Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC REGULATORY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011

Operational Efficiency and Strategy Statement 2010-12: Discussion with HSA

We have officials before us from the Health and Safety Authority to discuss the operational efficiency of the authority and its strategy statement for 2010 to 2012. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the authority Mr. Martin O'Halloran, Mr. Robert Roe and Mr. Brian Higgisson, respectively, chief executive, board secretary and assistant chief executive with responsibility for finance, and assistant chief executive with responsibility for matters regarding enforcement.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members 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.

This meeting is being broadcast live and can be seen worldwide on the Internet. I call on Mr. O'Halloran to proceed with his presentation.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The Health and Safety Authority welcomes the opportunity to meet the committee today. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. Brian Higgisson and Mr. Robert Roe, the authority's assistant chief executives with responsibility for workplace compliance and corporate services.

I will start by giving a brief overview of the work of the authority and especially what we are doing in agriculture. I will then outline our approach to regulating workplace health and safety in a manner that is sensitive to the requirements of Irish business, and will also address the initiatives we have undertaken to ensure our operational efficiency is maximised. We will then be more than happy to deal with any questions committee members might have.

We met with the committee in January 2008, so I will keep my overview of the authority relatively brief. Established in 1989, the Health and Safety Authority is the national statutory body with responsibility for enforcing occupational safety and health law, promoting and encouraging accident prevention, and providing information, advice and research to all companies, organisations and individuals. We advise the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs on the creation of legislation and regulations in this area and we represent Irish interests at EU advisory committees and technical working groups.

The authority has also been given responsibility for leading the national implementation and administration of the REACH regulation - the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals - which is a key legislative programme for Ireland's pharmachemical and high-tech sectors. As part of our remit on chemicals, not only have we responsibility for protecting human health and safety, but also competitiveness, innovation and environmental matters.

The authority is a highly-efficient organisation with a challenging responsibility. Our primary role is to develop and maintain a culture of safety and health for over 1.8 million people who work in Ireland today, whether they are employers, self-employed or employees. We have a staff of 185, of which 150 are involved as inspectors in accident investigation, enforcement, information and promotion, and development of legislation.

When we talk about numbers in the context of accidents and fatalities, we should remember that we are talking about people. These are human tragedies for the victims, their families and communities. Equally, we deal with accidents that result in absence from the workplace. The areas of work that we cover are as diverse as the economy itself. Our remit covers every type of workplace, ranging from sites where just one or two people are employed to large corporations with many locations and thousands of people on their payroll.

The authority has a duty to ensure that safety and health in the workplace is a priority for everyone. This involves a multifaceted and strategic approach by us. Our strategy has two principal strands. On the one hand it involves a focus on prevention, education and training, but then we have to enforce the law because we are a regulatory and enforcing body. To achieve this, we start with the principle that every one of the 1.8 million people at work in Ireland has a fundamental right to go to work and to return from work that day with his or her health and safety intact. Our mission is to promote a culture of workplace safety and health.

When we look at the number of accidents in the workplace over the last few years, we see an encouraging picture. Ireland is now ranked fourth in the EU in respect of worker fatality rates and third for absences from work greater than three days. The rate of fatality has fallen consistently over the past decade from 3.1 per 100,000 workers in 2001 to 2 per 100,000 workers in 2009. This means that there are hundreds of people going about their daily business who would be victims if these interventions had not taken place. It is difficult to quantify, but we know that this is what the downward trend means. Workplace fatalities have fallen from a figure of 74 in 2005 to 43 in 2009. This reduction is much greater than the reduction in the labour force in the same period, so there has been a significant underlying improvement. The number of workplace fatalities recorded in 2010 stands at 48. I use that expression because accidents during the year may result in fatalities at some later stage. However, I stress that no fatality is acceptable and our target is a zero fatality work environment. The rate of non-fatal injury in Ireland is one of the lowest in the EU and has declined by 36% since 2002. Looking at this from a high level perspective, Ireland can take pride in the consistent improvements that it has made in workplace health and safety. However, there is still considerable work to be done and every fatality is one too many.

