Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Nov 2010

Farm Health and Safety: Discussion

I welcome Deputy Dara Calleary, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Mr. Francis Rochford, principal officer, Mr. Danny Kelly, assistant principal officer, Mr. Martin O'Halloran, chief executive and Mr. Pat Griffin, senior inspector from the Health and Safety Authority, and Mr. John McNamara, health and safety officer from Teagasc.

I thank all the witnesses for coming before the committee to brief us on health and safety on Irish farms. The high number of fatalities in the farming sector is a cause of concern. I will call on the Minister of State who will be followed by Mr. O'Halloran and Mr. McNamara. I ask witnesses to keep their presentations to ten minutes.

Before I call on Deputy Dara Calleary to make his opening statement I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009 witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Deputy Dara Calleary to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. I apologise in advance for having to leave early as I have another engagement at 2.30 p.m. but those attending with me will remain at the meeting.

The seriousness of the situation is highlighted by the fact that in the past 24 hours we had a further fatality. This is not the first time when giving a presentation on farm safety that I have had to update my prepared remarks to allow for another fatality. This year there have been 41 deaths across all sectors, 24 of them have been on farms, of which 20 were in farming and four in other occupations on farms. I am sure members will join with me in expressing our collective sympathy to the families. To put the 24 deaths on farms this year in context, we had ten in total for the whole of 2009.

Even though farms account for the majority of workplace deaths, only 6% of the workforce, or 115,000 people, work in agriculture. However, if one includes family members, there are some 400,000 Irish people exposed to the risk of farm fatalities. Major causes of death on our farms over the past ten years have been machinery, 49%, livestock 15%, drowning or gas 14% and falls, 10%.

In spring 2010, the farm safety partnership drew my attention to the emerging trend in farm fatalities. At that time the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I met the farm interests and the farming organisations to ask them to devote some of their campaigning experience. I asked all of the interests to coordinate their efforts and come back to me with plans. The farm safety partnership has since monitored this activity and we have scheduled a further meeting for later this month with all of the interests to look at what needs to be done. The farm safety partnership operates under the aegis of the Health and Safety Authority and Mr. Martin O'Halloran will give a more detailed outline of the actions planned and progress to date.

Despite the efforts of the Health and Safety Authority and all of the farm interests in advocating the farm safety message, we will still have frightful numbers at the end of the year. Much of this is cultural. We need a culture of safety on our farms and it is clear from the figures that we do not have it to the proper extent. Cultural change is challenging and does not happen overnight; no one person or body can effect such change. The Health and Safety Authority, the farm organisations, public representatives or other authorities cannot do this; it will require a collective effort. Farm safety transcends politics and all social obligations. All of us have a role to play in it. As public representatives, we have a particular role to play because we have influence over farmers in our community and spend time on farms and meeting farm organisations. We should use our interaction with the farming community to pass on the message of farm safety.

The main farming organisations have a key role to play and have responded well to our meetings earlier this year. They have a strong influence and will be key to changing behaviours. The farm leaders in all of these organisations have a key role to play in conveying the message to farmers that effective management of health and safety is crucial to the running of a successful farm.

If we make safety a priority in all of our work, we can begin to change the culture of farming. This committee has a role to play in working with the Health and Safety Authority and the farm safety partnership. The Health and Safety Authority, along with Teagasc, works through awareness raising, an inspection programme and collective support for the farm safety partnership. The HSA's focus on risk identification and assessment, and elimination or control of risk is a basis for health and safety in all sectors. The HSA has developed a new on-line tool to help farmers carry out the required risk assessment. It allows farmers to generate risk assessments which, in turn, can provide the foundation for farm specific controls tailored to their own experience. The HSA will outline how this works in more detail.

This is not about numbers or authorities, it is about farmers and their families. The difficulties in implementing a safety culture on a home place is apparent to us. Many have been doing the same thing for many years, taking risks they are not aware of at times and getting away with it. This cannot continue because just one accident can cause enormous problems. We must change the workplace, the culture and the way tasks are carried out. There are many farmers who want to do the right thing but HSA inspections still demonstrate a continuing failure to fully address the main hazards on farms, particularly in the areas of machinery safety and slurry handling.

It is not all negative. There has a been increased awareness of hazards, helped by the farm safety partnership and the organisations on the ground. We must work together to tackle the issue. There are stark realities behind the statistics. This year, we have seen four deaths by people struck by trees while felling trees, there was a fatality from a fall from a 2 m. ledge while working on a shed, a person was found underneath the stem of a windblown tree he was felling using a chainsaw, a person crushed between a wall and a skip, and others were crushed by a tractor and trailer, drowned in slurry tanks, fell through roofs or were killed by bulls. One child was hit by a truck and a low-loader in another farmyard reversed over a child. These accidents are random and spread across the farm. As Mr. O'Halloran will point out, all of these were avoidable. Each fatality is a tragedy, some family is sitting down at a table with a family member missing, with all the resultant grief that comes with the knowledge that death was probably avoidable.

I thank the committee for its support and ask it to maintain farm safety as a key issue in its workplan for the coming year. We must reverse the trend in 2011 and tackle the issue before it becomes any worse.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss farm safety. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Pat Griffin, senior inspector.

The Health and Safety Authority was established in 1989 and our primary role is set out in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. We provide information, advice, guidance and enforcement. We have inspectors in a range of activities and we provide advisory information, working with the key stakeholders.

The Minister of State referred to the farm safety partnership advisory committee. This was established in 2002 and is building on the model that had previously operated in the construction sector which, during the 1990s, was the single highest risk activity in the economy. Through collaborative working with the key stakeholders, it was possible to achieve enormous progress, and that model is being adopted here.

