Telling the truth about occupational illness
Recording and notification of occupational diseases
ILO Conference 2002 - proposal
TUC and UK Government Responses
The TUC and the Government have responded separately to an International Labour Organisation (ILO) request for views on whether to create a new legal instrument on occupational diseases at its Summer 2002 conference.
Report V (1) Recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and ILO list of occupational diseases
The ILO background document and questions are on their website at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc90/pdf/rep-v-1.pdf and the TUC response and UK Government response are set out below (we are not currently aware of a CBI response).
TUC response to the ILO Questionnaire
The main features of the TUC response (not echoed in the UK Government’s response) are:
- the TUC supports the creation of an international instrument to ensure that workers get compensated fairly across the world, and so that we can obtain reliable international statistics on the extent of occupational injuries and diseases (click for more);
- injuries of a psychosocial as well as physical nature (e.g. bullying or threats of violence) should be covered (click for more);
- the TUC welcomes the coverage of work-related road traffic injuries, which the UK system currently ignores, but which kill at least 800 people a year in Britain (click for more); and
- the proposed definition of an 'occupational disease' should be widened to cover diseases caused or aggravated by exposures arising out of or in the course of work (eg many cases of work-related asthma) (click for more).
I. Form of the International Instrument(s)
The TUC believes that it is very important that the International Labour Conference adopts and international instrument as well as a mechanism for updating the list of occupational diseases. This has been recognised most recently by the Government group of the EU Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health at work in a Danish drafted paper on the future EU strategy on health and safety, which proposes an EU Directive on standardising reporting of accidents and diseases. The TUC believes that this should take the form of a Protocol to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981, and an accompanying Recommendation.
II. Content of a Protocol
The TUC supports the proposals that the Protocol should refer directly to Article 11(c) and (e) of the 1981 Convention, and we agree with the proposed justification for the measure, namely to strengthen recording and notification procedures for occupational accidents and occupational diseases with the aim of identifying their causes and establishing preventive measures and of promoting the harmonisation of recording and notification systems.
Scope
The TUC would prefer not to use the term 'occupational accident' because of the implications regarding foreseeability and blame associated with the term 'accident', and we would therefore prefer to use the term 'occupational injury'. As a priority, this definition should include injuries of a psychosocial as well as physical nature (e.g. bullying or threats of violence). This could, alternatively, be dealt with under 'dangerous occurrences', although we would argue that that would not adequately cover the fact that an injury has been suffered as a result of the bullying or threats while at work.
As a priority, the TUC would like to see the proposed definition of an 'occupational disease' widened to cover diseases caused or aggravated by exposures arising out of or in the course of work. Firstly, notifiable occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences should include not only diseases 'caused' but also those which are 'aggravated' by work-related exposures. Thus, asthmatic conditions worsened by occupational exposure and asthma attacks triggered by occupational conditions would be covered, as well as those specifically caused by exposures at work. Secondly, the exposures responsible for 'occupational diseases' should include not only those exposures arising from a work activity, but also those exposures occurring 'in the course of' work - as the injury definition does. This would include, therefore, social workers exposed to TB and those who contract lung disease as a result of passive smoking in the workplace.
We would prefer not to confine the term 'incident' to events where no personal injury is caused or injury only requiring first aid. These should be characterised as no-effect incidents or no significant effect incidents.
We strongly support the inclusion of commuting accidents as defined in the questionnaire. In addition, the TUC would also wish to see the inclusion of all road traffic accidents occurring within working time (which we assume would be included in the definition of occupational injury), as this is a serious omission in the existing UK system. TUC estimates suggest that as many as three times as many workers are killed on the roads every year as are killed at work by all other causes.
Systems for recording and notification
We support the proposal that, in consultation with employers and unions, national authorities should establish and periodically review arrangements for recording and notification, and we agree that the requirements and procedures for recording should include those matters proposed, with the proviso that any information collected about an individual should be made available to that individual (and at their wish, to their representative/s). We believe that the information notified to the national authorities should include the items covered, and we also believe that the information should cover the gender and ethnicity or the person injured or made ill.
In line with the ILO guidance on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, the TUC would also wish to see the inclusion of self-employed people within the notification and recording procedures.
National statistics
We agree that national authorities should publish the appropriate statistics annually, in a form compatible with ILO classification schemes.