In marked contrast to the positive story we have to tell about Irish workplaces in general, agriculture stands out because of the consistently high number of fatalities taking place within the sector. Unfortunately, we saw a very bleak picture last year. In 2010, there were 26 fatalities on Irish farms, almost always in circumstances that were foreseeable and avoidable. These fatalities represent well over 50% of all workplace fatalities in 2010, even though only 6% of the workforce are engaged in this sector. Put simply, a member of the general working population is approximately ten times more likely to die if he or she is working on a farm. The tragedy is that investigations usually find that such deaths are avoidable and preventable. In comparative European terms, however, Ireland has made considerable progress with its farm safety record. Despite the current difficulties, we are still ranked among the top five European countries. It is important to recognise that although the HSA drives national health and safety policy, primary responsibility for health and safety in any workplace resides with the employer or the person in control of the place of work.

We are pursuing a number of significant initiatives to make progress with this issue on farms. Approximately 20 inspectors carry out proactive work in the agriculture sector at present. In 2010, we established a dedicated specialist group of five agriculture inspectors and increased the number of farm inspections by 36% to 1,700. We aim to carry out 3,000 farm safety visits in 2011. We are developing new farm safety guidelines with the support of the major farming groups, which were called together by the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, early in 2010 as this tragic situation was becoming apparent. This material complements the extensive existing guidance. It includes practical tips that are designed to help farmers be more aware of risks. This will help them to protect themselves, their families and visitors to their farms. In light of the importance of raising awareness, we have redoubled our efforts by working with farming organisations, including the IFA, the ICA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, equipment suppliers, insurance companies and the farming media. We have a close working relationship with Teagasc in relation to training programmes.

Our broad approach to regulation involves ensuring workplace injuries and fatalities are minimised through a mix of education, advice, inspection and, where required, enforcement and prosecution. We have always been conscious of the need to conduct our work in a manner that is as friendly to business as possible. It is sometimes forgotten during discussions on business and regulation costs that a culture of health and safety compliance contributes positively to national competitiveness by reducing the costs of occupational illness. According to an Indecon report published in 2006, having been commissioned by the then Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Killeen, the economic cost of work-related injury and illness is estimated to equate to 2.5% of annual GNP. If we take 2009 as a sample year, that would come to €3.8 billion. Apart from the tragic nature of these incidents, it should be borne in mind that injuries and fatalities carry with them the likelihood of increased insurance premiums. This can affect individual enterprises and lead to increased premiums across the economy. The consequences of workplace accidents can be devastating for victims and businesses. Many of our inspectors observe that businesses where serious workplace accidents have occurred often cease trading some time later, as a pretty direct consequence of such accidents.

We are all familiar with the problems associated with financial regulation over the past decade. We know that effective regulation is essential. A balance needs to be struck to ensure we have enough regulation to ensure a safe working environment without imposing regulatory requirements that are costly obstacles for Irish business. It is our firm belief that the workplace health and safety powers and regulations given to the HSA by the EU and the Oireachtas are set at the minimum levels we need to make progress. Most of our inspections are directed at higher-risk sectors for safety and health issues. There is a focus on agriculture, construction and the use of chemicals. We also concentrate on places where accidents occur or breach of regulations are identified. I think most people will agree such an approach is reasonable.

Most businesses appreciate the advice we give them following an inspection. More than 16,500 workplace inspections took place during 2010, over 70% of which resulted in advice being given. Our inspectors gave verbal advice in 30% of cases and written advice in 40% of cases. Enforcement proceedings were taken in 10% of cases. In the remaining cases, we said "Well done" to the employers and encouraged them to continue to do what they were doing. We are keen to play our part in maximising the efficiency of the broader regulatory framework when dealing with business. Where possible, we collaborate closely with other regulatory bodies to reduce the need for multiple inspections. We are actively supporting the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation's current programme of removing old legislation from the Statute Book. We are simplifying the whole area of compliance by giving advice, offering online guidance and providing a range of tools and instruments.

