Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2009

Health and Safety of Workers: Discussion with Health and Safety Authority.

I welcome Mr. Jim Lyons, chairman of the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, Mr. Martin O'Halloran, chief executive officer and the three assistant chief executives, Ms Mary Dorgan, Mr. Brian Higgisson and Ms Sharon McGuinness and thank them for their attendance. Before we begin I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Mr. Lyons to address the committee.

Mr. Jim Lyons

A Chathaoirligh agus a Chomhaltaí an Oireachtais, tá áthas orainn gur thug sibh an cuireadh dúinn chun bheith libh ar maidin. We are very happy to render an account of the work we do. With me is Mr. Martin O'Halloran, chief executive, Mr. Brian Higgisson, Dr. Sharon McGuinness and Ms Mary Dorgan. To focus immediately on our purpose I will ask Mr. O'Halloran to deliver his address.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The members will have received a copy of our written submission and I shall just go through it. The first question to be addressed is whether the safety and health of workers need to be protected. In 2008 there were 57 fatalities in the workplace and an estimated 129,000 work related injuries in 2007. The estimated days lost figure is in the region of 1.7 million, due to injury and illness at work.

The primary responsibility for safety and health at work resides with the employer. However, others have legal duties, too, including workers, suppliers, designers and so on. The Health and Safety Authority has statutory functions under primary legislation, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 as well as statutory obligations and duties under the Chemicals Act 2008. The HSA promotes and encourages the prevention of accidents at work and motivates, advises and informs employers and employees on workplace safety and health and chemicals. It promotes the provision of education and training in safety health and welfare and enforces the law in that regard. We keep the legislation under review and as appropriate make submissions to the Minister on any repeals or changes that may be required. We carry out research and studies on safety, health and welfare at work as well as having a significant role in representing Irish interests at European level.

The HSA is charged with assessing the risk to the safety and health of employees and others arising from work. There is an obligation to have a safety statement in place and to have a safe workplace, safe work equipment and to manage work in a manner that reduces the risk to employees and others. The Act also places duties on employees to take reasonable care, co-operate with employers and not engage in improper behaviour that might endanger safety and health.

The Chemicals Act 2008 covers the administration and enforcement obligations for a number of EU regulations. REACH is an acronym for the regulation, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. Other regulations relate to classification, packaging and labelling and detergents. These relate to the import, manufacture, supply and use of chemicals in Ireland and across Europe. The purpose of the Chemicals Act was primarily to give statutory expression in Ireland to the REACH regulation at European level.

HSA priorities for 2009 are to achieve improvements in high risk sectors including agriculture, construction and quarries as well as the provision of information and guidance tools to help micro-businesses manage health and safety. Increased numbers of advisory and enforcement inspections are targeted for 2009, at 17,500. The authority assists Irish businesses to implement REACH and related chemical legislation and we should like to see the integration of safety and health into all levels with the education system, to focus on workers of the future. We want to achieve increased awareness of workplace health issues and develop proposals for the simplification of the legal requirements along the lines of better regulation.

We are at an advanced stage in preparing a strategy for approval by the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. A current strategy is in place for 2007-09, which sets out the priority areas. There have been significant changes, however, since this strategy was adopted and these will be reflected in the revised strategy.

The HSA has a chairman and a tripartite board with representation from employers, employees and ministerial nominees. The executive team comprises me, as chief executive, and four assistant chief executives who oversee the overall management of the organisation. The divisions comprise: chemical policy and services, headed by Dr. Sharon McGuinness, which deals with competent authority functions for a range of chemical legislation such as REACH, asbestos and so on, providing information and advice to industry; prevention services is headed by Ms Mary Dorgan and provides safety information, raises awareness and does a good deal of work on legislative drafting in the support of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister, as well as publishing extensive guidance for employers and employees; workplace compliance and advice is headed by Mr. Brian Higgisson and that carries out the field inspections and enforcement roles; and corporate services is really the engine of the organisation and deals with human resources, finance, information technology, board secretariat and so on.

The scope of the HSA is extremely wide and covers areas such as workplace safety across all industrial sectors, occupational health, safe and sustainable chemicals management and the transport of dangerous goods by road, which is based on the international agreement known as ADR. Its remit also includes transportable pressure equipment, storage of petrol and diesel and land-based planning advice, fishing vessels, supply of lifts, pressure systems, personal protective equipment, machinery, cranes and aspects of public safety in so far as they relate to work activities.

