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), 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.