We have a particular focus on the small business sector because it tends to have higher accident rates. We are committed to making it easier for this country's 235,000 small and medium-sized enterprises to comply with their obligations. During the last quarter of 2010, we ran a series of consultative forums across the country to give such enterprises an opportunity to tell us what they want us to do. We spoke to them about the difficulties they face and asked them how we can simplify health and safety. On the basis of that feedback exercise, we have organised a major exhibition, which will take place at the National Convention Centre in Dublin on 16 February next. We have received over 1,500 registrations in advance of the event, which will be run with the support and active involvement of a broad range of more than 15 partners, including the Small Firms Association, IBEC and ICTU. We are developing an electronic online tool that will enable small and medium-sized enterprises to complete their own safety statements and risk assessments by following a simple series of steps. This tool will be made available to industries free of charge and will ensure they no longer have to engage the services of a consultant. It is hoped that the tool will make life much easier for them. We believe it will increase awareness among enterprises of their obligations and reduce any fears or concerns they may have.

It is probably fair to say there are many misconceptions about health and safety. We are keen to ensure the HSA supports a pragmatic and sensible approach to health and safety. We have noticed that some organisations use health and safety as an excuse for not getting on with important and necessary projects. We do not take the view that projects need to be shelved. We believe that pragmatic and sensible means of making progress can be found in all cases. That is the principle on which the law is pinned. There is a tendency for the media to apply criticism of health and safety in the UK to Ireland, even though the actuality on the ground differs significantly between the two jurisdictions. A criticism that is sometimes made is that health and safety legislation leads to excessive costs and forces the closure of businesses. We do not believe the evidence supports that case. Proper investment in workplace health and safety saves lives and reduces costs. I will cut to the chase by saying health and safety is not a show-stopper. If people use it as an excuse for not getting on with the job, they are misleading the public and probably themselves.

I would like to speak about the extent to which we are operating efficiently. In European terms, per head of population, the HSA is one of the smallest workplace health and safety regulatory bodies. In spite of this, Ireland's workplace health and safety record is one of which we are proud. In addition to the important reductions in the number of workplace fatalities and injuries over the last decade, a number of other positive trends are worth noting. A survey that was independently commissioned in 2009 by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, which is based in Bilbao, found that the level of awareness among the working population in Ireland of the importance of health and safety is the second highest among the 27 EU member states. Our overall record in respect of workplace health and safety, both in terms of fatalities and reported accidents, is in the top four in the EU. That is not a HSA figure - it has been verified independently by EUROSTAT statistics. We take pride in these facts, which are indicative of the value the authority provides to the Exchequer and the wider economy. It is obvious that this committee is very interested in comparative analysis of economic regulators. The Economist Intelligence Unit study, which was commissioned by the Department of the Taoiseach and published in October 2009, was quite positive in its comments on the HSA. It found that by comparison with international peer groups, the HSA is considered to be a strong performer.

In recent years, there has been a reduction in the level of funding allocated to the authority, in accordance with the general trend across the public sector. The authority's budget has been reduced from €24.4 million in 2008, to just under €22 million in 2010 and has been further reduced to €20.5 million for 2011, which is a 16% reduction. Staffing levels in the organisation have fallen from 197 in 2008 to 185 and continuing downwards.

In response to these changes, we have reorganised our operations over recent years to achieve the highest levels of efficiency in line with our scale and budgets. In 2010, we carried out more than 16,500 inspections, significantly up from the figure of 13,552 in 2005. Our ICT system enables us to become very focused and targeted on high risk sectors. We have introduced a wide range of efficiency measures and our new inspection system has resulted in a 10% increase in time spent by inspectors at workplaces and in targeting workplaces that require attention.

Our workplace contact unit, or call centre, handles more than 30,000 calls per annum. Since 2007, we have dealt with more than 2,500 queries on the economic aspects of chemical regulation. Since the latter quarter of 2010, we have been using technology webinars to engage with participants in Ireland and as far a field as Hong Kong and a number of EU states.

We are conscious of the need for joined-up thinking among State agencies and to this end we have bilateral relations with 20 other organisations, ranging from memorandums of understanding for example with the Garda Síochána, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, the Department of Education and Skills, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commission for Energy Regulation and many more.

