COMMITTEE of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Tuesday, 19 Feb 2002

Vol. 4 No. 6

Health and Safety Authority - Financial Statements 2000.

Mr. T. Beegan (Director General, Health and Safety Authority) called and examined.

Chairman

Witnesses should be made aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. The attention of members and witnesses is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. They are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 149 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits or the objectives of such a policy or policies.

Will Mr. Beegan, please, introduce his officials?

Mr. Beegan

I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Henry, chief inspector with the authority; Mr. Pat Donnellan, head of corporate services, which includes finance and human resources, and Mr. Pat Goulding, who is in charge of specialist services.

Chairman

Are there representatives from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment present?

Mr. Beegan

There are two observers.

Chairman

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General have anything specific to report?

Mr. Purcell

No. The accounts for the year 2000 are before the committee. There is just one set of accounts in line with the committee's recent decision that its examination should be confined to the latest accounts sent to Dáil Éireann unless there are accountability issues from prior years which need review. There are no such issues, to which I need to draw the committee's attention.

The accounts give considerable detail about the authority's finances. The committee will see that income for the year 2000, overwhelmingly provided by Exchequer grants, totals some £7.7 million with expenditure slightly in excess of this at £7.9 million, most of which went on the salaries of the staff involved in delivering the various services.

During the year of account consultants commissioned by the board finalised a report on their review of the organisation. While the report contained some hard words about the thrust and effectiveness of the authority, at the same time it served as a valuable input into the development of its future shape and strategic direction. That is the positive way of looking at any exercise of this type.

Chairman

Mr. Beegan, do you want to make a brief opening statement?

Mr. Beegan

I have none prepared, but we are happy to be here and be of assistance to the committee.

Deputy Dennehy

The Comptroller and Auditor General commented about how positive everything is and I welcome the fact that the financial affairs of the authority are in order. Some issues have cropped up, however, since our last session. I understand the authority provides health and safety courses. Specifically, the one run in UCC is, as far as I am aware, the only one available in the south. A few people, one of whom had been sponsored by the local authority, failed in their attempts to get on it. When I inquired I discovered the number of applicants was about three times the number of places on the course. Bearing in mind that we are so safety conscious, does the authority have any plans to increase the number of places available? It is critically important that training is provided along the lines of the module in UCC.

Mr. Henry

The course in UCC which forms a very important part has been running for a number of years. Certainly, in relation to the Cork area, it has increased the level of competence overall. While we support it, it is in fact organised by UCC. There is another course running in Limerick and one in Waterford at diploma level. UCC takes in about 20 people per year, which is about the capacity of the course at this stage. It is very much a matter for the university to expand it. Even in Dublin and the other centres where such courses are run, we did not foresee such an enormous demand for them on a continual basis. If the other institutes of technology are not running diploma courses, they are responding by running certificate and foundation courses.

Deputy Dennehy

From memory, I believe there were 147 applicants for this course.

Mr. Henry

Yes.

Deputy Dennehy

As Mr. Goulding would be aware, for many years most of us up picked up our knowledge from NISO, ad hoc quizzes and various other activities. I am particularly concerned about the southern area where there are chemical plants and other activities take place. Does Mr. Henry envisage the authority facilitating the other 120 applicants in this case who are seeking training? I am aware that one of the applicants was sponsored by the local authority, Cork County Council. Given that a local authority is willing to put people forward for this course and pay for their training, it would be disappointing if they could not get a place on the course.

Mr. Henry

It is something we can examine. We can take up the issue with the institute providing the course on occupational health and safety issues. We are the victims of our success to a degree.

Deputy Dennehy

I appreciate that. It is a welcome trend.

Mr. Henry

If we can make representations, we will do so. We will pass on the Deputy's message.

Deputy Dennehy

I welcome that so many small organisations have decided to invest in training, specifically health and safety training. It is a statutory requirement in many cases to provide such training and I imagine we have a statutory obligation to provide a training facility. I would appreciate it if this matter could be examined.

Mr. Beegan

Mr. Goulding might have more to add in response to that question.

Mr. Goulding

I understand that UCC is well aware of this position. It took in candidates for this course on a two year cycle. It has now agreed to take in candidates every year, which may alleviate the situation. It has given a commitment to do that and, hopefully, in September it will take in candidates to do the course on an annual rather than a bi-annual basis. The course takes two years. We are keeping in contact with UCC on the matter.

Deputy Dennehy

If financing is required, it would be helpful if a case could be made for that immediately. It is welcome that people are coming forward to do the course and it is not a case of it being forced on them.

Are there views within the Health and Safety Authority on the incineration of hazardous waste? Have studies been carried out on it? Has the authority a view on it? Everyone who writes a column on the subject is an expert on the case for or against it, irrespective of their source of knowledge. We look to the authority for guidance on such issues.

Mr. Goulding

Hazardous waste sites potentially could become subject to the Seveso II Directive, a directive dealing with hazardous waste substances. That needs to be recognised in the context of the authority's role in this area. We examine what we call large-scale acute incidents rather than routine emissions from incinerators. For example, safety cases have been submitted to us in relation to at least one incinerator in the southern region. We would examine it from the point of view of the risk of a significant acute incident involving the materials stored there. Much of the concern about incinerators is in regard to what comes out of the stack. That comes under the EPA's jurisdiction, not that of the Health and Safety Authority. The EPA licences such emissions and this is a licensing area.

We would examine plans from the point of view of the safety of the storage of dangerous substances on the site, the potential for them getting out, whether that risk is acceptable and the area outside the incinerator plant that such a leakage might affect. In other words, we would examine how safe it is for houses and other establishments to be located near this establishment. That advice would be given to local authorities in terms of advising them on planning in relation to these issues.

Deputy Dennehy

Speaking as a private citizen rather than as a Member of the Oireachtas, is there any source of information that sets out the views of the EPA and the Health and Safety Authority on this issue? If people are discussing the siting of an incinerator in their area, they seek advice. It is not much help to advise them that the EPA has responsibility in regard to emissions from incinerators and the Health and Safety Authority has responsibility in regard to the movement and storage of the hazardous waste. That creates confusion for the public. I presume the authority has a view on whether hazardous waste should be dealt with by way of incineration. Has the authority any publications on that subject other than on the storage of hazardous waste? Has it examined the end result?

Mr. Goulding

Not in the context of the hazards of the materials emanating from incineration, except in so far as they might affect the workforce on site. As the Deputy is probably aware, the levels of exposure to the workforce at times can be significantly higher than what might be accepted in the public domain, given that a workforce in such an establishment accepts a certain level of risk and, from a work point of view, they are made well aware of the exposure levels that are acceptable.

In a more positive vein, the jurisdictions are clear. We have a memorandum of understanding with the EPA in relation to major accident hazard sites. This is to ensure that there is ongoing liaison on issues that might arise about which we or the EPA would have concerns in relation to putting together the proper package in terms of the judgment of such sites.

Deputy Dennehy

This committee does not set policy, it examines how money is spent on both sides. I have said that I am against the idea of incineration, but I could not argue that case on technical grounds. I have a gut feeling about it, perhaps because I was close to the issue for too long. Given that two State bodies are dealing with the one issue, the transport, storage, burning and emissions of hazardous waste, an information sheet on this matter should be available to the public. The provision of that might be considered, given that money is being spent on this area by the two authorities.

The income, apart from State funding, on the balance sheet is down substantially this year. It is down 33% from £376,276. Is there a reason for that? A number of headings are listed, including driver training exam fees and driver training fees. Does the Health and Safety Authority test drivers or to what does that heading refer?

Mr. Beegan

The decrease in income is largely due to exceptional items of sales we had in the previous year. For example, we made some videos on scaffolding that we sold which brought in some income. We had some joint conferences, particularly about asbestos, that brought in significant money. They did not recur in 2000.

Deputy Dennehy

The authority has 11 advisory committees. The combined expenses for ten of them was £20,000 and the expenses of the advisory committee dealing with the bullying task force was £61,000. Has there been a change of emphasis in the work of the Health and Safety Authority? Have the advisory committees dealing with dangerous substances, the construction industry, legal matters and so on done very little work or has the advisory committee on bullying done more work than the rest of the advisory committees?

Mr. Beegan

The advisory committee on bullying transcends two other Departments, including the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department responsible for the Labour Relations Commission. It had a significant amount of new ground to break. It also undertook some significant publications and consultations, work which would not have occurred in the other committees to the same degree.

Deputy Dennehy

In every organisation one issue tends to be a flavour of the month, so to speak. A few years ago the main issue was dangerous substances. Some 80% of the chemical industry is based in Cork and that issue hit the headlines for a while, but it has been pushed into the background. Only £930 in expenses was incurred by the advisory committee dealing with that issue last year. The authority should keep an eye on matters to ensure that one advisory committee is not given all the money that is allocated.

I wish to ask about the Seveso II directive. When I was chairing the committee previously, I asked if any map or list had been drawn up for the processes or plants concerned. I did not receive any list but I am concerned that we have signed up to and are bound by something that will have a massive impact on industrial areas. Nobody seems to be aware of what is happening. A fortnight ago in the committee I asked the Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment what had been affected by it. He did not know but he has communicated to me since then about an area on the south docks in Cork City. Cork Corporation has decided to embark on rebuilding a new town centre on a couple of hundred acres. However, in the middle of the site there is an ESB tank farm. The Shell site is also affected by it. In the case of the IFI fertiliser plant in Rushbrook, the zone around it was one kilometre but I am sure the minimum you will be seeking is a quarter of a mile zone around these places. A figure of 300 metres is mentioned in this notification.

If Cork Corporation is told it cannot build, under the south docks development plan, for 300 metres around a plant, it might as well forget the plan, even if it was drawn up by expensive consultants. The reason I was asking questions about this a year ago is that nobody seems to have said publicly what areas would be affected. You represent the authority and I appreciate that it is merely an advisory body but no planner in the country will go against your advice and rightly so. I am concerned that there seems to be no linkage between the Health and Safety Authority, which must police this and which took on extra staff to deal specifically with the Seveso II directive, and the local authorities involved until a planning application is made. That is bad practice and jobs are affected.

Passage West was stymied and could not move for two years even though it was designated for renewal under the scheme after many years of trying for it. I am concerned there is a second whammy in this. The knock down effect could be the loss of thousands of jobs if we do not get our act together. Has any approach been made to try and develop a national map denoting the sites? You must know the areas that would be affected, such as tank farms, chemical plants and so forth.

Mr. Goulding

Obviously it is a slow business for us to begin with because the Seveso II directive requires safety reports for the more hazardous sites and there are about 19 of them in the country. The total number of sites subject to Seveso is 65. All they have to do is notify us and the planning authorities of their existence. The amount of information we have on them is gleaned as we visit the sites.

What we have been attempting to do, in terms of the higher hazard sites, is to provide risk contour maps to the planning authorities in the areas. These risk hazard contour maps have been supplied, for example, in relation to Passage West and Tivoli in Cork, Clarecastle, County Clare and Cruiserath in Fingal. At the same time as we are visiting the smaller, less hazardous sites, we are preparing these maps to send to the planning authorities. That is an ongoing process. We believe, in the overall context, it will take probably one and a half to two years. At the same time, the local planning authorities know where these sites are and, if they have not already received the contour maps from us, we will attempt to prioritise looking at the less hazardous industries to be able to give them some information.

