Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997

Vol. 483 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Health and Safety Authority Funding.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am grateful to your office for selecting this important issue. It is regrettable that it has taken the justifiable savage indignation of a High Court judge and the tragic fatality of a young building worker to provoke the current scrutiny of the adequacy of our health and safety legislation, whether fine levels are appropriate and enforcement is sufficient and whether an industry which is benefiting from an unprecedented boom is doing all it reasonably can be expected to do to safeguard the health and safety of its workforce.

In the case of the building group, the subject of Mr. Justice Kelly's unprecedented castigation, Zoe Developments Limited, the answers to these questions sadly seem open and shut. This company has continued on its careless ways after 12 convictions and three fatalities since 1991 and scarcely desires even the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Justice Kelly referred to the company concerned as "a corporate criminal" and warned the principal director that "the company was not entitled to make profits on the blood and lives of its workers". Unfortunately not even that eminent judge's trenchant remarks, or the £100,000 conscience money extracted from the poor box will provide much solace for the family of the young man killed on the Charlotte Quay site.

The alarming aspect of this controversy is that the trade unions involved with the building industry believe Zoe Developments Limited is not an exceptional case and that the protection of workers generally is not a sufficient priority in the industry. They instance the reluctance of the Construction Industry Federation and its members to release construction workers for safety training. There are scant statements in existence from the CIF sanctioning the release of workers for safety courses. Although workers are entitled to elect safety representatives under the legislation in many cases that is not facilitated by the employers. The proliferation of bogus self-employed contractors on RCT1 certificates cutting corners for profit enhancement serves only to enhance this negligent climate.

One of four recent collapses of scaffolding has taken place within metres of this House and, ironically, another took place adjacent to the headquarters of the Health and Safety Authority. Trade unions have drawn attention on several occasions to the incidence of accidents in the industry over the years. Yet we are advised that the spend on safety is approximately half that per worker in Ireland compared to the United Kingdom. More HSA personnel at the coalface are required on site inspections essentially because they are especially demanding at times of boom in the industry. The fine levels are derisory. One reads today of a fine of £500 being imposed following a fatality. I am not sure how realistic it is to invite the HSA to more frequently submit to the jurisdiction of a higher court. It is remarkable given the frequency and seriousness of transgressions that there is no role for the Garda in the area of safety. Why does the Garda Síochána have a role if one cycles past a member at night with no light on one's bike, but if one cycles into an unprotected hole left by a contractor it is a civil matter and there is no role for the Garda?

I am personally aware that the Health and Safety Authority has greatly modernised itself and availed of the potential of information technology to streamline the conduct of its business. However, I specifically ask the Minister to respond to the demand for additional resources for the HSA, to amend legislation on matters such as fines, to ensure that the industry is required to attach the higher premium to the safety and protection of its workers and to ensure the Garda have a role in certain circumstances.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I thank Deputy Rabbitte for raising this issue and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the understandable position taken by the Deputy on the loss of life of a young man of 24 years of age on a site managed by Zoe Developments Limited.

The first and perhaps most fundamental point is that there is a vast and comprehensive block of health and safety legislation which more than adequately meets the requirements necessary to protect our workforce and which conforms to all best international practices. The Deputy will be aware that measures such as the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, the 1993 general application regulations and the 1995 construction regulations provide a solid legislative framework by which effective and co-ordinated management of all construction projects can be ensured and by which health and safety standards can be formed.

The 1989 Act is the principal legislation dealing with occupational health and safety and it sets out in clear and unambiguous terms the responsibilities of employers and employees in relation to providing and maintaining a safe working environment. What permeates this legislation and what must be emphasised over and over again is that it is the primary duty of every individual employer to identify, assess and manage the health and safety needs of his or her business.

The 1995 construction regulations implement a European Union Directive concerning minimum safety and health requirements on temporary or mobile construction sites. Those regulations constitute one of the most detailed pieces of legislation dealing with any one specific industry. Their purpose is to reduce accidents, fatalities and ill-health during the construction phase of the project and during building maintenance.

Under those regulations construction work is now seen in broader terms, each undertaking is more a project than a job. Like all projects this requires proper advance planning, preparation and assessment with effective management and co-ordination while on site. Those regulations introduce an important concept, that of a chain of responsibility thus making health and safety an integral part of construction work from inception to completion. This requires commitment from all involved in the sector, including clients, design professionals, contractors and workers. In effect we are talking about a partnership approach in the workplace.

The solution to preventing workplace accidents does not lie in changing legislation, it lies in changing attitudes. It means moving from an attitude that accidents cannot be prevented and that they will happen. Accidents can be prevented when employers accept responsibility for their actions and obligations, not just their moral but their legal obligations.

The National Authority for Occupation Safety and Health, better known as the Health and Safety Authority, is responsible for the enforcement of all existing legislation providing for the health and safety of workers. That enforcement is carried out in a very proactive manner. The Authority regularly reviews and focuses on those sectors where most accidents happen. The construction sector is always given priority by the Authority with approximately 30 per cent of its resources devoted on an ongoing basis to enforcement in that sector, a figure which is disproportionate to the size of the workforce in the construction sector vis-a-vis the size of the workforce. That is a statistical fact. Deputy Rabbitte has drawn a comparison between our Health and Safety Authority and the work of the Health and Safety Executive in the UK. I wish to clarify the position. He will be aware that the HSE in the UK has a wide range of functions in the area of public safety in relation to the railways, gas and nuclear industries which are not the responsibility of the Authority in this country. Public safety functions absorb nearly half of the resources of the HSE. That point was made in an article in The Irish Times and I wanted to clarify the position.

In relation to the resources available to the Authority to carry out its tasks, which was the net point raised by the Deputy, there has been a steady increase in the funding and staff allocated to the Authority over the last few years. In 1990 Exchequer funding amounted to £2.3 million and in 1998 it will amount to £4.7 million. That is in addition to the Authority's relatively small income from fees, etc.

I recently secured Government sanction to enable the Authority to increase its total staff to 119 with effect from 1 January 1998. That will represent an increase of 20 per cent in approximately three years and an overall increase of 55 per cent in the last eight years. In addition, I have also recently received from the Authority a submission on its future staffing needs which is being studied by my officials.

There has been much comment on the fact that cases of breaches of occupational health and safety legislation are brought before the District Court where the maximum applicable fine is £1,500. The legislation also provides for fines on conviction on indictment for which no maximum monetary amounts are prescribed. Convictions on indictment may also be punishable in certain circumstances by a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

I stress I am satisfied that existing legislation and regulations are more than adequate to protect the health and safety of our workforce and I am also satisfied that the Authority is discharging its role properly. I cannot stress enough that what I want to see changed and improved is the attitude of some employers to the issue of worker safety. I want the message to go out loud and clear from Dáil Éireann this evening to companies that take shortcuts when dealing with the safety of their workers that they are dealing with a matter of life and death.