Ireland has made significant progress in health and safety in the workplace, measured by the reduction in the number of fatalities and workplace accidents over the decades. The authority is conscious of the challenges facing Irish business. We are committed to working with industry in a supportive way. A number of new challenges have arisen that have seen workplace health and safety regulation either ignored or used as an excuse for inaction by Irish organisations. The authority is confronting these problems and is going out and meeting organisations and advising them on a sensible and pragmatic approach. We are also keenly aware of our responsibility to continue to improve the efficiency of our operations. Research has shown that, in spite of our comparatively modest size and funding levels, we are delivering top-level outcomes in terms of workplace health and safety. We are strongly committed to continuing to deepen co-operation with our regulatory partners in order to reduce unnecessary burdens on business. That will be a major focus in 2011. I thank the Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. O'Halloran. We will take a number of speakers before returning to the witnesses. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Mr. O'Halloran for the broad overview of the work of the Health and Safety Authority. I know that in the time available there was insufficient time to go into the depth that he would have liked. I will leave the issue of farm accidents to those members who have more knowledge of those matters and deal with the chemical industry.

It is said generally that we should avoid the chemical industry from an environmental, health and safety point of view, yet we know it is a significant contributor to and lifesaver of our economy. Does the chemical industry present challenges to the environment and to the health and safety of the population? Does the outcome match off against the benefits that have accrued to the economy from it?

In the course of his address Mr. O'Halloran stated that a number of new challenges have arisen where the health and safety regulations are either ignored or used as an excuse for inaction by Irish organisations. Could he elaborate on that comment?

I thank the delegation for this very interesting presentation. It is good to see that the number of accidents and fatalities is coming down. I was very struck by the fact that half the fatalities result from accidents on farms. I was very interested in the section on misconceptions about health and safety. Inevitably members will ask about the misconceptions and I stress that I am not being pejorative in what I say but I am merely reporting what I have been told, namely, that since the demise of the building industry the HSA is justifying its existence by making a job for its inspectors who have time for nitpicking at other businesses which is causing great anxiety and increasing their costs. I have been told anecdotally that requirements are being put in their way which are almost ludicrous. I have no evidence of this but this is what people are saying.

I am sure the HSA spent a great deal of time checking up on the building industry, but that time is no longer required. The numbers employed by the HSA have been reduced by 12, but will Mr. O'Halloran outline where the staff reductions have taken place? Were the staff reductions in the areas of inspections, compliance and enforcement or in corporate services? Again I hear that businesses are subject to inspection by such a range of bodies. I have become involved recently in the tourism industry and restaurants and hotels bitterly complain about the number of inspections to which they are subject, for example, VAT inspections, environmental health inspections as well as inspections by the Health and Safety Authority. They cannot understand why a composite inspection cannot be done. I have also had complaints, which I assume refer to health and safety inspectors, from garages who use certain types of chemicals, which raise the question of the considerable expense incurred by small operations from inspections and certification. What efforts are being made to avoid multiple inspections and ensure that the HSA is not involved in a nitpicking exercise?

I thank the witnesses for the interesting presentation. The figures were higher than I expected but I am glad they are going in the right direction. This is due to a number of reasons, first, the HSA must be getting the message across to people and there are probably fewer building sites open. In fairness, we hear more mention of health and safety and it is being spoken about on a regular basis.

The issue of health and safety has gone from being part of the work practice to being a major part of a contract. The efforts of the HSA are working but I accept that this places a cost on business.

The training of health and safety personnel and providing training courses on implementing health and safety procedures is big business. Who monitors that business? I have heard much anecdotal evidence about all sorts of safety courses provided through FÁS, with major question marks over the suitability of some of the people providing them. I have no proof to support this, but who monitors the people providing training on health and safety? There is no point in providing courses if the person who gives them is not fit to do so in the first place? I hope this is being monitored by somebody.

With regard to the actual cost of training people, if one is an oil distributor and has four or five lorries on the road, must the drivers go through all the courses, including chemical recognition and so on? That is perfect; they should do that. However, it is a great deal of work for a person who may not necessarily have a high level of education. It is a fair challenge to pass all those tests; one would need to have a high IQ or a high level of education. There is also a cost associated with it. It is an investment by the business owner. Who considers those costs? Is anything done by the State to encourage people to train in this area by keeping the cost down? Should there be tax incentives or something similar? There is big money involved, but I do not see a break for businesses. Maybe the delegates could clarify whether it leads to lower insurance costs; I have my doubts, because most people's insurance still goes up. Is any leeway given due to one's personnel being trained and so on?