Deputy Dennehy

Having worked for many years on various matters with Mr. Goulding, I appreciate that everything he says is accurate. With regard to Passage West, the WIF got involved when nobody knew anything about it and stopped everything. That has now been resolved by engineering practices within the plant. I put a question on this matter last year to the Cork city manager but nobody knew of any other such locations. Since then, the major south docks plan has been brought forward. There was a problem about the possible contamination of soil in this area but nobody mentioned this until I put a question on it. The Secretary General was not aware of it but I got a reply from him last week. However, the 31 Cork Corporation members do not know about it. The planners might now be on board.

The development is going ahead. A new organisation has been set up to plan for the area from Páirc Uí Chaoimh to the north jetty. It is so big, it is hard to visualise it but it is effectively a new town. However, right in the middle there is the affected zone on Centre Park Road. I am concerned that people are just ploughing on like this. These are just the two matters in which I have been involved. I appreciate that we are retrospectively applying legislation from Europe but I am not happy that we are moving quickly enough. We seem to be waiting until somebody applies for permission to build a multimillion pound development before telling them they are caught under the Seveso II directive.

I only got this notification last Wednesday or Thursday. As a member of Cork Corporation, I should have been aware of it previously. This could jeopardise a development for which at least £100,000 has already been spent just drawing up the plan and working with international consultants. The notification was never mentioned. I think I asked the consultants about Seveso about six months ago and nobody was aware of any impediment or difficulty. There is a breakdown somewhere. People should at least get a flagging about these sites even if details followed later. We should publish the list. They are covered by legislation and we have nothing to hide.

You should be up front and say there are 65 of these locations and that you are evaluating how far these hazardous lines will go, whether it is 100 metres or a kilometre. We should be moving more speedily on this. I am afraid we will lose development. There will not always be plenty of jobs being created and we could lose some of them through messing things up. We lost Passage West. There is a massive problem there because of the two year delay. The designation was extended but I am worried that the HSA might be working in isolation on this. It is telling the planners the position but it should publish a list of the sites and, if it has to be upgraded or further investigated, so be it. However, it will flag difficulty for potential developments. It did not happen in the south docks development or in Passage West until after the event.

Do you accept my point? I am sorry for being so long winded about it, Chairman, but it is a serious issue.

Deputy Bell

Will Mr. Beegan expand on his interview this morning on RTE? I had to leave for Dublin and only heard a portion of it. I understood from it that you are launching a new programme. Could you tell the committee what it consists of?

Mr. Beegan

The interview on TV3 was in relation to stress in the workplace. This year the European agency for health and safety has designated stress as its topic for European safety week, which occurs in October. Our annual conference is on 5 and 6 March this year and the topic we have chosen for it is: Stress - A Time for Solutions. Our staff, with the education board in Scotland, piloted an innovative assessment tool for small businesses where the management and staff assess the situation together to determine if there are risks associated with the way the work is carried out, how it is managed and so forth and what may cause stress in the workplace. That is not meant to put the blame on the employer, but it is a mechanism by which both employer and employee can come together to put a family friendly working environment in place, redesign jobs, implement flexible working arrangements and, if necessary, address issues that impinge on their performance in work, some of which may come from outside.

We want to use the conference and this tool to start the debate as there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but the social welfare statistics do not indicate that it is a major problem - only 7% of people absent from work. Another school of thought is that there is no culture of people easily talking about being out of work because of stress or pressure. Other ailments, such as back pain, are used to cover it. We want an informed debate which would enable us to formulate a policy. We suggest that our risk management framework can be used to help people where this is an issue in the workplace.

Deputy Bell

It is a major problem in industry and the public service. I know of colleagues in the teaching profession who continually complain of stress and much of the absenteeism in the public service is caused by it. During the discussion this morning on TV3, you said that it was not quantifiable from the records of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Is that because a large proportion of people in employment, such as the public service, receive payment while out of work for illness for a limited time and so there is not so much medical scrutiny of the sources of illness?

Mr. Beegan

There are many reasons why it is so. One has been described by the Deputy. A recent European study set the figure at 12%. It has a lot to do with culture and its unacceptability. We must destigmatise it, which is part of our agenda.

