Transition: Looking Ahead to Work Safety Supervision and Enforcement from the Central Government’s Guidelines”

Thread Content

Regarding the issue of enforcement boundaries, when the new Work Safety Law was first introduced, questions arose as to whether industry authorities had the authority to enforce regulations; it seems that these \"Opinions\" provide a clear answer to this question. The Guidelines specify that the work safety supervision and management departments are responsible for carrying out supervision, inspection, and law enforcement tasks related to work safety and occupational health within their respective areas of responsibility. “The “industry sectors within the scope of responsibilities” are certainly not all the industry sectors mentioned in the past, and the concept of designated responsibility areas should no longer be undermined by comprehensive regulation. The Guidelines also specify that the relevant departments responsible for safety production supervision and management shall, in accordance with laws and regulations, carry out their duties related to safety production and occupational health supervision in those respective industries, strengthen supervision and law enforcement, and take strict action against any illegal or irregular activities. It is clear that enforcement powers are to be granted to industry sectors. In other words, safety supervision agencies should no longer conduct inspections at construction sites, shopping malls, and other places that have designated authorities in charge. However, the Guidelines also assign the safety supervision agencies the responsibility for law enforcement oversight; from a contextual perspective, this seems to refer not to supervision at different hierarchical levels within the system, but rather to oversight of all law enforcement activities related to work safety. But how to implement it specifically requires waiting for specific guidelines. Regarding the subjects of administrative penalties, those subject to penalties for safety production violations are often the principal persons in charge of the production and operation entities. In the past, we always believed that there was only one main person in charge, and the objectives when imposing administrative penalties were also clear. However, the Guidelines state that since both the legal representative and the actual controller are the primary persons responsible for safety production, it is a question of whether both should be subject to administrative penalties at the same time, or whether only one of them should be chosen, and how such a choice should be made. The Guidelines state that the main technical responsible person holds the authority to make decisions and give instructions regarding safety in production, thereby identifying the targets for those \"other relevant personnel\" mentioned in various regulations. Regarding the supervision of state-owned enterprises, the Guidelines state that such enterprises should play a leading role in ensuring safe production and voluntarily submit to local supervision. This territory does not have a specifically defined hierarchy. If we have to make assumptions, then it should be possible for regulatory bodies at any level to oversee state-owned enterprises within their jurisdiction. Whether they are central government-owned enterprises, provincial-owned enterprises, or municipal-owned enterprises, they should set aside their pretensions and accept oversight and enforcement by regulatory authorities at any level, including the imposition of administrative penalties. Regarding the integration of work safety and occupational health, the «Opinions» state that it is necessary to ensure that efforts to manage work safety also encompass attention to occupational health, and that an integrated supervision and enforcement system for work safety and occupational health should be established. It is also proposed to strengthen the integration of laws and regulations related to work safety and occupational health. This requirement applies not only to regulatory agencies for safety but also to various other industry sectors. In the future, there will be no situation where safety inspection teams handle matters related to work safety while the occupational health department deals with occupational health issues; instead, inspections for work safety and occupational health will be carried out simultaneously, potential hazards will be addressed at the same time, and data will be compiled concurrently. Regarding the issue of law enforcement status, the Opinions state that party committees at all local levels and **should regard the work safety supervision and management departments as** their working departments and administrative law enforcement agencies. Being included among the administrative law enforcement agencies means that there is assurance regarding personnel, vehicles, and staffing, providing a basis for building the team. Furthermore, against the backdrop of tightening institutional structures and staffing levels, the emphasis on strengthening the workforce of work safety supervision and enforcement officers at the municipal and county levels reflects the elevated status of work safety enforcement. Regarding issues related to law enforcement support, the Guidelines also specify the need to develop plans for strengthening the capabilities in safety production supervision and inspection, to establish standards for regulatory and law enforcement equipment as well as vehicles for on-site enforcement and emergency response, and to enhance the development of technical support systems for regulatory and law enforcement activities in order to meet their needs. Include funds for regulatory enforcement within the full financial coverage provided by the finance department at the same level. Strengthen the institutionalization, standardization, and informatization of regulatory enforcement to ensure standardized and efficient oversight and enforcement. Overall, the idea that only law enforcement vehicles should be equipped with this has significant practical value; as for issues such as funding, those who have the resources will already be covered, while those without them won’t see much change. Institutionalization, standardization, and informatization have been discussed for countless years; whether they can be put into practice depends on the determination and effort at all levels. Regarding the issue of legal basis for law enforcement, in terms of regulations: The «Opinions» propose to establish and improve a coordination mechanism for formulating, amending, repealing, and interpreting laws and regulations on work safety. Strengthen the review of the consistency of regulations related to work safety, and enhance the systematicness and operability of the legal framework for work safety. Theoretically, law enforcement officers will reduce the risk of incorrect application of regulations, allowing them to focus on enforcing those regulations with confidence. In terms of standards: The Guidelines propose to accelerate the formulation, revision, and integration of work safety standards, and to establish a work safety standard system centered on mandatory national standards. In law enforcement in the foreseeable future, the number of mandatory standards that can be applied will increase significantly, and enforcement regarding work safety will become more stringent. The Guidelines also state that the standardization administrative department under the State Council is responsible for promptly initiating projects, assigning numbers, notifying relevant parties, approving them, and issuing them. It would be better to emphasize free distribution and complete openness. Regarding law enforcement plans, the Opinions suggest improving the regulatory and law enforcement systems for work safety, identifying the entities responsible for overseeing and managing work safety in each production and business unit, and formulating and implementing law enforcement plans. If each production and operation unit has a clear regulatory authority, then hierarchical and categorized regulation must be implemented more promptly. With hierarchical and categorized supervision and clear targets for oversight, it becomes relatively easier to formulate and implement enforcement plans. “The meaning of “order” in “follow the order” becomes clear then. Regarding the issue of connection between executions and criminal proceedings, integrating them has always been the ultimate means of addressing a particular serious illegal act. The Guidelines propose establishing a system to link administrative law enforcement with criminal justice. Departments responsible for overseeing work safety must strengthen coordination with public security agencies, procuratorates, courts, and other entities, and improve mechanisms for sharing information on work safety violations, as well as for transferring cases and conducting joint investigations. It was also proposed to study amending the relevant provisions of the criminal law in order to include those illegal acts that can easily lead to serious production safety accidents during the production and operation process within the scope regulated by the criminal law. This is somewhat similar to the criminalization of drunk driving in the past; its effects are evident to all. It remains to be seen whether it will still be an effective solution for ensuring safety in production. Of course, this also imposes stricter requirements on law enforcement in the area of work safety; the evidence collected and the facts established through administrative law enforcement can potentially serve as a basis for criminal proceedings. It’s not that I want to complain, but the current level of administrative enforcement in safety supervision is simply not sufficient to handle criminal matters. Regarding the issue of oversight of law enforcement, the «Opinions» put forward proposals at three levels: first, establishing a system for reviewing law enforcement actions and a mechanism for making major decisions in law enforcement, in order to assess the effectiveness of such actions and prevent the abuse of power. Evaluating the effectiveness of law enforcement is a new concept; the issue is how to assess such effectiveness, especially since it must be particularly difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of law enforcement in matters related to work safety. However, no matter how difficult it is, it’s best not to link it to whether an accident occurs, otherwise it will lead to extremes again. Second, improve the systems for recording, reporting, and holding accountable leading officials who illegally interfere with work safety supervision and law enforcement. Who will keep a record? If your supervisor greets you, will you keep a record of it? Third, improve the systems for correcting errors in work safety law enforcement and for disclosing information related to law enforcement, strengthen social and media oversight, and ensure that law enforcement is strict and that any mistakes are corrected. The disclosure of law enforcement information has been advancing, but there are issues with speed and quality. As for error correction, it represents another major challenge for law enforcement, based on the requirement for information transparency. Can I understand this as a \"driving mechanism for improving safety supervision and enforcement capabilities\"? Regarding the requirements of law enforcement officers, the «Opinions» suggest strict oversight of the management of their qualifications, the establishment of standards for recruiting personnel to oversee work safety, and an increase in the proportion of professional law enforcement officers in this field. Establish and improve a system requiring all safety production supervision and enforcement officers to take examinations upon entry, receive on-the-job training, work only with valid certificates, and undergo regular refresher training. This section does not offer any substantial innovation or breakthroughs. However, the proposal to \"increase the proportion of professional regulators\" is quite notable; it reflects the demands of frontline safety inspectors as well as the expectations of various enterprises. Yet, the specific scope of what constitutes professional regulators is not clearly defined. Given that I have a law background and have worked on the front lines of law enforcement for over a decade, can I be considered a professional? Regarding the use of results from law enforcement, the Guidelines propose to actively promote the development of a credit system for work safety, improve the \"blacklist\" system for companies with poor work safety records, and establish mechanisms for punishing those who fail to meet ethical standards and rewarding those who do. Although not explicitly stated in the Opinions, it is beyond doubt that law enforcement plays an important role in the construction of a credit system. Regarding the issue of law enforcement imagery, the demands from the national work safety supervision system finally reached Zhongnanhai. The ‘Opinions’ clearly call for the standardization of signs and identifiers used in work safety law enforcement, as well as of the uniform worn by those involved in such enforcement. For a task that is so specific, clear, and harmless, it should be coordinated and handled on the day the document is issued; the designs for uniforms and identifiers should be sent to safety supervision departments across the country by New Year’s Day 2017, and staff should start wearing them at work during the Spring Festival.