Then there is the actual cost of health and safety legislation. We are told regularly that the cost of county council projects has gone way up due to health and safety considerations. I gather that is what the delegates refer to; they mentioned this about four or five times. Let us put it on the table. Who are we talking about here? Rises in the cost of health and safety compliance are something we hear about a great deal in county councils. I have seen instances in which health and safety compliance has not worked. However, I understand why it has to be done. The delegates have assessed the cost of public liability insurance, injury insurance and so on, but do they have a figure for the actual cost of health and safety compliance across the board? Do they even have any figures? It is a major issue.

Health and safety costs for farmers are quite high, and many accidents on farms get good publicity. Often, they involve young people. I presume farmers are provided with a checklist of what should be done, because inspectors cannot get to every farm. I hope the inspection is more of an assessment. I get the impression that the inspectors come into a business or farm to assess and advise rather than scaremonger. I assume that is the case. In view of the impossibility of getting to everybody, a proper checklist for farmers, on which items can be ticked off, is important. Being a relatively new father, I know that everybody gives one a list of things to be checked around the house, and this is quite useful. I presume that is out there for farmers.

The delegates stated that there is a trend of blaming health and safety considerations or using them as an excuse when things go wrong. Can they give us some examples? Who are we talking about? They stated that in most cases in business, the Health and Safety Authority prefers to see organisations address risks voluntarily rather than take the legal route. Is it often the case that it must take the legal route? Is it a fast or slow process? I will guess that it is slow. Does it require more powers? Our role as a committee is also to make the delegates' job easier by determining whether there is anything that needs to be changed.

Community groups and organisations that cannot put the cost on to anybody else often get hit with either high insurance costs or the requirement to provide large health and safety documents to county councils or whoever gives permission for them to run their events. There is no help available for them, as far as I am aware. Is free health and safety training provided for community group personnel? Is there somewhere they can go to get free advice and guidance? From my reading of it, nearly any group that wants to hold an event must have a health and safety officer, which means they must spend the money to have that person trained. Maybe this is not the case; I ask the witnesses to inform me. This area needs to be investigated. If it is not the case, we should consider it. There are now community events such as street fairs all over the place, which require proper licences and so on. Community groups need help with that and with their costs.

A Bill dealing with the voluntary sector and the cost of insurance in general was supposed to be introduced in recent years. This is an issue with which I am sure the delegates are familiar, because it must feature in many of their discussions. Is there a case for the State to step up to the plate when it comes to providing insurance for community buildings, events and so on? Otherwise, people have to raise money or fork out thousands and thousands of euro. There should be some reward for voluntary groups in that the State steps in. I am sure the Health and Safety Authority is dealing with it, but it would be useful to have the delegates' opinion.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I will start with Deputy Ardagh's question on the chemical industry. I do not know whether we are in a position to give an evaluation of the national benefits of the chemical industry versus the costs, but what we can say is that of the 15 or so top pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world, ten or 11 have bases in Ireland, and they are probably one of the big drivers of the high levels of export experienced by our economy in 2010. From a regulatory perspective, we find the level of compliance is quite high in the pharmaceutical-chemical sector. They are multinationals, by and large, and they have committed resources for that. We also have responsibility for the Seveso regulations, which are concerned with the control of major accident hazards, and we carry out a series of inspections in this regard every year. We also give land use planning advice to local authorities about deciding on applications within defined zones. However, realistically, we are not in a position to talk about the overall economic benefit. We do not see that as our role. Our role is to ensure a high level of compliance in the industry. I do not know if that covers the question.

It covers that question. The other one was about new challenges.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The main challenges for us in the future relate to small and medium-sized enterprises, because that is where there are high levels of accidents, and also agriculture. There are some technological challenges with regard to nanotechnology and the use of chemicals generally, but they are further into the future. Despite progress, we still find that slips, trips and falls and manual handling are the two single biggest causative factors for accidents in the workplace. They really do not go away, and they are the major challenges facing us. There is also a situation which is fairly common across the 27 EU member states: the safety side has been well regulated, but recognition of the health side has not been as well developed. Thus, the challenge is to move ourselves progressively into the health side. This is concerned with, for example, carcinogens in the workplace, work-related upper limb disorders, posture and ergonomics. Inevitably, the psychosocial area of stress is becoming significant across the 27 member states, and we believe this will be the case over the coming years.