III. Content of a Recommendation
The Recommendation should refer to the three Conventions listed, the need to update the list of occupational diseases and the 1996 code of practice, and we agree that the preamble should again contain the relevant justification for the measure. However, as a priority, the TUC believes that the list of occupational diseases set out in Annex B to the 1996 Code of Practice needs to be expanded to cover psycho-social effects of work. We also believe that, whilst the list can serve as the basis for national lists, it should be clearly stated that this is not inconsistent with systems of individual proof, or going beyond the diseases covered in the list.
The TUC believes that it would indeed be very helpful if the list were regularly reviewed by a meeting of experts, although we would stress that such a meeting should be tripartite in composition, and that its findings should inform Governing Body decisions to amend the relevant annex to the Recommendation. The TUC believes that such a meeting of experts should occur not less than every five years. It would also be helpful for the Recommendation to cover reporting to the ILO as suggested.
IV. Special Problems
The main problem with national laws which the instrument(s) will need to overcome is the provision for individual proof in many national systems. As indicated above, the TUC believes that the list should be the basis for national systems, but that individual proof should be allowed explicitly to go beyond the list.
The other main problem is that the system for updating the Recommendation’s list needs to be adequately resourced, and the Governing Body needs to be able to give the experts meeting’s findings the consideration they deserve (rather than waiting 11 years as has been the case for the 1991 experts meeting on the list).
HSE response to ILO questionnaire on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and ILO list of occupational diseases
HSE is about to undertake a fundamental review of the incident reporting legislation applying in Great Britain. This is planned to commence in the first half of 2002 and will not be completed until 2004 at the earliest. It is therefore difficult to provide a considered response at this stage - our thinking on the scope and content of the review is still at an early stage and it is impossible to predict how the final shape of any new or revised legislation might look. It would be useful to have an indication of the timescale for the ILO work in this area to enable us to try and consider how best to provide a constructive and timely input.
Part I - Form of the International Instrument(s)
HSE supports any international moves to increase the emphasis on the importance of recording and notifying, where appropriate to national authorities, occupational accidents and diseases. If the ILO decides to proceed, HSE would support adoption of a non-binding Recommendation - option 2b. HSE is unable to support the adoption of binding instruments - we are unable to support an approach that would specify particular approaches, as these may sensibly vary according to national custom and practice. There is little need for international harmonisation of data collection when the primary purpose of collecting the data is the prevention of harm at a national level.
Part II - Content of a Protocol
We do not consider a Protocol is the appropriate instrument for taking this forward.
Part III - Content of a Recommendation
HSE considers that any preamble should be clear about the aim of the potential instrument - the emphasis should be on identifying causes and establishing preventive measures. It is not appropriate to concentrate on the aim of promoting harmonisation of recording and notification - practices vary widely in individual countries. This is particularly relevant in respect of occupational diseases, where, in practice, individual countries’ definitions reflect administrative arrangements rather than being based on strictly scientific criteria.
It would not be appropriate to include 'commuting accidents' within the scope of a Recommendation - not all countries collect such data. For example, we have no plans to extend our legislation to cover such incidents.
The Department of Work and Pensions, which leads in the UK on matters relating to compensation for industrial accidents and diseases, also take the position that a non-binding Recommendation is the appropriate way forward. The UK Government would not countenance being bound by any international agreement on compensation for industrial accidents and diseases that:
- Would override or require change to current national legislation
- Impose definitions of accidents and diseases which were different from those used in the UK benefits system (or which could affect the national system of recording accidents and diseases)
- Remove from national jurisdiction and the advice of a national body of experts (The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council) what diseases were prescribed and eligible for industrial compensation
The UK scheme for compensating industrial accidents and diseases has to be seen in the context of the wider UK system that allows people injured at work to sue in the Courts and also to receive help for medical matters from a comprehensive National Health Service, open to all and free at the point of use - unlike other systems of worker compensation where the compensation system acts as a gateway to such help. These differences are the justification for the UK not wanting to be bound by international agreement in this area.
Part IV - Special Problems
The questionnaire takes a prescriptive approach in many cases to an international instrument. If the ILO is to proceed, the development of any instrument will need to take account of the significant differences in national practice.
In addition, HSE is about to undertake a fundamental review of the health and safety incident reporting legislation applying in Great Britain. It is not possible at this stage to predict the outcome of the review. It would not be appropriate for HSE to agree to particular approaches at this stage.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox