CMNT_TITLE

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

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.]