Deputy Mitchell mentioned misconceptions. The main misconception we see is that applying health and safety provisions is more than a person's job is worth, and people offer it as an excuse for not doing the right thing. Even in January, there was a perception that health and safety concerns were an impediment to the provision of gritting supplies to residents by local authorities. I was in the position of being invited to meet the national emergency planning group and we were able to provide clarity on this. There was no impediment to the provision of gritting material by local authorities for health and safety reasons. There may have been other reasons, but we could clarify unequivocally that this was not based on any health and safety legislation.

There are other misconceptions, including the famous Kilkee diving board, which attracted media attention for weeks. It was alleged that the diving board had to be taken down and could not be put back up for health and safety reasons, but when we inquired as to whether this was anything to do with us, we were unable to establish any fundamentally sound health and safety reason for its removal.

We have concerns about misrepresentation. Sometimes concerns are influenced by an excessively cautious approach rather than an objective hazard identification and risk assessment. The law is not predicated on absolutism; it is based on the principle of what is reasonably practicable. That has been pretty well tested in the courts in Ireland and in other jurisdictions over several years.

We have heard of the perception that the Health and Safety Authority has to justify its existence. Construction has gone down. We have a staff of 185. The staff lost have been from the front line field of inspections and inspections involved in policy and advisory roles to industry. We have also had losses from our corporate services, the back office. As a consequence of the headcount reductions we have had to rebalance and readjust our staff. We have had a significant level of internal repositioning to ensure we maintain the best focus possible on the front line while ensuring we are compliant with our statutory duties on probity on our finances and such matters.

We used to carry out approximately 5,000 inspections on the construction side but we have reduced the number very significantly. We could show that even at the peak we had to divert some inspectors from areas such as chemical and general inspection areas on to construction to service the boom in construction. We now have an opportunity to rebalance. At peak - Mr. Brian Higgisson will probably clarify this - we had 25 inspectors servicing the construction industry from a policy and a fieldenforcement perspective. We now have a significant adjustment of the resources which we are focusing on agriculture. We have moved into education and have worked with the financial regulatory services, local authorities and the health care sector and have developed programmes in significant areas. In 2011 the Taking Care of Business initiative will probably involve in excess of two thirds of our staff at various periods in supporting it.

When we look at our numbers of staff and the work we did, construction was not as big an element of our work as might have been perceived. For example, there are some areas where we are the national competent authority and we report to Europe on behalf of the State. We have non-discretionary obligations there. If we receive an application from a local authority in respect of a land use planning application, there are mandatory legally binding timescales within which we must respond. We meet those deadlines. Typically, each year we receive in excess of 400 land use planning applications. We must deal with those and that is non-discretionary. When it comes to the top-tiered Seveso sites, we must carry out non-discretionary inspections on them to discharge our European obligations.

There were approximately 48 fatalities in the past year. Under human rights obligations, there is an obligation on the State to ensure every fatality is investigated. In respect of workplace accidents that duty falls to us and it is essentially non-discretionary. There are many duties we perform which are very demanding on resources which are non-discretionary. If there are serious accidents we must follow through on those. We take approximately 40 prosecutions per year. Our philosophy is to try to achieve voluntary compliance by working with industry and organisations. The first approach of an inspector when entering a workplace is to seek voluntary compliance. The next approach is to use the enforcement instruments in an escalating manner so that if voluntary compliance can be achieved the inspector will give advice. If it is not forthcoming the inspector can issue an improvement notice. If the inspector finds a situation that presents an imminent threat to the health and safety of employees he or she is entitled to use a prohibition notice, right up to an order of the High Court to close down a place of work. The number of occasions where we take the High Court route is very small because when the seriousness of the issue is pointed out to employers there are voluntary closures. They see the risk and are willing to close voluntarily without the Health and Safety Authority being required to take the legal route.