The farm safety partnership has participation from all of the key stakeholder groups, the farming representative organisations, farming media and the insurance industry. It has a seven goal action plan which is the key driver for the work being done in the sector. It is complemented by the direct work of the authority, where we provide guidance and advice and we regularly publish sector and issue specific guidance to the industry. Typically, we have 300 publications, with 400,000 downloads by industry, showing that it values the information we give out.

We carry out 18,000 inspections per annum, with 1,700 of those in the agriculture sector this year. Next year we plan to increase the inspection level to 3,000. Our general principle on inspection is that we try to take an advisory approach. About 30% of inspections are to give advice, encouragement and support, pointing out the correct practices to achieve safety. About 40% give written advice and in 12% of cases, the situation is so serious it requires the inspector to issue formal enforcement actions under the provisions of the 2005 Act.

As the Minister of State mentioned, there were 43 fatalities in 2009, down from 75 in 2005. It is important to give comparative analysis but that does not do justice to the fact that all of these are tragedies. Accidents resulting in death leave an impact on families that our inspectors see every day. Each year, 7,000 accidents are reported to us where people had an accident at work that resulted in an absence from work of four or more days. We tend to get around 100 reported accidents in the agriculture sector but we know from comparative analysis with the CSO and some medical sources that there is a significant level of underreporting. Our colleague from Teagasc will probably give more information on it but we believe that, at a peak, the actual number would be up to 3,000. Progress has been achieved and the number is probably 1,800 at present.

There are probably some misconceptions about health and safety and some people consider it is a burden. Given that 7,000 people were injured and more than 40 were killed it is a very serious matter. It is very difficult to put an economic cost on this. A number of independent analysts have suggested the economic cost of the failures. It is strange that we tend to measure success in safety by counting our failures. There are other things we do, for example, we measure awareness. It is estimated that the cost to the economy could be up to €3.8 billion or in excess of 2% of GNP. In economic as well as human terms, it is a very serious consideration. In many cases, particularly in agriculture, there is a dominant trend of the fatalities being male, often the breadwinner, resulting in serious economic distress to the family. That is the negative picture.

In 2006 we prepared a code of practice under the provisions of the 2005 Act. Where there are less than three people employed the authority can issue a code of practice. We did that in 2006 for agriculture. The code of practice was sent to 120,000 farm families. In 2009 the code was updated to an electronic version so that farmers have the choice either to use the paper version or the electronic version on-line. The uptake on the electronic version has been quite encouraging.

The stark reality, despite the progress made, is that there is a ten times greater probability of being killed in a workplace accident, if one works on a farm, than in the general economy. Some 6% of the working population incur approximately 60% of the fatalities.

The Minister of State mentioned the farm safety partnership advisory committee and the action plan which has seven goals. The goals are progressing and are owned by the various participants such as the Health and Safety Authority, Teagasc and the IFA. As the Minister of State said we are pleased that since the meetings earlier in the year, we have seen positive and encouraging engagement given that the farm representative bodies are very persuasive among the farming community. An initiative that has recently been agreed is that our inspectors will meet with all the county committees of agriculture and the IFA in the coming months to explain the issues we are facing. As the Minister of State said, the major causes of fatalities are machinery, slurry pits, livestock and electricity. When our inspectors go out and examine the circumstances they find that, almost without exception - we may have seen one case that was difficult to foresee - every one of these accidents are foreseeable, avoidable and preventable and could save much tragedy to the farming community.

As well as the safety code of practice, we issue guidance on the use of tractors on farms, child safety on farms, working with timber and chainsaws, and working near power lines. We distribute these guidelines widely as well as working with the key partners. I will stop at this point but my colleague and I would be pleased to deal with any specific queries the committee may have and elaborate further.

Mr. John McNamara

On behalf of Teagasc I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and to outline what Teagasc is doing in the whole area of health and safety. As an organisation we are very concerned about all accidents and ill health and are particularly concerned at the upsurge in accidents in 2010.

Teagasc wishes to work with all stakeholders - farmers, farming organisations, the farm safety partnership advisory committee and the Health and Safety Authority - to improve the record of health and safety in agriculture. Teagasc has statutory roles in training and education. We provide training and education for new entrants and adult farmers to approximately 14,000 people per year. Our advisory service deals with 40,000 clients and communicates with 80% of farmers. We conduct high level studies in health and safety, five of which are in progress, and we plan to hold an international conference next year. Teagasc values its joint prevention initiative with the Health and Safety Authority and the farm safety partnership advisory committee. It has devised the code of practice to which Mr. O'Halloran referred and we plan to continue with that.

Within Teagasc, I am the national specialist and there are 35 trained health and safety officers. All our advisers have been provided with training and all our staff are well aware of the Act. Our statement of strategy is that we will lead compliance and leadership within the industry. My PowerPoint presentation includes a graph showing the trends in farm deaths which are far too high. Since 2001, when there were 25 fatalities, there has been a 20% reduction. That reduction is inadequate, therefore, we will have to redouble our efforts in that regard. A study of the demographic structure of farm fatalities conducted by me, and colleagues in Teagasc and the Health and Safety Authority, has shown a considerable decline in fatalities among younger farmers, particularly under the age of 55, and a corresponding increase in the level among older farmers. Those trends appear to have changed since 2008, given the increase in the number of fatal accidents in the working generation, 17 to 65 age group, to 76% whereas it was 41% previously. The same trend is evident in vehicles-machinery and wood-related accidents which account for 66% compared with 45% previously. I emphasise those are provisional figures.