The authority has a sanction for 197 staff. Of these, about 100 are inspectors and some 15% of the total staff complement was recruited over the past three years in response to a Government decision to allocate additional resources to manage the role of the competent authority for chemicals. As regards the staff profile, some 80% of employees are university graduates and some 50% are educated to master's degree level or equivalent, and 15% are at doctorate level. We have a highly technical staff, covering a broad range of disciplines from all the engineering areas to a range of science disciplines, including toxicology and eco-toxicology, chemicals and virtually any "ism" or "ist" one can think of because of the broad remit of the authority.

The HSA head office is based at our offices in James Joyce Street, Dublin, with regional offices in Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Athlone, Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny. The Kilkenny office is also the base for our chemicals unit and essentially is where most of that work is carried out.

Inspectors are recruited based on their technical experience. They must be graduates in science or engineering, but generally they will have a minimum of five years commercial, business or industrial post-graduate experience. When they come in they are assigned to higher risk sectors and they must assess and report on whether employers are doing enough to promote safety and health. The authority's broad approach is to seek to achieve voluntary compliance, so about 54% of inspections will result in advice, whether verbal or written, and 13% or 14% will result in formal enforcement actions under the provisions of the 2005 Act, mainly. There are about 30 prosecutions each year, taken either summarily or on indictment in the High Court. In the execution of that role we work closely with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We also work closely with the sectoral representative organisations, the employer and employee groups and have close working relationships, either formal memoranda of understanding or close operational arrangements, with approximately 30 other State agencies and Departments with whom our remit overlaps.

The authority's grant for 2009 is €22.8 million as compared with €24.5 million in 2007, a total of €10.80 per worker per year. Of that grant €13.5 million is allocated to payroll, €2.2 million to accommodation, €1.2 million to information provision and €1 million to travel and subsistence, primarily in respect of field enforcement activities and servicing of some European committees.

In terms of output for 2008, we launched our annual report and statistics yesterday; 381,000 publications were downloaded from our website — our policy for the past approximately three years has been that downloads are free to employers and employees; our workplace contact unit deals with approximately 30,000 calls per annum from the public in respect of requests for information, queries, clarifications and accidents reports; we carried out more than 16,000 advisory and enforcement inspections and made 14 sets of legislative proposals to the Minister. We also represented the Irish interest as a competent authority for REACH and the transport of dangerous goods by road.

In terms of our international standing, while we are extremely small in terms of inspectors per head — we are the lowest in Europe — we believe we are effective. Accident rates and related absence in Ireland are among the lowest in the EU and fatality rates are about average. While not a league table, Ireland is ranked the third highest in Europe in terms of fatal accident reports and seventh in respect of non-fatal accidents. This is based on published EUROSTAT figures. We have taken several initiatives across a range of areas. We are audited periodically by the EU Senior Labour Inspectors Committee, SLIC. A number of external audits carried out by it provide us some referencing against European practices.

The question of whether health and safety constitutes a burden is a question often raised with us. We can demonstrate that the cost of workplace injuries and lost productivity is estimated to be 2% of gross national product, which for 2007 was approximately €3.1 billion. There are several reports in this regard. While it is difficult to get a precise and accurate figure, the band could be anywhere from €2 billion to €4 billion. The Central Statistics Office estimates that during 2007 approximately 26,000 employees in the public sector were injured or became ill as a result of their work. In addition, the State assumed a large proportion of the health care emergency service and disability benefit costs arising from workplace injuries. While there are many public service employers with excellent health and safety performance there are others, which we observe through our inspection programmes, in respect of which there is scope for improvement.

We had a number of successes. However, the primary success in this area is down to employers and employees. We are primarily a catalyst and a facilitator for this and are encouraged by those improvements. Areas in which we have been successful is REACH, the EU chemicals strategy. In terms of pre-registration, on the coming into force of REACH, we ranked sixth among all member states. We work closely with the social partners at board level and have formalised links with several State agencies with whom we have interests in common. An example is the Local Government Management Services Board, the Garda Síochána, the Radiological Protection Board, the Road Safety Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency. We have also done some work with the Disability Authority. These partnerships not only prevent unnecessary duplication of effort but can deliver real benefits. A week and a half ago, we held a joint conference with the Road Safety Authority which attracted 250 delegates and was helpful to our combined efforts.