We are very conscious that business is subject to inspection by a number of bodies. For example, we have a memorandum of understanding, MOI, with the Garda Síochána, whereby, in the event of a road traffic accident, the arrangement is that on a 24/7 basis, the Garda can contact an inspector of the authority if it considers there is a workplace aspect to the accident it has identified, in which case an inspector will be immediately dispatched to it.

We work collaboratively with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. It has given us radon maps and profiles for all of Ireland. When our inspectors go into a workplace they will check for compliance with best practice in regard to radon. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of pesticide control. We welcome the opportunity to minimise the burden on industry. In the future it may be possible to develop portals that will enable identification of businesses which have been inspected. There are real issues in regard to constraints on sharing information. We are working with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to see where this can be improved.

There are some inspections where a generalist inspector would not have the necessary competency. To give a sense of the people in the authority - our inspectors are recruited as graduates. They must have a minimum of five years post graduate experience. Most will have significant post graduate qualifications in addition to this experience - many at masters and a significant number at doctorate level. We need that very specialist experience to deal with some technical and forensic areas. For example, there is no point in sending a construction engineer to conduct an inspection on a pharmachemical site; it must be a chemical engineer with real industrial and business experience in that sector. To have that person checking working time compliance would be an inefficient utilisation of that person, apart from the fact that the task would not be fulfilling for that individual and we would probably lose him or her. There is scope but probably not as much as is perceived.

We also work and liaise with HIQA in respect of nursing home and medical health care establishments. We have approximately 25 bilateral relationships and some multilaterals. As regards costs to garages, there are specific requirements under the chemicals legislation. One of the areas of which we would certainly be aware is the constraints in regard to spray painting. The composition of prep paints has changed significantly in recent years. The earlier paints contained fairly toxic solvents known to be carcinogenic and in latter years the composition of the paints has changed to be of lower risk to the individual. However, the technology used to apply those paints has changed. There is a cost to that but there is a cost to save a human life. Those are the health issues. The period between exposure and the development of symptoms can take months or, in some cases, years. We often find that retired people die from liver based cancers which are uniquely associated with exposure to certain chemicals or lung cancers, such as mesothelioma which is almost uniquely associated with exposure to blue asbestos. There are costs but society has determined that there must be protection of human life.

In respect of costs, how is the Health and Safety Authority funded. What is the budget and to what extent is it self-financing?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

We have a budget of €20.5 million for the current year, which is down from €24.5 million in 2008. It is funded by a grant from the Exchequer. We have a small level of self-funding which comes mainly from running conferences, seminars, and on-the-spot fines for breaches of the regulations in respect of the transportation of dangerous goods by road and refunds from the EU. There are miscellaneous sources of small funding. It used to be around €1 million, but in the current year we anticipate it is down to about €0.5 million, which means it is relatively small in the context of our overall budget.

It is negligible.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

On Deputy English's questions, I shall try to deal with some of them and I shall ask my colleagues to address some of the specifics. On health and safety, this has become a business in its own right, and we recognise that. In terms of taking care of the business initiative, we are trying to make advice and guidance information on health and safety accessible to businesses if they wish to do it themselves. We are making it available on paper and in electronic format on websites so that they can do it, but there is a reality. Some aspects are regulated and are done under the FETAC system such as first aid training. There are aspects of the construction and safety certification scheme, CSCS, and quarry schemes that are regulated under FETAC and monitored under FÁS. We have a working relationship with FÁS in monitoring those.

There are other aspects such as the training of dangerous goods drivers, which are mandatory, that are carried out under the auspices of the Health and Safety Authority. Therefore, while there are several areas where training is regulated, there are quite a number, too, where it is not. However, Ireland probably has one of the highest levels of participation by professional safety practitioners among EU member states, through professional membership of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Ireland is well-served by courses run by universities at undergraduate, graduate and diploma levels in occupational safety and health. DCU, Trinity, UCD, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Galway, Sligo and virtually all the universities and institutes of technology now have undergraduate and graduate programmes, so that the quality of people is generally of a very high calibre. However, as in any industry one will find people whose adherence to standards is not what we would like.

When an inspector visits a workplace and sees that something is not up to standard he or she will point it out to the employer, and certainly we have concerns about what we call generic off-the-shelf or off-the-laptop safety statements which really do not serve the needs of industry. The whole philosophy is to the effect that people identify the hazards, assess the risks and put the controls in place. This is not a paper exercise, but it is intended to be a realistic overview of the hazards in the workplace and how they are assessed.