Since the 1989 Act, Teagasc has been researching farm injury levels in conjunction with the Health and Safety Authority and has determined a considerable reduction from 5,000 to 200 in the level of injuries. Subsequently that figure increased and later dropped to the level mentioned by Mr. O'Halloran of approximately 1,800. We plan to conduct a similar survey in the coming year to gain further knowledge and insight into what is happening at a non-fatal injury level on farms.

Teagasc is also concerned about the health status of farmers. I am putting before the committee a study conducted by Professor Eamon O'Shea in the late 1990s which showed that farmers had a higher death rate than most other professions which was comparable with skilled manual workers. In the meantime, progress has been made and a recent study shows a high level of engagement by farmers with health issues in terms of visiting doctors and health professionals. Health is important in its own right but it is also related to injuries because if people are in poor health it has been shown that they have a far higher risk of injury.

On the issue of accident causation, at international level there are a number of predominant theories. The multiple causation theory is where a number of factors cause accidents. A second causation is the domino theory. That indicates that almost 90% of accidents occur as a result of some form of human behaviour. It is imperative that we influence farmers and their families to continue to become efficient health and safety managers. There is a further health and safety management approach pioneered and reported on by Professor Denis Murphy in Pennsylvania. It is based on the physical controls that apply on a farm which he refers to as engineering education. In other words people development and enforcement can be within the farm, with the farmer ensuring the safety standards are right. It could also be achieved under the oversight of the Health and Safety Authority. The point he makes is that all components of the system must work efficiently in order to make progress.

Teagasc has a change management programme which is led by the director, Professor Gerry Boyle. I outlined the Teagasc knowledge transfer system which aims to develop strong evidence-based research and to use the most efficient knowledge transfer methods to put that in place. We make extensive use of the media and of our training and advisory service. We particularly want interaction with farmers. We want them to tell us the problems and we want to work jointly with farmers in arriving at solutions.

We were one of the first to develop a code of practice under the 2005 Act. The code is a means of getting the practical compliance requirements of the legislation communicated efficiently to farmers in a manner which they will understand. Not only have we devised a code of practice, it has been sent to all farmers and we have conducted a comprehensive evaluation of how it is working. We do not see the code of practice as a free-standing document, we wish to have it linked with half day training where we can explain it to farmers so they understand how it works. I have a number of slides on the evaluation process. We evaluated a sample of 1,200 farmers, which is a substantial sample. It shows that 98% found that it improved their understanding of their responsibilities under the health and safety legislation. Legislation is an important instrument, but communication so that the legislation is clearly understood is equally important. Likewise, 99% or almost all the farmers who attended the course would have recommended it to their fellow farmers, which is a positive outcome. At an advisory level, it has improved engagement on health and safety with our advisors and it has increased the dialogue on health and safety advice by approximately 20%. To summarise, the initial uptake of the code of practice was 42%, a further 14% have availed of training, which is approximately 15,000 people, which brings it up 56%. There was a higher probability of Teagasc clients doing it, some 59%, and we greatly appreciate the support of the farming organisations in reaching out to other farmers and encouraging them to come to further training courses.

In conjunction with the Health and Safety Authority, we conducted an evaluation at farm level and we found that approximately 76% or three quarters of those engaged in farming were broadly compliant but there is further work to be done on approximately a quarter of farms. There is an ongoing requirement to manage health and safety.

Teagasc programmes are in place to assist farmers to improve the management of health and safety on farms. We will encourage farmers to use the systems. The key issue is engagement by farmers, and that the information is pitched at a level where farmers can absorb the message and act on it. To repeat, 76% of farmers are engaging in that process, but the challenge for Teagasc is to ensure all farmers engage in the process on an ongoing basis.

I thank Mr. McNamara. I will call the spokespersons to respond.

I thank the Chairman, the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, and the delegates for their contributions.

This is a stark subject, notwithstanding Mr. McNamara's final comment. To date there has been a 140% increase on the 2009 figures for farm fatalities. The key issue in the prevention of accidents is the engagement of farmers.

Mr. McNamara said that 1,200 people participated in a training course, unfortunately I think it was mainly the spouses of farmers who participated in the course. I acknowledge the presence of the chairperson of the IFA farm family and social affairs committee, Ms Margaret Healy. That committee deals with the consequences of fatalities and serious accidents on the farm and is the most interested in this issue.

I am an active farmer. My house is detached from the farm but in many cases the farm is both the workplace and the living place. That is the difficulty. Traditionally, everything was constructed around the farmyard. While the enterprise moved out from that, it is very difficult to draw the line between the farm and the home. The level of awareness of safety is important. Familiarity breeds contempt and people are busy. They face economic constraints in carrying out some of the costly measures that would be necessary to put proper farm safety measures in place. This begs the question of whether there is a role for farm insurance companies in incentivising safety, which goes right across the contributions of all three delegates. Some insurance companies incentivise young motorists who drive a car with a certain horsepower. Could farm insurance companies incentivise farmers to undergo a health and safety assessment and carry out the necessary actions in order to benefit from a reduction in the premium? In the event of a tragedy, be it an injury or fatality, an insurance company will have to pay out money.

If a farmer signs up for REPS, he or she must do a mandatory REPS course. Should it be the case that if one is to receive farm payments, the person who is farming, the active farmer and not the spouse, must be obliged to do a HSA course. I do not disagree with the statistics provided in the evaluation of those who participated on the course. The transmission of that message to the breadwinner, the person who is actually doing the work, is the challenge. With all due respect, I think that is a flaw in the system and it must be addressed.