We have been examining the possible impact of the economic downturn and have contacted some of our European neighbours. There is a belief that during the economic downturn there will be a reduction in fatality and accident levels and a prediction that when economies begin to emerge from the downturn there will be a sharp increase in fatality and accident rates driven primarily by an influx of new workers into the workplace and the re-entry into the workplace of people out of work for some time. There is a great deal of evidence to show that a person's first year and a half to two years in the workplace is a high risk period in terms of accidents.

I thank Mr. O'Halloran for his presentation which was interesting. Mr. O'Halloran stated the HSA budget has been reduced. What effect will this have on the authority? It is hoped it will not affect the number of inspections carried out. On Mr. O'Halloran's final point that most accidents occur during the first year and a half to two years, what further measures can be taken by the authority to try to improve health and safety in the workplace?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

On the budget issue, we have focused reductions in areas considered to have minimal affect on our front line operating activities. We predict that our inspections will increase in 2009 and expect the activity level in our workplace contact unit to remain constant. There will be significant reductions in the area of promotion, marketing, advertising and so on. We are doing everything we can to maintain our service at the same level and to increase our front line activities. We have also introduced a Geo-Smart system, an information and technology system that supports all of our operations, for which we recently won a national award. I am pleased to say that project came in on time, on specification and on budget. This has enabled us to achieve significant efficiency in our field operations. With the same budgetary expenditure, we can achieve improvements in our interface with the public and in terms of inspections.

What type of inspection system does the authority operate? Does it carry out spot checks, notify clients of inspections or act on complaints and so on?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Brian Higgisson who is head of compliance to answer that question.

Mr. Brian Higgisson

The vast majority of our inspections are cold calls, namely, we do not notify employers. At the start of each year we have a programme of work which identifies key sectors in which we will be involved from the point of view of inspection. It is distributed nationally. Each inspector will receive an allocation of inspections to carry out. We also have a database of employers with whom we have had previous interaction.

We have a policy whereby approximately 10% of our inspections are repeat visits to workplaces in which standards were found to have been poor. The balance of our inspections comprise what we describe as cold calling, that is, the inspectors arrive unannounced at places of work and seek to engage the senior manager. These inspections involve discussions with the management team, employees and nominated safety representatives and a sample spot check of the premises after which the inspector forms an opinion of the health and safety regime.

Ms Mary Dorgan

One can never take one's foot of the pedal in terms of promoting health and safety. A cost effective way of reaching a wide audience is through the education system because it produces the workers of the future. If people are already reasonably aware of health and safety issues when they enter the workforce we are ahead of the game. This objective will form part of the planning for our new strategy. We have been very successful at primary and secondary levels in terms of including health and safety on the curriculum and we are conducting research into what we can do to improve our success at third level.

Training is also important during a downturn. Members will probably recall the advertising campaigns we conducted on agriculture. As we can no longer afford such advertisements, we must rely on training and outreach through Teagasc and other organisations.

This is an important aspect of education. Driver training should be as much a part of the curriculum as learning highfalutin mathematical theories. Has the authority engaged the Department of Education and Science on including health and safety in metalwork and other courses? Even if a small number of people were made acutely aware of the impact of workplace accidents, it would be welcome. Students should be broadly aware of preventive measures and aspects of health and safety legislation. They could be persuaded to pay attention to these matters by being made to sit an examination. Education should evolve continuously so that it can cover the issues which health and safety inspectors encounter.

I thank Mr. Lyons and his team for their presentation. In regard to the 16,000 enforcement advisory visits, how many result in enforcement? What is the success rate on prosecutions? I assume all apprentices take a health and safety module. Are such courses provided by FÁS or the authority?

It is disappointing to hear that the authority's budget has been reduced significantly because in the current economic environment I do not doubt that people will take short cuts. Several weeks ago I was approached by a small contractor who was applying to a local authority for minor repairs to a footpath. He wanted me to find out from the local authority whether it really required a traffic control plan. Instead of approaching the local authority, however, I gave the contractor a contact number for an engineer and advised him to do the job properly. I concur with the Chairman that awareness is critical. The pressure to take shortcuts will increase before we come out of the recession and while the reduction in fatalities is very welcome, it has to be measured against employment activity, particularly in the construction sectors.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

In 2008 we took 27 prosecutions through the courts and fines in excess of €2.5 million were imposed for breaches. Generally, we have a 97% success rate in prosecutions. We work closely with the central prosecution service and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this regard.