Deputy Bell

We wish you luck as it is a major problem. My trades union colleagues identified it some years ago, but it was not taken seriously. As Mr. Beegan said, people are reluctant to admit that they are out of work because of stress, which makes it difficult to measure.

The major project on the borders of my constituency in Duleek, County Meath, is the building of an incinerator. An application for it was made by that county council along with Louth County Council. Was there any consultation with the authority on whether what was being proposed was safe for the environment and human health? The local authorities are proceeding in a particular direction and expensive experts were brought over from the UK by high powered companies to say that incinerators are safe. We expect the authority or the EPA to advise us. Given the money spent on these agencies, why do we not have a policy on what is safe for people and the environment if an incinerator is built, given that it will be the biggest environmental issue in our lifetime?

Mr. Beegan

There probably will be, but our remit is safety in the workplace itself, not the external environment. That is where our colleagues in the EPA come in as that is their remit. We would operate within the walls of the incinerator and are concerned with the health and safety of the workforce there. The EPA is concerned with the wider impact on society.

Deputy Bell

Given the international importance of this, should the EPA and Mr. Beegan's authority work together to establish national criteria so that local authorities can make decisions on incinerators' safety?

Mr. Beegan

We have a memorandum of understanding with the EPA on who has responsibility for what if events happen which impact internally and on the local community. We have ongoing discussions with the EPA and I will bear the Deputy's comments in mind on the wider matter.

Deputy Bell

As my trades union colleagues stated many times over the years, particularly about the building industry - unfortunately, we had a tragic building site accident in Dublin and another in Limerick today - most accidents, fatal or not, are caused by employers not adhering to the regulations. Would Mr. Beegan agree that is because there are not enough inspectors on sites since the authority does not have the resources?

Mr. Beegan

Compared to our neighbours, we do not have as many inspectors per 100,000 employees. In the UK, there are approximately 11 inspectors per 100,000 employees while there is five here. In the agricultural sector in particular, it is awful and any death or injury is one too many. We have increased resources in the last two years and now have 18 dedicated inspectors in the construction area. The fatality rate, a crude measure of progress, in 1998 was 15.06 per 100,000, but in 2001 it was 7.7. In the UK, the trend is the opposite as it is going up.

The partnership approach has led to improvements. We have a construction safety partnership which is composed of ICTU, CIF, FÁS and other interested parties and it has worked well. My colleague, Michael Henry, has a detailed knowledge of this area and can brief the committee on it. We are, however, disappointed at any death.

Deputy Bell

My trades union colleagues in the building sector - I was not directly involved in it but I was national secretary of the largest union - report that when trades union representatives raise health and safety matters, their jobs are in jeopardy. Once there were health and safety committees in all companies, but much of the building industry is unorganised and many new companies have no trade union representation. As a result, many problems are not identified because the eyes and ears of the working class are not on sites or in factories to report the dangers to the authority.

Mr. Henry

The construction partnership agreed to review the regulations. There is an obligation on all the bigger sites with more than 20 people employed to have a mandatory safety record. The workers can choose from among their numbers a safety representative to speak for them, but there must be a mandatory safety representative on all the bigger sites. We have a programme with FÁS which will ensure over the next few years that all workers will have got at least one day's training in relation to health and safety matters. If the site has more than 30 people, we must have a safety officer on site. The issue of welfare facilities is being taken on board by the project supervisors. We are coming to the stage where all the partners and the State bodies, including FÁS, ourselves and the Government as clients, are getting their act together and pushing out the boat on this issue. We have got a lot of support in this area. This was an extension to accommodate the recommendations of the partnership committee, but we are doing a root and branch review of construction regulations this year.

The type of small extension to Mrs. Murphy's shop will probably not come within our ambit. We will pick up some of them as we go along, but the issue of the bigger sites is being addressed. That is reflected in our enforcement strategy. Last year we had approximately 700 situations where we closed down part of the site. We appealed to the wider powers of the High Court where we needed to shut the complete site. On 50 occasions we were ready to go to the High Court, but the builders decided to shut down voluntarily and we achieved the same result. We are taking the matter seriously.