Some insurance companies run awareness campaigns on television about overhead wires. The Road Safety Authority presents its message graphically on television, radio and on billboards. Something similar must be done about farm safety in marts and places which people frequent regularly as well as in the media. The figures show that the risk of workplace accidents is ten times greater on farms. There is a myriad of reasons, not least that the farm is generally the homeplace as well. That presents a challenge that most other workplaces do not have.

Like everybody who lives in a rural community, I have seen the effect of injuries and tragic accidents on families. Any fatality is one tragedy too many. As the Fine Gael spokesperson, we are more than willing to do anything we can to address these challenges. I am sure this view is held by all members of the committee.

I welcome the delegation and I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Calleary.

I will deal with the budget of the Health and Safety Authority for 2009 to 2010. The Health and Safety Authority addressed the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs on 13 October 2009. In the course of that meeting Mr. O'Halloran outlined the budget figures. 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.

Has there been a further reduction in the HSA's budget for 2010? What is the breakdown for all of these areas? As a result of the major downturn in the construction industry has there been a reallocation of resources and funding to other areas such as farm safety? I wish to put these questions first of all and, begging the Chairman's indulgence, I will put some more questions afterwards. However, I would prefer to get the answers to those first, if possible.

Deputy Sherlock wishes to have these questions answered now. Perhaps this could be done as briefly as possible because several members wish to make contributions and the Minister of State must leave at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

There has been a reallocation of resources within the Health and Safety Authority from the construction sector. Typically, we carried out in the region of between 9,000 and 10,000 inspections in the construction sector. This has been reduced significantly to in the region of 5,000. A significant portion of the resource has been allocated to agriculture. Earlier this year, we set up a specialist, dedicated agriculture inspection unit made up of five inspectors. We estimate some 20 people in the Health and Safety Authority are actively involved in agriculture programmes at present. This work ranges from the issuing of advice, guidance and information, working with the farm safety partnership, working with our colleagues in the Department, attending the ploughing championships and supporting farmers. There are general field inspectors also who, among their broad range of activities, carry out farm inspections. However, we have a specialist team of five who do nothing else but farm inspections.

We have also advised the farming community that our inspectors are pleased to carry out what we call "farm walks". We preannounce an inspection on a farm and invite the farmers from the local community to come along. The inspectors take what we call a "walk through" and identify the hazards and the appropriate control strategies. There has been a significant reallocation to agriculture. There have been several other areas to which we have diverted resources as well but agriculture has been the major recipient of diverted resources.

I beg the Chairman's indulgence on this. I wish to drill down into the figures somewhat vis-à-vis the HSA. We all buy into the strategy of the farm safety action plan 2009-2012. We all realise that all the stakeholders are involved. However, we are unable to see a significant dent in the figures over an historical period. Perhaps I am incorrect in this regard. Let us consider the figures for the HSA in 2008. There was expenditure of €1.2 million for information provision, €1 million for travel and subsistence, and €2.2 million for accommodation. The question arises whether some of these resources should now be reallocated into Teagasc or the farm organisations through some newly-designed programme to ensure there is greater stakeholder involvement by the farm organisations with regard to reducing the number of fatalities and accidents. I am not convinced that there is a sufficient allocation of resources by the HSA. The HSA claims it will increase inspections from 1,700 to 3,000 next year but there are only five inspectors. I surmise those five inspectors have always been there. Has there been an increase in the number of inspectors attributed to this function? It is a fairly significant leap to get from 1,700 to 3,000. It is no harm for us to question these figures within the committee if the major aim of everyone is to try to get the number of accidents down. I seek a response to these points.

We will get a response later.

I wish to allow other members to contribute.

I thank the Minister of State, the Health and Safety Authority and Teagasc for their contributions. By its nature, farming is a risky and dangerous business. It involves dealing with live animals, machinery and slurry which have played a part in fatalities over the years. There is also the added pressure on farmers due to weather and certain deadlines they must meet. For example, calendar farming puts extra pressure on farmers who trying to spread slurry. By and large it is a risky business.

We should be trying to eliminate fatalities but it is a significant problem for all of us. As the delegations stated at the outset, everyone has a part to play including the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, Teagasc and farmers. There may be a role for the organisations present to go into schools in rural areas. This is where the process must begin. The Minister of State referred to the need to change the culture and this starts at national school level and, to take it further, in secondary schools. It would be a worthwhile exercise to start there. This might take some time but were we to get the message across to young people it would probably have a better chance of staying with them for some time, rather than dealing with older people. It is very hard to change the mindset of older people and the way they work. However, were one to intervene at a young age and show exactly what takes place in farms and the way accidents happen, it could have a significant impact. Perhaps this would not happen immediately but in the years ahead, which is what we should be considering. Will the Minister of State take on board this suggestion, tease it out further and try to roll it out in the coming years?

I welcome the Minister of State. I believe it is his first time before the committee. I also welcome the Health and Safety Authority and Teagasc. Their presence proves how serious the situation is. Were there not a serious situation, they would not be here to inform us of the statistics, which are frightening. From 40 deaths in 2010, some 24 are directly related to farming which amounts to 60%, a serious statistic. By definition, an accident is a mishap. This means it could have been prevented, which is a cause of concern. All 24 accidents could have been prevented. This is the main point we are trying to get across today.

I am an active farmer. All day yesterday I was cutting sticks and timber for the winter. I realise how serious this is and how an accident can happen, especially when one is cutting timber. I did not have to knock the trees; they were already knocked. However, the use of a chainsaw is serious. There is no way I would now cut timber on my own, which I did for many years, in case of an accident. There are two people with me and we use two mobile phones. This shows that awareness is very important. We are getting there gradually. The statistics indicate that 79% of farmers are up to standard. It is not possible for everyone to be up to standard because we are dealing with a dangerous situation on the farm each day. A farm is a dangerous place, whether one is dealing with cattle, silage or slurry, fixing a shed or up a ladder. One is in danger every day when one goes out on a farm. This is the realisation of which we must be aware as farmers and for which we must be responsible.