Mr. Brian Higgisson

Four different types of action can ensue from the 16,000 inspections we conduct. The most basic action is verbal advice, where an inspector forms the opinion that health and safety standards are good. The next level involves written advice where issues arise that must be addressed. We would leave the written notice at the site after getting the manager or responsible person's commitment to undertaking the actions outlined in the notice and subsequently confirming in writing to the authority that they have been undertaken. In more serious cases we issue two types of formal enforcement, namely, prohibition of activities and improvement notices where a contravention of the legislation is found to exist. Overall, 14% of inspections result in formal enforcement and 54% in written advice. In approximately 68% of inspections, therefore, the inspector gives some form of direction to the company on improving or altering practices.

Where an inspector is obstructed in any way when carrying out an inspection, we have a policy of pursuing prosecutions. Two such instances arose in the past year and both were prosecuted in the District Court.

A vote has been called so I will have to leave. However, I will read the answer to my question in the Official Report. In regard to what legislation applies, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 imposes duties on employers in a number of areas. The witnesses say that the Act also imposes duties on employees. Will the witnesses agree that the duties on employees are very much subordinate to that on employers? My experience is that while there is an expectation that employers will dot all the i's and cross all the t's and have a record of all training delivered, when an employee has an accident at work it is his or her responsibility and the legislation and the courts tend to favour the employee. I would like to hear the comments on that issue.

One of the authority's targets for 2009 is increased numbers of advisory and enforcement inspections up to 17,500 from 16,000, an increase of just over 10%. How will that increase be achieved? I note that a new strategy is being developed in consultation with the authority's customers. Who are the customers and with whom will the authority consult apart from the social partners?

I compliment the Health and Safety Authority on its work. In regard to safety and health at work, Mr. O'Halloran said primary responsibility rests with the manager. Am I correct in saying that in most organisations and factories, responsibility lies with the health and safety officer? What is the role of the Health and Safety Authority in law? The witness said that the chemical policy and services division, headed by Dr. Sharon McGuinness, deals with asbestos and so on. We hear much nowadays about asbestosis and the damage it causes to health. Is it part of the remit of the Health and Safety Authority to carry out inspections of factories, schools and so on for asbestos and, if so, what action does it take in the event that asbestos is found in public buildings?

In regard to convictions Mr. O'Halloran said there were 27 prosecutions in 2008. Are those summary convictions or convictions on indictment in the courts? I understand that a conviction on indictment is more severe. I would be interested the hear the breakdown of the convictions.

What is the role of the employer, such as a builder, when taking on employees? Are there any questions that an employer must first put to the employee in regard to health and safety issues? When he goes on to a building site is he required to have any qualifications or can he just walk in, pick up his tools and begin work.

In the area of agriculture, how does the Health and Safety Authority identify in its work programme for the year the locations for inspection? In some cases it may be a small engineering factory which employs only one or two people. There may be greater danger in that location than on a farm where a number of people are employed.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I will start with the question on legal duties of employers and employees. Certainly the duty on employers is greater in the 2005 Act and the general application regulations made under it and across the whole body of legislation. We believe that is the way it should be. Much of the legislation is based on EU directives. The practice throughout Europe is that the primary responsibility resides with the employer. We believe the employer is the person who has the greatest power to influence the workplace but we would also stress that the employees have duties to co-operate with the health and safety provisions and to behave in an orderly manner that does not jeopardise their own safety or that of others.

When we carry out investigations of accidents, our inspectors will look at all the circumstances and all the factors relating to the accident. They will take enforcement action or a prosecution wherever it is appropriate. History shows that the majority of our prosecutions are taken against employers but certainly there are cases of successful prosecutions against employees where they have breached regulations or flagrantly violated measures in place for their protection. I am not sure if that answers Senator Ryan's question.

