labour commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any measures taken following recommendations resulting from the research.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the documentation showing in particular a widening of the scope of labour inspection activities. It also notes the information provided in response to its previous comments, in particular its general observation of 1999 concerning the activity of the inspection services in connection with combating child labour.

1. Widening the scope of labour inspection activities. Noting with interest the annual Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) report for 1999-2000 concerning monitoring of the 1999 regulations establishing for the first time a national minimum wage, the Committee hopes that, following the wishes previously expressed by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), legal provisions on working conditions will also be adopted in other fields and relevant information on monitoring their implementation will be communicated in an annual report, as provided for by Articles 20 and 21. In this regard, the Committee would point out that the annual inspection report concerning health and safety at work has not been communicated by the prescribed deadline and it would be grateful if the Government would adopt measures to ensure regular transmission of such a report.

2. Child labour. Noting that a permit-based system has been established with regard to the employment of children below the compulsory school-leaving age, that the employment of children in factories and on construction sites is prohibited and that there are additional specific regulations concerning the risks of exposure to ionizing radiations and hazardous substances in particular, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate what steps have been taken to ensure that labour inspectors and other officials can effectively seek out and take action against hidden cases of illegal child labour.

Noting that in 2000 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned research into the issue of child labour across England, Scotland and Wales and that the study’s interim conclusions recommended that the structure of the system should be maintained, with the inclusion of certain improvements in practice, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, as it proposes, a copy of the final conclusions of the study when it is published and report on the measures taken following the recommendations resulting therefrom.

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

The Committee refers also to its observation and trusts that the Government will not fail to provide all available information on the point raised in its general observation of 1999 concerning the role of labour inspectors in supervising the implementation of legislation on child labour. It asks the Government to ensure that relevant information and statistics are given in future annual reports of the inspection services and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to provide labour inspectors with the means of seeking out hidden forms of child labour and of contributing to the formulation of policy and the adoption of legislation to fill any legal voids, in order to combat abusive forms of child labour.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reports and the abundant documentation attached to them. It notes with satisfaction that, following the observations by the TUC regarding the inadequacy of the legislation in respect of certain labour law issues in connection with the provisions of the Convention, laws and regulations on the minimum wage, health and safety at work and the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences have recently been adopted and that a copy of them has been sent to the ILO. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the arrangements made or envisaged to ensure that labour inspectors will be in a position to perform their duties effectively in respect of the new tasks arising out of this new legislation.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government in connection with its general observation of 1999.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (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.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's reports for the periods ending June 1993 and May 1995. It also notes the observations by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) of November 1993 and the Government's response of December 1993.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on the points raised by the TUC.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee has noted the Government's replies in its report to certain questions raised in the previous direct request, as well as the annual reports of the Health and Safety Commission up to the period "1991/92". It has also noted the comments of the Trade Union Congress, and proposes to return to these matters at its next session.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee refers to its earlier observations and direct requests and would be grateful if the Government would provide further particulars in the following respects:

Articles 4(1) and 10 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the report received in February 1992 that the categorization of inspectors seems to have changed from that used in 1987 and referred to in the Committee's 1988 observation, following comments as to the decline in the numbers of inspectors and inspection visits made by the Trades Union Congress. In particular, the Committee notes that there were 665.5 factory inspectors in June 1991, compared with only 561 in June 1987. At the same time, the numbers of mines inspectors (40) and specialist inspectors (110) as of June 1991 were half those in 1987, whilst wages inspectors (of whom there were 75 in 1987) are no longer mentioned at all. The Committee would be glad if the Government would indicate the administrative practice in this regard. Given also the increased responsibilities of the labour inspectorate as regards, for example, public sector industrial and commercial workplaces (such as shipyards and health service premises), would the Government please indicate how it is assured that the numbers of inspectors and the means at their disposal are sufficient?

Articles 2(1) and 16. The Committee would be glad if the Government would indicate how it is ensured that the transient construction and other workplaces referred to in the report are in fact subjected to inspection as required.

Articles 17 and 18. The Committee would be glad if the Government would provide copies of recent judicial decisions affecting the application of the Convention, particularly as regards the responsibility of legal persons to observe provisions enforceable by labour inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes that no later copies of annual inspection reports are available than the Health and Safety Commission Report for 1987-88. As regards Northern Ireland, referred to in the Committee's previous direct request, the report for 1987-88 was transmitted only in February 1992, and the 1989-90 report has not yet been received. The Committee hopes that the annual reports required by the Convention will in future be published and communicated in the prescribed time limits.

As regards labour inspection in the agricultural sector, the Committee has noted with interest the information supplied. It would observe that this relates to Convention No. 129, to which it would therefore draw the Government's attention, since the United Kingdom has not yet ratified that Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to the comments it made in 1988.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee notes the reports on the work of the inspection services that have been supplied by the Government. It hopes that in future the reports for Northern Ireland on the work of the Health and Safety Inspectorate and the Wages Inspectorate will be published and transmitted to the ILO in the time-limits set forth in Article 20.