JOINT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC REGULATORY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 13 Oct 2009

Value for Money: Discussion with Health and Safety Authority.

Chairman

The next item on the agenda is a discussion with Mr. Martin O'Halloran, chief executive of the Health and Safety Authority, on its value for money role. I welcome Mr. O'Hallaron, Ms Mary Dorgan, assistant chief executive of prevention services, and Mr. Robert Roe, assistant chief executive of corporate services.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I apologise to the witnesses for the late start to the meeting which was due to what was happening in the House. I propose we hear a short presentation from Mr. O'Halloran followed by questions from members.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to attend this meeting, as requested by the committee, to discuss the value for money aspect of our role. Members are probably aware we appeared before the committee in January 2008. I am chief executive of the Health and Safety Authority and I am joined by Ms Mary Dorgan, assistant chief executive of prevention services, and Mr. Robert Roe, assistant chief executive of corporate services.

The Health and Safety Authority has a tripartite board and we report to the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Dara Calleary. We operate under a three-year strategy approved by the Minister of State and we work to annual programmes which are also approved by the Minister of State. We report quarterly on our progress in meeting our targets, which reports are approved by the board and transmitted to the Minister of State.

We have engaged an independent internal auditor to examine our processes, procedures and management processes, including financial management, and we report to the board on a quarterly basis. Audits are based on the risk profile of our activities, as identified in our risk register. We are also subject to annual audit by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

We have been asked to address the topic of value for money and I would like to do this by looking at it from two complementary viewpoints. The first is what value we deliver to society, the economy and individual employers and employees, and the second is whether we do our work in an efficient and effective manner so that we make the best use of our available financial and human resources.

I will start by looking at the value we deliver to society and the economy. In that context, I point out that in 2008, 57 deaths at work were reported to the Health and Safety Authority and an estimated 123,500 work related injuries and illnesses were suffered by workers. During 2007, 1.9 million days were lost owing to occupational injury or illness. That is based on a Central Statistics Office estimate. On average, we estimate that approximately 3% of workers are injured at work each year with that rate being much higher in hazardous industries such as agriculture and construction.

I refer to the economic cost of work related injuries. The report on the economic impact of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act prepared by Indecon Economic Consultants for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 2006 was commissioned following the enactment of the 2005 Act. It estimated that the cost to the economy was between €3.3 billion and €3.6 billion, or approximately 2.5% of national income. That is in line with international findings.

Workplace accidents are an economic burden on the State. Poor health and safety is a significant burden on the State. During 2007, the Central Statistics Office estimated that more than 26,000 employees in the public administration, health and education sectors were injured or became ill as a result of their work. The State assumes a large portion of the health care, emergency services and disability benefit costs arising from workplace injuries.

The benefits of compliance are significant. Indecon surveyed construction and other companies on the costs and benefits of complying with health and safety legislation. Some 96% of respondents said the benefits outweighed the costs and 1% said the costs outweighed the benefits.

The Health and Safety Authority has a relatively small staff of 197, 126 of whom are inspectors. Approximately 15% of our staff were recruited over the past three years to implement REACH, which is the EU chemicals strategy, a completely new area of work for the authority and very important for the large pharmachemical sector in Ireland. It includes some of the world's leading pharmachemical companies and companies such as Intel which we do not immediately associate with pharmachemical but whose industrial and manufacturing processes are within that area.

This year the budget of the Health and Safety Authority is €22.6 million, which is €1.8 million less than at the start of 2008. Based on current employment levels, this equates to approximately €10.80 per worker per year. That is the level of cost to the State of providing the Health and Safety Authority. Some €13.5 million is allocated to payroll, €2.2 million to accommodation, €1.2 million to information provision to industry, employers and employees and €1 million to travel and subsistence.

We have made savings doing things differently. For instance, publications will in future be published almost exclusively via the web through electronic downloads. This reflects the changing pattern of demand. That has one slight negative implication which is that the sectors which are high risk and may be self-employed may not have easy access to electronic downloads.

I refer to value for money in our working at height campaign. For many years, working at height was a major cause of accidents and fatalities. Over ten years we invested approximately €39 million in inspection, promotion, information and other activities. An independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the campaign showed that the rate of fall injuries was reduced to a third of its former value and it was estimated that the economic benefits accruing were in the region of €300 million.