Mr. Higgisson will deal with the inspection targets later. In regard to the new strategy that is being developed, in terms of consultation the customers we identify are the social partners. We have had it open to public consultation on our website for a month. The consultation formally closed last evening. We wrote to approximately 40 Departments and State agencies and umbrella groups specifically alerting them to the fact that it was open to public consultation. This would include many other State agencies but also the whole local authority network nationally through the Local Government Management Services Board. We also had a series of bilateral meetings with key organisations such as IBEC, ICTU, National Safety Organisation, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and a number of other organisations. We also had a series of workshops with our staff. We have reached most employers through either umbrella organisations or directly.

Deputy Fitzpatrick asked about the role of the safety officer. We see the role of the safety officer in an organisation primarily as an adviser. The legislation provides that primary responsibility for achieving health and safety resides with line management. That is the reason we have a policy of engaging with managers at senior level when we go into an organisation. Mr. Higgisson might comment further on that issue. That is how we would see it. The role of the safety officer — I have been one of those people in a past career — is to be an adviser to management but management must integrate proper practices in a manner in which they work. We do not see the role of the safety officer as being someone who is wheeled out on a bad day to meet the authority. It is a central role for line management.

On the issue of asbestos and asbestosis, there is a significant body of legislation relating specifically to asbestos. There is an obligation on employers, or people who are doing construction or remedial works on any building, to carry out a risk assessment to ascertain whether asbestos is present. There is also an obligation to notify the authority where that is identified. We have occupational hygienists on our staff and if we become aware of asbestos we will carry out a number of inspections. The employer would be required to carry out a full detailed type 2 survey, followed by an action plan to remediate or remove it. Anywhere we become aware of it, where work is taking place, we deal with it. We do not have a policy of randomly going into public buildings to search for it because the obligations relate to where there are work activities. Certainly, if there was a sense that there was asbestos in a building, the owner-occupier or the manager should, in their safety statement, identify the presence of asbestos as a hazard and measure the risk and put in place the appropriate control strategy.

As regards the 27 prosecutions in 2008, 16 were taken summarily and 11 on indictment. The courts awarded €22,000 in fines in respect of the 16 cases taken summarily and the 11 cases taken on indictment attracted fines from the courts totalling €2.5 million. That works out that approximately 60% of cases were taken summarily and 40% were taken on indictment. That number will vary year on year depending on the circumstances of the case and the decision will be taken in consultation with the central prosecutions service and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I will ask Mr. Brian Higgisson to deal with agricultural inspections and inspection targets. Deputy Morgan raised an issue relating to education and qualifications to which we did not respond. My colleague, Ms Dorgan, will deal with that.

Mr. Brian Higgisson

Returning to the 10% increase Senator Ryan queried, we have considered that from the point of view of two areas. Primarily the issue is to try to improve the efficiency of our inspection process. Mr. O'Halloran made reference to the fact that we implemented a new database system last year which allows us a significantly better planning ability from the point of view of mapping places of work and locations the inspectors will visit.

Allied to that, before the start of the year, in recognition of potential resource constraints, we undertook a review of geographic areas and the allocation of inspectors to different regions to ensure we were maximising the potential inspection programme from each area. We are divided into five regions. Those regions have an equal workforce and we have balanced the inspectorate to ensure we have as even a distribution across the country as possible. We take into account people's geographic base and their office base from the point of view of their inspection focus.

Taking those two approaches, from the point of view of an improved planning ability and improved efficiencies, we know we have set ourselves a challenging target for the year. I can report that our delivery on that to date this year is probably slightly ahead of where we expected it to be but we anticipate that in the latter half of the year there will be a fallback in that respect. Currently, we are on target to meet that increased level of inspection.

A question was asked in regard to agriculture. The agricultural inspection, from the authority's perspective, is very resource intensive. It has to be so. We do not have a database of all the farmers in the country and therefore we approach agricultural inspection by going to the place of work, locating and engaging with farmers and carrying out the inspection at the place of work. We have systems in place to try to maximise the potential of this programme, whereby if we visit a farm and the farmer is not there, we leave contact details to ensure contact is made to arrange for an inspection. We do not carry out inspections in any place of work unless the person in control of that place of work or a person with responsibility is present as part of the process. The only exception to that might be where a specific complaint about a place of work has been made, which we can observe externally. Other than that we would always try to engage with the farmer.