I agree with the controls and legislation and, as has been stated already, there must be a cultural change. Farmers are now subject to much regulation. They are being inspected all the time. We do not need any more regulation or inspections; we have enough of that. Education is what we need, so people are aware they must be on the look out for dangers, particularly where children are involved. Children by their nature are excited when silage is being cut, with tractors and trailers moving about; the furore gets them excited. It is the same with slurry. I know farmers who were overcome by fumes they could not even see and who were lucky to escape. I heard of one case where a man was saved because someone caught him just before he fell into a slurry pit. He did not even realise the dangers from the gas.

Farm systems have improved. Electric fencing has improved safety in animal control. When I was young, if someone met a bull in a field, there would be nowhere to go. Now with the modern paddock system, there are smaller lots so a person could jump under the wire to escape a bull. With the money being spent on farm improvements over the last two or three years, millions of euro have been spent on putting slurry control systems in place. That is why the figures for fatalities have fallen. One death, however, is one too many and 24 seems very high for this day and age.

Most of my questions have already been asked. I am delighted to hear farming groups are represented on the farm safety partnership advisory committee. How often does it meet? Has it made many recommendations and have those recommendations been followed up?

Insurance companies insure farmers. Should they play a bigger role when insuring machinery for public liability to make sure that what they are insuring is up to standard? Perhaps they should also carry out inspections along with the HSA and Teagasc. I compliment Teagasc because I have been at some of the courses it runs on health and safety and it is trying to get the message out.

This is a serious issue. The committee will help to promote awareness along with the other agencies until we have a year where there is not a single death on a farm; a figure of 24 deaths is far too high.

I welcome the Minister of State and the delegation and thank him for the presentation, creating awareness of a serious subject that we should tackle head on. Accidents can be avoided but they happen and we should work towards minimising the numbers of accidents that happen and their effects. I witnessed a fatal accident on a farm once and I would not wish the experience on anyone.

The presentations mentioned the involvement of all stakeholders. Is the Agricultural Contractors Association represented on the partnership body? As a former agricultural contractor, I am aware of the pitfalls. There is a role for machinery companies, dealers and contractors in the standards and operation of machinery. That also applies to the farming community because much of the work done at machinery level on farms is done under intense pressure, against time or in adverse weather. Farmers operate on a 24-hour basis so there is a role for farmers to have everything in order just as there is for the contractor to have the machinery running properly.

What funding has been made available for research and development? Is this being done through Teagasc and the companies that distribute machinery? The quality of machinery has improved enormously over the last 20 years. Forage harvesters are now state-of-the-art. I was operating one of them when it developed a fault. I rang the dealer who was able to identify the problem and fix it from the garage some miles away. They still pose a threat, however, and one of the main things that causes accidents is the power take-off cover. A new one has been developed but the problem is that when the machinery is operating it can develop a problem at night. The farmer will not abandon the job so the pressure is to continue until it can be replaced the next day.

I apologise, I must leave now.

There has been great co-operation from FBD, which is the main farm insurance company. Mr. Ciarán Roche, the director of risk, is a member of the farm safety partnership and has played a prominent and significant role in activities in the last six months in particular. We are also satisfied the HSA has a sufficient budget to fulfil its responsibilities and that budget was re-examined this year to respond to the situation. There was an intense week of on-farm activity in May in association with Teagasc. The budget is in place and it is being spent wisely.

Deputy O'Sullivan's point on a schools programme is true. We all know about the green flag programme and it is making a big difference in homes so we would be happy to follow up on this. Deputy Doyle's point is worth pursuing, however, where does the home end and the workplace begin on a farm? As everyone has said, familiarity breeds contempt. Since we launched the initiative in the spring there has been great co-operation from all farm organisations. As Mr. O'Halloran and Mr. McNamara have said, this will be renewed through the IFA during November. We must increase that effort, using every potential way of communication, particularly on the part of this committee, to get the message across.

We thank the Minister of State for attending. This issue has been raised with me on numerous occasions by the Minister of State. Unfortunately the committee has been so busy that we have only been able to deal with it now. It was worthwhile and we are grateful for the presentations.

Mr. O'Halloran of the HSA mentioned an increase in the number of inspections from 1,700 to 3,000. That represents a health and safety risk itself for farmers. The level of inspections taking place is the bane of farmers' lives at present as it puts them under serious pressure. It would be better to visit secondary schools to give talks to students. In my area, a farmer I know was driven to commit suicide when he was notified of an inspection. Such inspections put the fear of God into farmers, with the number of inspections and the level of bureaucracy they must tolerate. I urge the HSA to do more in the area of training and visiting schools. I was going to suggest that health and safety should feature on secondary school programmes to create awareness and that Teagasc should have a role in respect of health safety on farms. This is not merely for the agricultural community as it is important that people who visit farms are aware of the dangers and the sensitivities that exist, particularly during the busy seasons of summer and autumn when the crops are being harvested.

Going back to my experience as an agricultural contractor, there was a time when one could not cut silage without putting barrels of sulphuric acid on it. It destroyed every agricultural machine and tractor in the country, not to mention the damage caused to the human body and clothing. That was the advice given. Teagasc does not always get it right. Nowadays we hear nothing about this, as there is very little emphasis on putting sulphuric acid on silage. At that time it was essential and it had to be applied no matter what the weather was like. It was rather silly advice because there was no proper mechanism for applying it and it destroyed both machine and man and caused much damage. There is a need for a more hands-on approach by everybody in this area, it is not just targeting the farmer. Machinery dealers and manufacturers have a responsibility. The power take-off cover is one issue. It is frightening to see somebody wrapped around a power take-off shaft. On the new model of tractor there is a power take-off unit that can disengage itself. There is a need for research and development and training in this respect.