I refer to value for money in our assistance to business. To assist employers and employees, we have developed materials and tool kits that are low cost and easily accessible. We have targeted small and hard to reach businesses especially with supports such as codes of practice for small construction firms and farms. We have run nationwide seminars and briefings for employers on a range of topics and have issued timely safety and occupational health alerts and notices.

In regard to our inspection activities, we have increased the number of inspections by 35% since 2002. When we remove the effects of changes in inspector numbers, this reflects an increase in inspector productivity in our inspection workforce of 20%. The increase was facilitated by radically restructuring the way we deal with requests for information, complaints and policy issues. We have restructured to achieve more efficiency and effectiveness in our organisation.

I refer to international rankings. We must be very careful in this regard because, while it is important to know how we are doing, we cannot lose sight of the fact that every accident and fatality is a tragedy for the victim, the family and the community. Accident rates and related absence in Ireland are some of the lowest in the EU and fatality rates are about average given the number of workers employed in high risk sectors. The demographic and worker mix will vary between member states. Specific HSA initiatives, for instance, work at height in construction, have been directly associated with significant reductions in injuries. A report was recently published by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work based in Bilbao. Figures released by the European agency have placed Ireland at the top of the EU table on perceptions of worker health and safety improvements over the past five years. Some 83% of Irish respondents to the pan-European survey indicated that worker health and safety standards were either better or much better compared with five years ago. This was the highest rating among the 27 member states.

In regard to the provision of information about workplace safety and health risks, Ireland was in second place with 80% of respondents claiming they were either fairly well or very well informed. First place was taken by our neighbour, the UK. A recently published report by The Economist intelligence unit, found that the HSA was a relatively low cost regulator compared with other national and international regulators. The operating cost per employee in the HSA was the lowest of the eight national regulators examined. The report also found that in relation to international comparators, only New Zealand had a lower regulatory budget and that the HSA had the lowest budget as a proportion of GDP. The HSA had the highest budget per employee compared with international regulators, probably reflecting the relatively low number of staff.

Looking at the potential implications of the current economic downturn, some aspects tend to increase injury rates, such as the reduction in resources available to employers and the HSA. Other aspects tend to reduce injury rates. For example, younger and less experienced workers, who have a higher injury rate than more experienced workers, are more likely to lose their jobs. On balance, injury rates are expected to decline somewhat during the downturn. We are probably seeing some evidence of this already. Some 33 deaths were reported to the authority relating to worker accidents in 2009. This compares with 57 in 2008, which was a reduction on the previous year.

Injury numbers and rates are expected to increase from the commencement of an economic upturn. This is based on independent research findings carried out by universities and regulators in other countries. During the initial stages of an upturn, production tends to increase faster than employment, placing higher demands on existing workers. Subsequent increases in employment bring in inexperienced or deskilled workers who are more at risk. It is important that the capability of the HSA to lead the reduction in injury and ill-health rates and to achieve savings in the large economic and social cost of accidents is maintained.

We have provided a brief overview to the committee, but we have also provided a more detailed submission for committee members which elaborates on some of the detail. We are available to deal with any specific questions.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I welcome the delegation and compliment the HSA on its good work. I wish to raise two issues, road safety and the implementation of the REACH directive on chemicals. There have been several high profile road safety cases where the subject of concern was the delineation of responsibilities between the Road Safety Authority, RSA, and the HSA. Is the HSA happy with the delineation of responsibilities between the HSA and the RSA and will Mr. O'Halloran comment on that? As I understand it, if it is a workplace accident, the HSA has responsibility. However, the issue seemed to arise in several legal cases in the past few years. In the case of road safety, it is easy enough to quantify the health and safety effects. If there is a road accident, the problems are self-evident in terms of trauma and physical injury.

I would like to tease out the issue of the REACH directive in some detail. Workers who deal with hazardous chemicals face the possibility of dramatic spillage or related difficulties. However, there is also a prospect or problem of long-term health damage through the inhalation of fumes or exposure to dangerous chemicals over many years. Again, I am concerned with delineation. The Environmental Protection Agency deals with the integrated pollution control licence, but I presume it is the Institute of Public Health that deals with general baseline studies of the population. Is that so? Does the HSA have the resources to examine, for example, a chemical process such as the manufacture of building products with a hazardous component and the general well-being of workers associated with that? Who deals with the effects in the workplace that might be quite difficult to assess and that would require a good baseline study of the general population, the workplace population and the difficulties that might arise?

Is the HSA happy that the delineation between the RSA and the HSA has been dealt with adequately? As we commence the first few years of the implementation of the REACH directive, what challenges have been identified and what should we be watching out for over the next few years?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

There are different aspects to the delineation between the RSA and the HSA, which have overlapping remits. We also have an overlapping remit with the Garda Síochána. Our remit with regard to the workplace is promotional and provides for giving advice and information. Following a bad incident involving accidents we have an investigative role. We overlap with the RSA on the promotion aspects and with the Garda Síochána on the investigative aspects. We have a memorandum of understanding with both of those organisations and we try and ring-fence our activities so that we focus on workplace activities.

To illustrate our focus in respect of the investigative side, for example, we investigated the Kentstown accident because it had a pretty direct association with the workplace and we took that investigation through to conclusion in the courts. In some more recent transport accidents, we were in close contact with the Garda Síochána through our memorandum of understanding and established that the Garda would take the lead role. We have an understanding with the Garda that in the event of there being aspects emerging from such investigations that point to work activities, it will invite us to participate and investigate. In addition, where files have been referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Garda Síochána and where that office considers the file it is preparing for prosecution may have a workplace aspect, it sometimes invites us to investigate.

With regard to our working relationship with the Road Safety Authority, I will ask my colleague, Mary Dorgan, who looks at the prevention side to give more information on the specifics of the collaboration we have with it and to explain how we work closely with it.

Ms Mary Dorgan

We have a memorandum of understanding with the Road Safety Authority, but the emphasis of our role is on the prevention of accidents. In the past year there has been and there will be in the future a greater emphasis by us on the whole transport area, particularly with regard to workplace driving and vehicles, and driving for work. In that respect there will be collaboration with the Road Safety Authority. Much of the RSA's work deals with promoting safety and preventing accidents in general, whereas our concern relates to people involved in transport and driving for work.

All accidents in which somebody has been driving in the course of his or her work are reportable to us. They are not investigated by us, but by the Garda which only calls us in where it is understood there is a link with work activity. That relationship has meant we have run joint seminars and have produced promotional material together. As recently as yesterday at the start of road safety week, we collaborated with the Road Safety Authority and were involved in an event that kicked off at Dublin Castle. We are fairly continuously involved with the authority. While it may not have been clear two years ago what we do and what the RSA does, this is clear now and our targets are clear. We have a five-year plan which sets out our role, which is being reviewed by our board currently.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I might just give some background on REACH, which is the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation. This was introduced as a regulation by the European Commission in 2008. It was given statutory expression here through the Chemicals Act 2008 and in that context the Health and Safety Authority was made the national competent authority for REACH. A role was also defined for the Environmental Protection Agency in that context and the two organisations have a memorandum of understanding. In fact just two weeks ago we had an operational review of the understanding in terms of our respective roles. I shall, however, address some of the more particular and substantive issues raised by the Deputy.

As regards, for example, the impact of chemicals in the workplace we have always had a role through our health and occupational hygiene remit. Take, for example, cement and construction work and the presence of chromates where we already had those powers in relation to investigations. The REACH regulation fundamentally emerges from the environmental stable rather than occupational safety and health, but they are inextricably linked. Chemicals are not discriminatory in terms of whether a person is working or going about his or her normal business, engaging in social activities, etc. When exposed to chemicals there can be positive effects, as with medication, or negative effects.

We have been doing a good deal of promotional work in raising awareness of REACH, to the effect that it includes everything down to domestic chemicals such as bleaches. We have been preparing for REACH coming into effect throughout 2007-08 in respect of a series of chemicals. We carried out a baseline study of the use of chemicals in Ireland during 2008 and we hope this will constitute a baseline for us when we come to re-examine it in a number of years. We also work very closely with industry. There is a technical, scientific and advisory committee attached to the HSA and we work with all the key players. We also work with IBEC and the trade unions in co-hosting events.

I am open to correction, but of the 27 EU member states Ireland had the sixth highest level of pre-registration and we were generally acknowledged to be very effective among the European states in terms of our approach to REACH. We send delegates to the European Chemicals Agency, ECA, in Helsinki and participate in some of its key working groups. As regards the specific question as to whether we have the capability to do a broader baseline study in terms of the general population, the answer is "No". We do not have the resources in terms of people or budget, but in so far as we have, we believe we deliver a respectable performance in the context of European member states.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

By way of background to this issue, the Irish pharmachemical industry has been a massive employer in recent years. It has been of enormous economic and social value to Ireland. However, we might take a worse case scenario of, for example, a health risk emanating from an industrial process involving chemicals that might cause problems for workers or indeed people in the surrounding environment. There have been examples over the last 30 years where concerns were raised about particular manufacturing facilities within the State. The EPA, in fairness, tries to investigate such cases. However, if a whistleblower was to identify a problem in a particular location, can the HSA look at the levels of exposure within the factory concerned or within a distance of it? Does it have the resources to monitor such a situation, carry out health checks or whatever?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

In relation to the chemical industry we are the national competent authority for the Seveso regulations or COMAH, control of major accident hazards. We also have responsibility for classification labelling, packaging, manufacturing, etc., a broad range of chemical legislation. We inspect a number of the chemical manufacturing plants in Ireland every year on a mandatory basis.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Are these random inspections and are they announced in advance?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The inspections that are mandatory are announced, because it is mandatory for us to inspect the top tier Seveso sites. They are also advised under COMAH to have external emergency plans in place. In that context we collaborate with the Garda, the Health Service Executive and local authorities in ensuring that in the event of a major incident, national emergency and disaster plans are implemented immediately. They are tested and reported to the Commission. When we reviewed the situation, I shall have to check the numbers, but the number of pharmachemical plants qualifying was in the high teens, and they all had their external emergency plans in place.

In the event that there is a complaint or an accident in any of the chemical plants, we carry out inspections and investigations. In this regard we have successfully prosecuted some pharmaceutical plants. We are entitled to carry out a range of occupational hygiene tests within the confines of a particular plant or to seek evidence from employers to the effect that appropriate control strategies are in place. Apart from the confines of the plant, the environmental or pollution aspects, we do not see the HSA having a remit.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Can the HSA protect the confidentiality of a whistleblower if he or she comes to it?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

There is a provision in the 2005 Act that a person cannot be penalised for bringing a matter to the attention of the authorities and he and or she has recourse to the Labour Relations Commission in the event of being penalised. A number of cases have been successfully taken at the Labour Relations Commission where it was believed there was penalisation of employees who brought to the attention of or alerted the authorities where problems were thought to exist. When we receive a complaint, we do not identify the complainant to the party complained of. Conversely we will not accept a complaint from a party unless he or she is willing to be identified because we have had malicious complaints in the past, which on investigation were found to be without substance. However, we protect the confidentiality of the complainant at all times.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

I am very grateful for Mr. O'Halloran's answers.

Deputy Peter Kelly

I welcome the people from the Health and Safety Authority. Everybody will be impressed that value for money is being highlighted in this report and that the HSA is very conscious of the need to give the taxpayer value for money. It is probably the leading State agency in this regard. Up to now nobody seemed to worry too much about value for money, unfortunately.

Of the 126 inspectors the authority has, what are the priority inspections they carry out? Do they involve chemical plants or building sites? How does the authority determine which areas to target? Would prevention be better than inspection, for example, a campaign to educate people about health and safety matters, rather than having inspections?

Does the authority get many complaints from local authorities about its remit, the rules and regulations and how they operate? Could the 33 deaths to date in 2009 all have been avoided? If so, how could they have been avoided?

There are complaints and criticisms of the HSA. Perhaps the delegates might tell me whether they are fair or unfair.

Members of county councils and other local authorities complain that it costs far too much to work on a road and that HSA rules and regulations account for 20% of the cost of resurfacing roads. Whether this is correct, they do not see the benefit in saving a person's life or preventing accidents because local authorities have had an excellent record during the years, with very few claims being made. While I may be exaggerating too much, a local authority member tells me that it costs a huge sum to fill a pothole, given health and safety rules and regulations. A local authority must also trim bushes and hedges and erect warning signs and traffic lights. It is similar to the situation where a circus arrives in town and has to provides lights and so on. That local authority member tells me that by the time the local authority has done all it has to do, it is not worth filling the pothole because the process is so costly. I do not know whether that is true but I would welcome a comment on the matter.

When a ring road is built, the NRA is responsible for allocating funding. When the ring road is complete and everybody is happy with it, does the HSA carry out an inspection? Is it within its remit to ascertain whether all the new entrances and exits meet the highest safety standards? Does it undertake a survey or examination of the old exits and entrances before the ring road is built? Is an inspection carried out to see whether a road should be closed, that it was properly closed and the marked to ensure a driver would not make the mistake of driving down a road the wrong way and perhaps ending up somewhere he or she should not be?

If one has a complaint to make to the HSA, how does one make it? Is its office open to the public? What are the hours and days of opening and how many visitors does it receive daily? I note there is a HSA office close to Leinster House, close to a well known hotel. Is that its main office?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I shall try to capture the points raised by the Deputy which concern how we assemble our inspection programme. They include the following: field inspectors and their prevention role; complaints from local authorities; the quantum of deaths - whether the 33 this year to date were avoidable; the cost increase arising from health and safety activities experienced by local authorities; whether we carry out inspections of NRA ring roads; and our complaints process. I will begin with the final point.

In 2006 we relocated from the office we were occupying in Hogan Place, close to Holles Street, to the Metropolitan Building in James Joyce Street. During this process we managed to negotiate a significant reduction in rent, with which we were very pleased at a time when the property market was at its fiercest. We also achieved better quality accommodation.

We have 126 inspectors, of whom 92 are field inspectors who carry out all of our field inspections. The target for this year is 17,500 inspections. The balance is made up by policy and promotion inspectors, in which regard we have a significant workload. I will deal with the investigative part, while my colleague, Ms Mary Dorgan, will outline the work carried out by inspectors not engaged in field inspections.

As I noted, the inspection programme this year entails 17,500 inspections, of which there are a number of fundamental components. For example, I stated in response to Deputy Cuffe that there were mandatory inspections which we had to undertake of COMAH or Seveso sites, the top-tier chemical sites in the country. We also have a policy of investigating every fatality because, under the UN Charter, such victims are entitled to have the matter dealt with by the State. We have a set of priorities, including a risk-rated approach to inspections, under which we deal with construction, agriculture, aspects of mining and quarries. It is a planned, or proactive, inspection programme, based on which we identify the locations at which we will carry out inspections. We also have a reactive inspection programme which responds to complaints and accident reports submitted to the authority which can refer to fatalities and serious accidents. These are the two key components.

There is a significant focus on construction. In regard to risk profiling of sectors generally, construction was traditionally the highest but, by virtue of improvements achieved in the past ten years, particularly as regards falls from heights, agriculture now exceeds it in terms of the number of fatalities. It is certainly the industrial sector in which one is most likely to come across a fatal accident. Interestingly, however, at a pan-European level public administration has been found to be the sector with the third highest level of accidents. It includes local authorities, the health care sector, the education sector and the prison service. While there may be a perception that the level of risk in these sectors is low, it has been found in Ireland and across Europe that, in fact, it is quite high.

On 1 January we implemented a modern IT system called GeoSmart. Through the data we collect, we are able to prioritise in order that when our inspector makes an inspection, he or she will have a full history of the interaction the authority has had in that place of work, covering every inspection carried out, every complaint received and every prosecution or enforcement action that might have been taken. Based on this data, we can very efficiently prioritise inspections in order that we focus our efforts on high risks, thereby delivering better value for money.

We carry out investigative inspection programmes on a rolling basis in sectors not classically considered high risk but which have particular risks associated with them, for example, the financial services sector, in which there would be a significant level of complaints submitted to the authority about stress levels, and the retail sector, in which there would be a significant level of slips, trips and falls. We always include an element of this information in each annual programme.

I will ask my colleague, Ms Dorgan, to provide information on the programmes we carry out in regard to the advice, information and guidance we provide for industry, the work of roughly 30 other inspectors.

Ms Mary Dorgan

The purpose of inspection is prevention. Even the field inspection process is not about catching companies doing things in the wrong way. Where they are, we obviously follow up on the matter, but the process is also about providing advice and indicating sites where we find things are being done well, which we see as in keeping with best practice. We can only reach so many workplaces. Face to face contact only occurs in approximately 17,000 workplaces.

On the other inspectors and what they do, if, for example, one takes a sector such as agriculture which is poles apart from a sector such as education or health, one has to reach farmers in a different way. We have two or three inspectors whose job it is to influence that sector by working with farming partners such as the IFA, the ICMSA and others. We have a farming partnership structure. That means putting into place whatever initiatives will make it as easy as possible for those involved to save themselves from injury and fatality.

I use the example of the farming sector because it has been a particularly difficult one in which to make progress. There has been a considerable amount of media coverage this year in that we have called on the sector to do something about it because the normal approach did not seem to be working. We have to tailor whatever we do by way of guidance, promotion, events and the seminars we run to the specific needs of the sector in question. What we might do for the farming sector could be very different to what we might do for the health care sector, for example.