I have touched on the oil distributor there because there are very specific requirements under the international agreements on the transportation of dangerous goods by road. I am not aware of a tax incentive or tax breaks other than the normal-----

There should be, to encourage it, because it is high cost. Perhaps this is something Mr. O'Halloran might come back to, again.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

It is not something we dwelt on in much detail, as we did not see it as being in the area of our competency.

This is the problem. The costs of business are so high here that we must find ways to bring them down. This is an area that should not be neglected and one way to avoid that is to encourage people through tax incentives or grants. However, there is no financial aid that I am aware of to help people through this area, and it is an additional cost for almost every business.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

Deputy English indicated, too, that we have to take the legal route very often. In fact, we have about 40 prosecutions per year and these relate, mainly, to serious breaches, either fatalities, serious accidents or where organisations have persistently failed to take on board the other instruments. Given that we do about 16,500 inspections a year, only 10% result in enforcement. Of that 10% about 70% are improvement notices and the remainder are prohibitions, so that really only about 3% of our annual inspections, or about 500, result in prohibitions with about 40 prosecutions. We should prefer not to take the legal route, but obviously some cases are so serious that this is warranted.

On farmers, I shall ask my colleague, Mr. Higgisson, to perhaps give the committee a sense of how we do the farming inspections and outline the supportive approach we take.

Mr. Brian Higgisson

Deputy English is correct in his comments on the inspection process around agriculture. The process is primarily advisory. When an inspector visits any farm he or she will undertake to meet the farmer and conduct a farm walk with him or her, to identify the main risks on the farm, and see whether they are being controlled, and if not, to give advice, where possible. We know that certain issues are very high risk, as for example unguarded slurry pits in farmyards, or unguarded PTO drive shafts which are constant causes of serious accidents and fatalities. We take enforcement action where the farmer is reluctant to engage. Whenever we take enforcement action on a farm the level of compliance is 100%. Farmers will always do what is being asked of them because they recognise the issue, themselves.

The Deputy referred to the fact that it is unlikely or impossible for us to visit all farms in the country, and he is correct in that regard. He suggested that we might use a checklist. The Act allows us to implement codes of practice for small companies with three employees or fewer. We have a code of practice for agriculture, which is in hard copy format, but it is available online, too, for farmers who may wish to use it. It takes the farmer through the process step by step as to the risks and what controls should be implemented.

Is that given to every farmer; do they have to buy it or is it online?

Mr. Brian Higgisson

It was given to every farmer. When the code of practice was first developed it was circulated by the Department of Agriculture to all farmers. We do not have access to that database, so we use the Department in that context. If we visit a farm and the farmer cannot access it or has not found it, then we will provide him or her with another copy of the risk assessment, free of charge. It can be downloaded free of charge from our website as is the online risk assessment tool they can use.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

Deputy English mentioned the voluntary and community groups. This is an area where we do not have a particular remit. Our remit, as set out in the 2005 Act, specifically limits our role to employment. So we do not deal with voluntary or community groups because unless there is an element of employment involved we do not have a specific remit for them. We are not familiar with any relationship they might have with local authorities and are not part of that cycle.

It is an area that I might ask the HSA to take a look at, because every licence application will provide for health and safety statements for offices and so on. Therefore, as the national authority for health and safety, HSA should have a role in this area.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

All right. I am not sure whether I have missed any of the-----

What about the cost of insurance to community groups in general? Is this an issue the HSA has come across?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

We have some good working contacts with the insurance industry. They parallel, in effect, some of the work we do. Hibernian or Aviva, for example, offers discounts to clients when they are compliance with health and safety policies. We believe there is a commonality between what we and the insurance industry likes to see. The situation is being helped in that regard, but we do not have any detailed study, as such. Rather, the position is based on our relationship with some insurance companies.

We also work closely with the insurance industry in the agriculture sector, and it is part of our farm safety partnership advisory committee, working with us to support the initiatives in farming, as well.

I thank the delegates for coming before the committee and for the detailed answers they have given to members' questions.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share