On the nitrates directive, Teagasc imposed time limits for the spreading of slurry in the Republic while on the other side of the Border people were allowed to continue to spread it. The intense pressure and time limits being imposed on farming and agricultural operators all contribute to serious pressure. It is not a question of the farmer or the operator being careless. There is a role for everybody including the delegations to improve the service and training they provide and to increase investment in research and development to enable us tackle this problem. Having witnessed one incident I do not want to witness another. This is one issue about which I would be emotional and passionate. There is much room for improvement in the delivery of services in the area of health and safety.

I am sorry for being late. I welcome the delegates, all of whom are experts in their field. However, experts will not end farm fatalities because they can be an act of God as much as anything else. There are 130,000 registered farmers in Ireland, practically all of whom own livestock. The livestock area which is one of the most sensitive includes suckler cows and calves. Many people are hurt and some have been killed by cows as they get very aggressive after calving. There are also stock bulls, mainly the Friesian breed which is very sensitive. That has been my experience. There should be greater emphasis on the use of artificial insemination to lessen the number of stock bulls on farms. While farmers in the breeding area might not like this, that is one area that is a cause for concern.

Deputy Aylward mentioned chainsaws. There should be some regulation in respect of the use of chainsaws. A chainsaw user should be accompanied by an assistant and should not be working on his own. While we are talking about fatalities, there are a large number of accidents where people are hurt and lose hands and legs. These accidents are not recorded.

I pay tribute to the farm insurance organisation, FBD, which conducts inspections on intensive farms to ensure premiums are not being abused and that there are no accidents. That is supported by the IFA which has a keen interest. I am glad to see so many farming organisations present because they have a major role to play, including the IFA and ICMSA.

Farm walks which are very important take place all over the country. People go on farms with experts from Teagasc who give talks. More use can be made of these walks in terms of farm safety. The advisory service of Teagasc is a fantastic organisation. It is independent, it does a good job but I regret the cutbacks in recent years have resulted in fewer advisers on the ground. Advisers are very close to farming people. They call to and walk the farms and will point out various weaknesses with a view to making the farm more efficient and safer. Greater use should be made of these advisers. No amount of money will solve the problem. There is no point in throwing money at something that cannot be solved, and talking about it. I am pleased to see Mr. John McNamara from Teagasc is present. I ask him to take back the message that I want to see more advisers on the ground. Some of these advisers were taken out of the system. There is a good relationship between advisers and farmers. I see little emphasis on research and development. Common sense has a major role in this whole area.

While I was not present for the Minister of State's contribution, I note the statistics for farm fatalities. One of the worst areas is getting caught in the PTO shaft of a vacuum tanker while removing slurry. Agitation is the big issue, involving slurry agitator systems. In the past if one was caught in a PTO shaft one would survive because one had cotton or wool trousers. However, plastic is now worn which does not tear easily. In the past two years I saw a farmer caught in a system by his clothing and he lost his life. This happened not far from where I live in another county. The type of clothing worn is another issue.

The area that needs most attention is that of power driving on tractors. I come from an intensive farming operation and we have a number of people employed. I was always conscious of that issue long before there was any discussion about it. Another fatality was caused by a farmer being struck by a tree he was felling. I do not know what one can say about the death caused by falling from a ledge at approximately 2 m while working on a shed. Another farmer was found underneath the stem of a windblown tree he had felled using a chainsaw. The next fatality mentioned which was caused by a farmer being crushed between a wall and a skip should not have happened. The same is the case for the fatality due to a farmer being crushed between a tractor and trailer. Slurry tanks are not much safer today than in the past. I would be very aware of that. Another farmer was killed by a bull. Other fatalities involved a child who was struck by a truck, and another death occurred when a low loader in a farmyard reversed over a child.

This matter must go back to Teagasc and its advisers on the ground who visit the 130,000 farms. There should be more emphasis on safety. Because of the single payment scheme and other issues, Teagasc advisers deal with practically all the farmers in the land. I ask Mr. McNamara to take the message back from this meeting that there is a great need for the advisory service in this area because it is close to farmers. While I have nothing against anybody from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, as Deputy Coonan said in regard to inspections, farmers will always be suspicious, but they know the advisers who are very close to farmers.

There is also a role for insurance companies. I am not here to do a commercial for FBD but I was involved with safety organisations in the late 1960s when I was not very old. I made my first £100 and I had many pounds as a shareholder. It has been a very successful organisation. It is very close to the farmers involved and it does the business. I ask for more involvement by Teagasc and by FBD as an insurance company. That will result in fewer accidents but they can never stop an act of God.

I cannot say enough about the advisory service. Farm walks which are sponsored by Teagasc take place on most dairy and beef farms and are advertised daily in newspapers. No other inspection is as important as that kind of a relationship and that is the relationship I want. Most farmers co-operate with Teagasc and its advisory service.