Deputy Bell

We welcome that. Can Mr. Beegan give us the number of prosecutions and serious offences committed by employers?

Mr. Beegan

In 2000 a total of 64 cases were taken by the authority in the District Court. Convictions were secured in 47, which is 73% of the cases. If one takes into account the number of cases where the Probation Act was applied, the success rate for prosecutions in those areas increased to 81%.

Chairman

Some 64 cases were taken to court in 2000. Would the authority have issued more than 600 prohibition notices in 2000 because of serious safety deficiencies on sites? Is it right to assume that the ultimate sanction of taking them to court would not apply in those cases where prohibition notices were issued?

Mr. Beegan

That is not always the case. Sometimes it is sufficient to get them to get their house in order. That is part of our dual strategy of support and enforcement. If we feel people are making a genuine effort and they will sort it out in a day or two, we will go with that. We will come back and re-inspect it and if it is all right, we will leave it alone.

Deputy Bell

My final question relates to an issue which has come to my notice in recent weeks and is a source of alarm. Many if not all insurance companies which insure for public liability have now decided to pull away from insuring for public liability on building sites except that section which is a member of the CIF or its associated companies. Criteria are laid down for entry into that. They must build two housing sites before they qualify for membership. The net result is that thousands of people will be put at risk in relation to public liability. Employers who enter that field without public liability must take a gamble if they want to go into business. It is probably not in the delegation's portfolio but it will have a big bearing on the work of the authority. It must be taken up with the relevant Ministers, which I intend to do.

Mr. Beegan

It is not specifically within our remit. I was not aware that some builders had that difficulty. We are aware that estimates internationally put the accident and fatality issue in any one country at a cost of approximately 2% to 4% of GNP. Almost one million work days were lost through occupational illnesses each year. The average number of days lost per worker as a result of an occupational injury is 41 days. It is alarming.

Deputy M. Ahern

Deputies Bell and Dennehy have covered questions I wanted to raise. My experience now compared to years ago is that everyone is well aware of the necessity for upgrading the area of health and safety. I know the authority is bringing people up to speed. I wish it all the best with its work because it is important.

Chairman

In 2000 the consultants, Farrell Grant Sparks, published a report at the authority's request. What did that report cost?

Mr. Beegan

Some £50,000.

Chairman

As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, the report was critical. It said the authority did not have a clear strategy and that it appeared to be living in the past. Can you tell the committee that the authority has a strategy and that it is not living in the past?

Mr. Beegan

One of the indications is that the board has decided to put in place the first phase of the report by recruiting a new chief executive designate, namely myself. We held the first meeting of the sub-committee of the board last week to put in place a strategy for moving forward on the recommendations of FGS. There are some significant funding implications of that report, which will be the subject of a memo to Government in the near future. We expect word back on that in the next fortnight at the latest. The board has committed itself to moving forward to put in place the structural changes which are necessary.

We have commenced our IT review and we received the first report on that this week. That will be acted upon. We are also putting in place a series of different methods of work processes which centre around projects in relation to change management initiatives. I joined the organisation on 17 September last. All the staff are fully committed to the new vision put forward in FGS and they are looking forward to working with me in driving that forward. I hope that by mid summer we will have made significant progress and that we will have made that much more progress again by the end of the year on the broad recommendations. A report which only focuses on structural change will not deliver the end results. There is as much work to do on the process and the way we do our work as there is on structural change, and we are attacking both.

Chairman

You mentioned significant funding. Does that mean significant funding to resource extra staff?

Mr. Beegan

That is right.

Chairman

What type of significant funding are you talking about?

Mr. Beegan

We are talking about phased funding. When the costings were done in a submission to the Department, we were looking at approximately 25 additional staff to make it happen. Depending on the word we get back from the Government, we will have to cut our cloth to measure and move forward.