Mr. O'Halloran has spoken about how we prioritise inspections. They are based on the hazards specific to the occupation, such as construction or quarrying. Two to three causes are responsible for the majority of accidents and lost days and they have a significant human and economic impact. I refer to slips, trips and falls at work due to something being spilled on the floor or other reasons. The second category is working at heights and the third category is manual handling, which accounts for approximately one third of all accidents and lost days. People who have manual handling accidents that result in musculo-skeletal disorders and back pain can be out of work for a long period. That is prevalent in the health sector and public administration, which is a good reason for us to raise awareness in those sectors. That is the type of preventive approach we are taking.

We do much work also in terms of amending legislation so that it is presented for the approval of the Minister in a language people can understand. We immediately present guidance or a code of practice to accompany all legislation. We run seminars and get as close as we possibly can to people. We meet them at breakfast time, dinner time or other times in whatever part of the country suits them, because from the feedback we are getting we know that this is what impacts on them.

We have a small contact centre which receives approximately 30,000 calls per year. Approximately 20% of calls are complaints about workplace safety. In some cases an employee calls us but in other cases it is a member of the public. We deal with those complaints there and then. If the issue is serious and requires the intervention of an inspector the case is passed to an inspector. We intervene immediately by contacting the workplace about which the complaint was made. A lo-call number is in use and the lines for the contact centre are open from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. every day, including lunchtime. That service has worked very well for us.

On the question about visits by the public, our offices are not public offices. They are field offices from which the inspectors operate. From time to time members of the public come in to meet inspectors but that follows on from contact having been made with an inspector about a particular case. Generally, there is no need for the public to drop in to see us. The contact centre works well as a point of contact.

Another question the Deputy asked was whether the 33 deaths or approximately 120,000 injuries or other ailments that occurred in the past year could have been avoided. We maintain that in each case there was a systems failure that caused the death or injury. There can be multiple reasons for the failure. It is up to us to address the reasons so that we can make it as easy as possible for people to assess the risk and put the controls in place. Those controls do not have to be costly. It was said to us recently that if one thinks it is expensive to put health and safety in place then one should try it the other way, as that is much more expensive. I have not dealt with a few matters.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

To reiterate, we believe the 33 deaths this year were foreseeable, avoidable and preventable. I do not have a detailed investigation to hand of each of those cases and, in fact, I would probably be precluded from discussing them because they may lead to prosecutions. To take a generic number of accidents, this year a number of farmers were killed due to entanglement with power take offs. Such accidents are avoidable and preventable at a modest cost. We find it tragic that year after year, for the want of less than €100 for a power take off protection, farmers can be maimed or lose their lives. That is just one illustrative example.

In addition to our workplace contact unit, we have a 24-7 contact number for the Garda Síochána. In the event of a serious accident or fatality arising with a workplace dimension our inspectors can be called out.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Robert Roe, to deal with the questions on complaints from local authorities and the costing of NRA ring road inspections.

Mr. Robert Roe

There is a demarcation issue between the Health and Safety Authority and other agencies on ring road inspections. We were involved with local authorities in recent years on their work practices in terms of road works. A judicial review was carried out by the High Court on enforcement actions we had taken. The result of that review was to clarify the demarcation on the responsibility between us and other bodies.

Essentially, the responsibility of the Health and Safety Authority is limited to those areas where work is taking place. The ruling is that according to the legislation governing us, a road that has already been constructed is not a place of work. We have jurisdiction on the inspection of the building of the road but once it is complete we do not have any jurisdiction on either the design of the road nor the construction of the road in terms of vehicle safety.

The other question the Deputy asked was about the costs associated with local authority road works. The figure mentioned was that approximately 20% of the cost of the job was due to health and safety. I wish to put that in context. The same economic consultants, namely, Indecon, which reviewed the overall cost and benefits of health and safety legislation, surveyed a large number of construction companies on the cost of health and safety on construction sites. Such sites are a high-risk area in which we have carried out a lot of enforcement activity. Construction companies reported that the approximate cost of the health and safety provision on construction sites was 1% of payroll, not 1% of the cost of the job. That seems to be much less than 20%, which is what I have heard from other sources also.