In the past we have examined the distribution of accident fatalities to try to identify what we refer to as black spots within the country, if they exist. On those occasions we have limited the inspections to specific counties and therefore we have delivered a much higher inspection rate in a number of counties rather than nationally. We are examining that process again now. That is effectively a summary of our approach. It is highly resource intensive.

By way of explanation, this year we have also engaged with some of the farming bodies through an initiative where we are doing what we call farm walks whereby the inspectors will go to a nominated farm and farmers from the adjoining hinterland will come to that farm. That process is one of education and increasing awareness. We will go through the farm with a group of farmers and explain the obvious hazards to them and what we know to be the key risks and hazards that are not being properly controlled. We are trying to reach a broader number of farmers through that process. It only started this year and we will see how that goes.

Ms Mary Dorgan

I want to pick up on a number of points, one of which was Deputy Morgan's comment on apprenticeship. The curriculum for apprenticeships is put in place by the National Apprenticeship Advisory Committee but it consults on that. It has consulted us on apprenticeships and has invited us to meet to discuss apprenticeships across the board in the next few weeks. Every now and then a piece of the curriculum for a trade comes up for review. We have already given the committee our views in our review on the electrical trade. Apprentices in this trade are an important cohort of people. They tend to be young males generally, a high risk in this respect. Because the apprenticeship programme takes place in three locations over seven phases, with the employer, the FÁS training centre and an institute of technology, we integrate it right through rather than have it as a stand-alone module. We are consulted on that in terms of the apprenticeship programme.

The Chairman asked a question about the Department of Education and Science. We have a joint steering committee with the Department because we want it as an organisation to be exemplar in how its manages health and safety. Most important to us is the relationship we have with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. It has done good work with us in mapping our opportunities for replacing old or introducing new curriculums around health and safety. We have been successful with some courses and less successful with others. There are examples of some pieces of curriculum which have been in place for a long time. We found recently that one piece, which applies to a very hazardous occupation, has been in place since 1968. That is the sort of area where we try to influence and in respect of which we seek to make changes.

Deputy Fitzpatrick commented on employers, the recruiting of employees and so on. An employer may or may not discuss health and safety with an employee on coming into an organisation, but an employee who is recruited in the construction industry and has to go on to construction sites, will be legally required to have a safe pass card. The safe pass programme is a one-day training awareness programme. It will not train an employee to be capable of looking after himself or herself on all health and safety grounds.

There is an obligation on employers to issue a safety statement.

Ms Mary Dorgan

Employers will have a safety statement. They are obliged to ensure that an employee is brought up to speed on what is in that statement. Almost all new employees on entering a workplace will have to be given training.

Nobody can simply walk into a workplace without being given a safety statement, as provided under the 2005 Act.

Ms Mary Dorgan

Yes but in regard to recruiting, it may not always arise as a question. The qualification for employees is the safe pass programme.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Lyons, Mr. O'Halloran, Ms Dorgan, Mr. Higgisson and Ms McGuinness for assisting us in our deliberations. Their submission has been interesting and it was a good overview of the work they do. It is important to us and to the authority that the safety of workers remains paramount, especially in times of economic downturn, a point alluded to by a number of people.

We in the House have a particular duty to ensure that, as legislators, we facilitate the monitoring and enforcement of good practice, regulation and control in this area. To make accidents impossible would often be to make work impossible, as was said by Mr. Kingsmill Moore in a case in the 1940s or 1950s. The same is true today. While nobody can guarantee there will be 100% safety in the workplace, it is a good objective for which to strive, particularly given the nature of some jobs.

We must always continue to strive to identify and eliminate danger and improve precautionary and protective measures. Those in the Health and Safety Authority are up to this task and I compliment them on their achievements to date and their ongoing work. We look forward to meeting the delegates in the not too distant future to be further updated on this area. If there are any aspects of matters they wish to have pursued, we would be delighted if they would contact our committee. We are always willing, available and open to suggestions on where we might make improvements. I thank the delegates again for their patience and for facilitating us with this meeting.

Mr. Jim Lyons

I thank the members for their helpful and supportive inputs and for the hearing they have given us. Míle, míle buíochas.

The meeting is adjourned. The joint committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 when we will consider matters in the retail trade in Ireland with the Competition Authority.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
Top
Share