This is an issue on which I am working with a few farmers in my area. In the majority of farm holdings, depending on the size, there is anywhere between €70,000 and €200,000 worth of farm machinery in farmyards. I asked a few local farmers to consider contracting out the majority of their farm works to agricultural contractors. They will not have a depreciation bill of up to 10% per annum. They will not have to worry about insurance. A farm has to be viewed as a workplace, a construction site. I have put this viewpoint to a number of farmers locally and they are considering the implications of it. Some farmers I know are considering spending between €30,000 and €50,000 on tractors. I put it to them to consider how many hours in the year they will clock up on the tractor. For the want of a better term "middle farming" would be better off using farming contractors, who can tender to spread all the slurry and manure, cut the silage and do what needs to be done. Some are sending out contracts to feed the animals. I know it is not suitable for all farmers, but it is a small step. One could call this a step towards privatisation. The implementation of health and safety measures in chapter 8 is costing local authorities a fortune. Before any roadworks can be undertaken, the local authority must erect warning signs and it takes a team of three men in a van three days to put up signs in advance of roadworks that could last a week. This is the time to make the shift to privatising much of the machinery work on farms, as the onus to comply with health and safety standards would be on the agricultural contractor. This would result in a drastic drop in farm deaths.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

I will deal with some of the questions. Deputy Sherlock raised the issue of diverting resources to agriculture and increasing inspections from 1,700 to 3,000. We believe that is achievable. Inspectors who concentrate on main enforcement will achieve 300 inspections per annum. The number tends to be lower in the case of agriculture because of the distances involved, but we believe that between the five dedicated inspectors and another 15 to 20 inspectors who will be doing it as part of their general work, we will achieve that number of inspections.

Deputy Coonan made a related point. The experience and feedback from inspectors is that they do not get a bad reception. In fact, they are received positively when they go to visit farms. The first interaction is on an advisory basis and inspectors generally seek voluntary compliance, advise the farmer and identify what needs to be corrected and take it from there. If we take the number of active farmers to be 115,000 and that 3,000 inspections are conducted per annum, it would not add up to an excessive level of inspection. One is talking about an inspection rate of once every 38 to 40 years. That is not a heavy inspection engagement.

I will not interrupt again, but I think what is needed is a change of attitude and a change of language. I do not think the delegates from the HSA should be talking about inspections but about advice. The attitude displayed today permeates to farmers.

Will the Deputy allow Mr. O'Halloran to continue?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

In relation to the membership of the farm safety partnership, the contractor representatives are involved as is the tractor manufacturers' association. My colleague Mr. Pat Griffin will outline the full membership of the partnership.

In response to Deputy O'Keeffe, we do farm walks and we encourage the use of farm walks. I will get Mr. Griffin to outline the work of the farm safety partnership and that may address a question raised by Deputy Aylward as well.

Chairman, I asked other questions.

Perhaps Mr. Griffin will deal with them.

I asked about the budget and the possible diversification of the budget. I asked about the breakdown of the HSA budget which is €22.6 million. We were paying €2.2 million for accommodation, €1.2 million for information provision and €1 million in travel and subsistence. What is the status of the budget now, given that there has been a remarkable reduction in the construction industry? Is the HSA standing over a figure of €1 million for travel and subsistence? The number of farm deaths does not appear to have been reduced dramatically. Out of a total of 40 fatalities across all sectors, the figure for farming is 23. Where is the bang for the buck in that? With all due respect, I do not want blasé answers.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The budget for the Health and Safety Authority for 2010 is €21.259 million, a reduction on the figure for 2009. I apologise, but I thought the Minister of State had addressed that. The distribution of the budget is broadly the same. There has been a reduction in the staffing of the HSA to 186.8 full-time equivalents and there has been an increase in some of the levels of activity in the chemicals area primarily. The budget covers the totality of the work of the authority. The authority has responsibility for dealing with 1.8 million employees in the economy not uniquely the farming sector, yet we are very anxious to see significant improvements in the agricultural sector. The remit of the authority covers everything across 1.8 million employees, including land use planning, the pharmaceutical and manufacturing sectors, construction, etc. There are some mandatory requirements on the Health and Safety Authority, including the non-discretionary carrying out of accident site inspections. They must be notified at European level. That is a significant role and it relates to the pharma-chemicals and electronics sectors. The health care sector is also an area where we have a significant involvement. We have become involved in the education sector. The breadth of activity of the Health and Safety authority is very wide and the budget covers its totality.

The €1 million spend on travel and subsistence is the sum required to carry out approximately 18,000 inspections distributed through the urban and rural environment, as well as sending delegates to represent the Irish interest at the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki and at some key agencies in Brussels. We believe we played a significant role in shaping the legislation in favour of the Irish scenario.

I hope that gives members a sense of the breadth of activity of the HSA. We have significantly diverted our resources and changed the way we are working. We use technology very significantly and we have a workplace call centre, where we deal with queries from all sectors of industry. That centre handles approximately 40,000 calls a year relating to accident reports, requests for information, etc. We have a website with a frequently asked question section which gets well in excess of 1 million hits a year.

I appreciate that response and I think the more frank response helps me as a member of the committee. I had asked also about the statistical range. Is the number of farm fatalities above the European average? I asked also whether we should be diverting some of the budget into Teagasc which has a direct involvement and interaction with farmers on the ground. Should that issue be explored?

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

The HSA is a very efficient organisation based on a comparative analysis carried out in 2009 by the Department of the Taoiseach. This investigation was carried out by The Economist Intelligence Unit and was commissioned by the Department of the Taoiseach. In a comparative analysis it found that the Health and Safety Authority was considered to be a strong performer compared to several European counterparts and others in Australia and New Zealand.

The fatality rates in agriculture are very distressing and unacceptable. However, were we to set out a league table comparison we would be at the upper end of the European norm. It sounds terrible to refer to fatalities in this way but it serves to give Deputy Sherlock a sense of it. Ireland is probably ranked among the first three or four in overall performance at European level. I believe we innovate and work effectively. For a broader international comparison, I call on my colleague Mr. Pat Griffin to give a sense of what the comparative fatality rates are in the US and other significant countries.