The regulations that apply to the construction of roads are exactly the same as those that apply to any other construction work. The only area that might be somewhat different in its application is that there is a specific requirement in our regulations specifying that anyone constructing a road or doing maintenance work on a road must ensure there is adequate signage and guarding to prevent people falling into holes and killing themselves, or driving off the side of a road. To my mind, 20% seems quite high in comparison to health and safety figures from other sectors.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I apologise for missing the initial contribution as I had to be in the Dáil Chamber. Having read the submission in the meantime, I echo the points made by Deputy Kelly.

I represent part of County Cork and the strong message I receive from local authority workers, particularly in the north of the county, is that the burden of health and safety legislation and regulation is impeding essential maintenance work. Will Mr. O'Halloran clarify the role of the Health and Safety Authority in the area of road maintenance as opposed to construction? Without wishing to raise spurious examples, many roads in north Cork are in poor state and require works to be done to fill potholes. Perhaps I am lacking knowledge in this respect but I understand a crew comprised of four or five local authority personnel which wishes to fill a pothole must first erect signage on both approaches, install a signalling system and erect bollards. This is ludicrous. I am not aware of legislative provisions requiring such measures to be taken to comply with health and safety regulations when filling a pothole. Health and safety regulation has become excessive and the health and safety industry has mushroomed in the past decade.

Members of the Oireachtas are legitimately the subjects of remarkable levels of scrutiny. Similar scrutiny should apply to the €22.6 million annual budget of the Health and Safety Authority. With the virtual demise of the construction industry in recent years, I presume the agency's 126 inspectors have less work to do. Where are their skills being employed? Some €13.5 million of the HSA budget is expended on wages, while €2.2 million is spent on accommodation and €1 million alone is spent on travel and subsistence. These figures add up to €16.7 million.

As a layman in this matter, I take the forthright view that health and safety legislation places an undue burden on the ability of companies to carry out work. We have lost the ability to employ a degree of common sense, as is borne out by my point that a whole industry has grown up around health and safety legislation. Perhaps we should withdraw some of the burden in the light of the downturn in the economy.

The issue of generic accidents at work was raised, particularly in agriculture, a sector in which I have a particular interest. Many of these accidents can be ascribed to human error. I do not agree that the HSA should send an inspector to every farm. Adults who operate a business must assume a degree of responsibility for their day-to-day activities. While I sympathise with anyone who has a workplace accident - God knows, I am aware of many who have had this misfortune - there is a degree of human error for which one cannot legislate and upon which one should not impose a regulatory regime, especially one which costs €22.6 million to the Exchequer every year in a period of major economic contraction.

I am raising these matters to elicit an opinion from Mr. O'Halloran. There may be a valid justification for the authority's budget in the current climate. What is the average salary of a field inspector? A distinction was made between policy and field inspectors. If there are 197 staff, of whom 126 are inspectors, what is the role and function of the remaining 71 employees in the organisation?

Reference was made to a judicial review in connection with local authorities. I did not understand the point that was being made, although I may have misheard it. I seek clarification on the process of judicial review and the demarcation between the role of the Health and Safety Authority and that of local authorities.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

Before asking my colleague, Mr. Roe, to provide a more detailed breakdown of inspector numbers, I will make a few fundamental points. The regulatory framework relating to the construction sector, including local authorities, is primarily the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the construction regulations and the general application regulations. Without exception, these are the Irish transposition and expression of European legislation. The role of the Health and Safety Authority is to implement and enforce the legislation, as passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is the context in which the HSA operates. It would not be appropriate to comment on the matter as it is the corpus of legislation we are required to enforce.

The Deputy referred to avoidable accidents. While an element of human error is involved, I reiterate the point that the vulnerability of a person is diminished when there is human error in the case of a tractor fitted with a PTO guard. Already this year we have had tragic loss of life as a result of this problem. If a PTO guard is fitted, rather than a fatality occurring where a temporary aberration or slip occurs, only the corner of a coat or sleeve will become entangled and the individual will get a fright. To use the logic of a judge who once argued it was better to be sacked than dead, in this case it is better to get a fright and spend €100 than to be dead. I apologise for being passionate about this issue but we strongly believe many accidents are foreseeable, avoidable and preventable.

On the budget of the authority - €22.6 million this year, as noted in the submission - its funding is the lowest among the authorities of the 27 European Union member states. Our annual funding amounts to €10.80 per employee in the State and we have the lowest level of inspectors, without exception, in the 27 member states. Notwithstanding these figures, as a result of the commitment and professionalism of our staff, the HSA achieves commendable results. Our position in the European league tables shows that in terms of the numbers of fatalities and reported accidents and perception, we are in the upper percentiles.