Chairman

We hope the authority gets funding because it has an important role to play. The authority has been taken by surprise by the Celtic tiger in recent years, particularly the expansion in construction activity. It is a cause of concern when it must issue so many prohibition notices in one year for serious safety deficiencies. One would imagine people in the workplace would be conscious of such matters.

Mr. Beegan

That is true. We also have a significantly changed economic environment. Agriculture is a significant issue, as are modern technologies. Obviously, they bring new challenges which we also have to deal with. There is significant work for us to do which we look forward to doing.

Chairman

During my work as a politician I find that bullying still happens in the workplace. There was a sad story in one of the Sunday newspapers about a woman of 31 years and a supervisor, where the bullying always happened in private and there were no witnesses. One is inclined to think of bullying as taunting a person in front of others, as often happens in schools, but an insidious type happens in the workplace. You spoke about the stress inflicted on the person affected which often drives them out of the job. As you know, last year your organisation had a special task force on workplace bullying under the chairmanship Dr. Doyle. Is there a deficiency based on the fact that there is no State agency which deals with what is classified as workplace bullying?

Mr. Beegan

Our organisation has been charged with the co-ordination role between other State bodies, the Labour Relations Commission and the Equality Authority. We have a sub-committee. I hope, on a date yet to be decided during the week beginning 11 March, the Ministers concerned will launch the joint code of practice which has been developed by us, the LRC and the Equality Authority. It will be launched with an explanatory leaflet explaining the specific roles of organisations and people's entitlements. There will be no confusion. People will not wonder whether they will be sent from the Equality Authority to the LRC or the HSA. It will be quite explicit as to what should be done. A dignity at work charter, which has been reinforced by all the social partners, has also been launched and is in position. We will have a co-ordinating role and also be looking for an anti-bullying policy as part of the safety statement of any company we visit. If one is not in place, we will deem the safety statement deficient at which point, obviously, the 1989 Act can kick in.

Chairman

Again, at the time the commission recommended legislation, but the feeling was that existing procedures and legislation would cope with the situation. Can one be sure that if one did not have legislation to underpin this, it would be a success?

Mr. Beegan

I hope it would be on the basis that we would have a code of practice which is not a legal instrument, but which nonetheless can be used as legal evidence in a court case. We have found that a code of practice works well in other areas. While we will keep the matter under review, I hope the code of practice we will launch in the week beginning 11 March will be significant and taken on board. We will also be engaged with our two other colleagues in a very significant public awareness campaign and will be utilising all the resources we can in terms of human resource managers and other conferences to make sure everybody is aware of it.

Chairman

Can you be sure that human resource managers are people who do not go in for bullying?

Mr. Beegan

We cannot be sure of that, but in our role, through the examination of safety statements and the number of dedicated staff who are part of the anti-bullying unit, we will do whatever we can to make sure it does not occur.

Chairman

Briefly, what will the code of practice be?

Mr. Beegan

Essentially, it sets out what best practice should be - how the person who believes they are being bullied should react and, more importantly, what the role of the employer or supervisor is in the matter. It covers good supervision management and practice and also requests that there be a specific, agreed procedure - agreed site by site, organisation by organisation - to deal with the situation.

Chairman

I am glad there are developments in this area as this problem is causing concern. One senses that some who work in industry sometimes just cannot take the pressure. The focus in bullying naturally always rests on second level schools, where people have lost their lives as a result of bulling and examinations or designer labels. We will watch developments in this area with interest. I will be keen to see if this works when it is not underpinned by legislation.

Mr. Beegan

We will see.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for its time and being frank with us. We note the accounts and wish you well in the challenge that lies ahead. We are meeting at 2.15 p.m. on 7 March with University College Dublin and also resuming the examination of Vote 25, Department of the Environment and Local Government.

The witnesses withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 3.25 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Thursday, 7 March 2002.