Our inspectors are remunerated at inspector grades 1, 2 and 3 which are related to the general Civil Service grade of engineer grades 1, 2 and 3 and are exactly comparable to engineers in local authorities and Departments. I do not have the specific salary bands to hand but they are directly analogous to those of engineers.

On the judicial review and judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Hedigan last year, the judge stated the role of the authority arose where there was an imminent prospect of work. I believe the point my colleague made was that we did not have a role in inspecting exits on ring roads and did not have responsibility for the safe design of roads, as these are not matters for the HSA. Our role arises when work activities are taking place. Our role kicks in during the design and construction phase and our primary remit is for the safety of the workforce during that phase and, under section 12 of the Act, other people who may be affected by it. The safety of the general road user who uses a road when it is in regular operation and open to the public is not a matter for the authority unless other work activities, such as maintenance, are going on.

In regard to the code on putting up signage before and after work is carried out to which the Deputy alluded, it is very similar to standard international practice. The code was introduced by the Department of Transport. We worked very closely with the Local Government Management Services Board and participated significantly in the preparation of that code, as did the Department of Transport. One of my colleagues may wish to elaborate further. The code of practice was introduced to ensure that there were standardised method statements and work practices which could be universally applicable so there would be a fairly homogenous standard throughout the local authority body. I will ask Mr. Roe to deal with specific issues regarding the detailed breakdown of the budget.

Mr. Robert Roe

In our summary we gave the headline areas of our expenditure. We have a payroll budget for 2009 of some €13.68 million and a non-pay budget of just over €9 million. The payroll budget is to pay our staff. In regard to our non-payroll budget, the figures are freely available in our audited accounts which are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on an annual basis.

The largest area of non-payroll cost is accommodation, which is just over €2 million. We have an area which examines consultancy and research. We do a fair amount of quite detailed investigations, some of which are very complex. Mr. O'Halloran referred to the Kentstown investigation. It involved our inspectors, who are engineers and are very competent. Depending on the investigation, one may have to bring in somebody to do specific tests. In the Kentstown case, people were called in to look specifically at the anti-lock breaking system and other aspects of the case.

There are other costs such as legal services. A judicial review was taken regarding Cork County Council which I mentioned. A number of judicial reviews are taken against the authority every year, which would be fairly normal for any active regulator. We serve enforcement notices and the effect of some of these is to prevent an activity from happening or to require employers to do an activity in a certain way. We have two or three judicial reviews every year, which is a relatively low proportion given the thousands of enforcement actions we take. They are not cheap to defend.

Other areas of expenditure are information and external communications. The cost of external communications has almost halved compared with the previous year. We are providing information to employers and employees. In previous years we did this partly through advertising but as a cost reduction measure we did no advertising whatsoever this year. Nearly all of the budget for that has gone. In the early part of the year it was spent on printed publications and as the year progressed we did other things such as holding seminars and providing other information on the Internet. There is a lot of activity in that area. We are very conscious of the budget we have and that we are facing a shrinking budget, and we work very hard to get the best possible value out of it.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

In terms of return on investment, the benefits to the economy of the interventions of the HSA are significant. The estimated cost of the failures is between €3.3 billion and €3.6 billion. The cost of the HSA on an annual basis is €22.6 million. We have an independent study which demonstrated that our intervention in preventing falls from heights over ten years yielded an estimated €300 million in savings. We can look at this from the human, economic and social dimensions. The work we do yields significant benefits.

In terms of the education of our inspectors, they are generally qualified engineers but we have engineers, scientists, chemists, pharmacists and toxicologists. We need to have one of every "ist" or "ism" one can think of. Most people in the organisation are graduates. In excess of 30% are qualified to masters degree level or higher and some 10% or 12% are qualified to doctorate level because we have to get involved in very detailed forensic investigations. We have strong enforcement. Where we find failures, we take strong enforcement action. Our philosophy is to try and seek voluntary compliance and minimise the burden on industry and employers. We try to take a very balanced position.

Chairman

I thank the delegates. In the value for money report, the economic regulatory unit found the HSA had relatively low costs compared with other national and international regulators. Perhaps the HSA would be kind enough to forward the report to the committee. We would appreciate it.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 October 2009.