Mr. Pat Griffin

Ireland ranks among the top four or five in Europe with regard to the lowest rate of fatal accidents in agriculture. It is a dreadful situation this year with 24 deaths already. However, let us look back over the years. Last year we had the lowest fatal accident year on record. Unfortunately, the year before that there were 20 fatalities but the year before that in turn, there were ten fatalities. The figures are spiking. It is typical in any sector with a high level of fatal accidents that when the figures are reducing, they spike. However, it is far better to examine and graph the figures on a five-year rolling average. If this is done it is possible to see whether the programmes, interventions, visits to farms and the way in which we operate with the farming community are working. There is a general downward trend in the graph and even this year's dreadful figures will not reverse the trend; it may interrupt it but it will not reverse it. The trend is downwards and we are making progress. I would not like the committee to consider our progress in terms of this year's figures in isolation. Significant achievements have been made in previous years. Measurement of the performance of the sector with reference only to fatal accidents in the workplace is a mistake. I have spoken with advisers from Teagasc and HSA inspectors in this regard. Anyone who enters a farm today is likely to return and report that things are improving in the farming community. The situation is improving and people are more aware of the safety requirements on farms.

Several people have said to me in recent years that there has been enough regulation and inspection and that there should be no more inspections. Let us compare the position with the United States, where one must employ more than ten people on the farm before one is regulated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH. The figures are a good deal higher than those in Ireland. This proves the point that legislation, codes of practice, guidance and intervention by the State is a good thing. In 2009 there were 551 fatalities in the USA, a fatal accident rate of 26 per 100,000 people employed. Our rates range between 15 and 17 per 100,000 employed. Our figures are substantially better than the United States. This is an example of where regulation and intervention are not in place and there is a dreadful situation. We are in fourth place in the European context. We would rather be higher up the league table but it changes from year to year. We observe what is taking place in other European countries. At present, Denmark is probably at the top and there have been no fatalities in farming this year. We will examine very closely the programmes in place there and what they are doing. We have spoken to the authorities there already and we are analysing the possibilities for a way forward. However, the demographics are different and farming in Denmark is different to farming in Ireland. Other countries ahead of us include Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. We are also examining these countries and how they run their programmes.

The farm safety partnership has been in place since 2002. It is made up of all the farming interests in Ireland. These are listed in the current action plan. The farm safety partnership had an agreed action plan. The current action plan for 2009 to 2012 has seven major goals. We have formed a working party for each goal. Each working party will concentrate on a particular issue. Let us consider one example of a working party, the tractors and machinery working party. This will focus on the issues related to tractors and machinery. Most people are aware that up to 50% of the deaths involve tractors and machinery and this is why we are focusing on this area. At the ploughing championships we launched a booklet entitled Tractor Safety and You. This was well received by the farming community. It is simple and straightforward and we encourage parents to go through such leaflets with their children and with youths who are beginning to use farm machinery. The group will produce more guidance on farm machinery and we intend to disseminate it.

Another job of the committee is to examine the issue of power take-off, PTO, shafts. These are the greatest killers in many countries and are at the centre many dreadful non-fatal injuries as well. We are researching the possibility of a replacement for the power take-off shaft with a hydraulic system. We are trying to establish if the manufacturers of tractors could move completely away from PTO shafts because of the dreadful injuries caused on farms.

I refer to how the partnership works. It meets three times per year. The action plans are agreed at the meetings of the chairmen of the working parties. They return and report to the farm safety partnership on their achievements and make recommendations. Among these recommendations is visits to schools, the development of schemes and user-friendly guidance which can be followed easily by farmers. We have done this in collaboration with FBD and the IFA. One such scheme is running at the moment.

A multifaceted approach is necessary to deal with this problem. I am unsure whether we could simply propose that Teagasc, the HSA, the IFA or the schools should sort out the problems. Only when all the participants work together and a culture of safe working on a farm builds up will there be progress. We must transmit the message that a safe farmer is a good farmer. I am pleased to report that because of the Minister's intervention earlier this year there is very significant buy-in from the farming organisations and their leadership. We are beginning to see some changes and a culture is beginning to develop. We should not take the figures for this in isolation.

Thank you very much. I have examined some of the information, leaflets and documentation which I have been given by the clerk, including a code of practice for preventing accidents to children and young persons in agriculture, guidelines for safe working near overhead electricity lines in agriculture, guidance on the safe handling of livestock at marts and lairages, tractor safety and you, information and guides on safe working with tractors and chainsaws. All this material can be downloaded on the Internet and Members should download this information for themselves.

Can I ask a question?

Does Mr. McNamara wish to come in first?

Mr. John McNamara

I thank the committee members for their very constructive comments. Deputy Doyle suggested that we did not get the real farmers but rather their spouses. This is not the case. It may have happened in some cases but, overwhelmingly, we spoke to the vast majority of farmers. Females respond more positively to health and safety issues. If a farmer sent his or her spouse to speak to us it would be a sign that he or she was opting out, which we would discourage. In many cases we spoke to both partners which is ideal. The Deputy referred to the insurance incentives. These are in the marketplace and the issue is under discussion at the farm safety partnerships. Regarding REPS, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has added a voluntary section on health and safety which has been well received. It gives us a great platform on which to work. We also have a programme for going to marts. In response to Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks about sucklers and cows, we have done research and we will hold a seminar on 23 November where we will unveil our plans. We are working with the ICBF on breeding and we will take on board the Deputy's comments about better use of AI.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned school visits and one of my colleagues, Ms Lily Nolan, wrote an excellent book sponsored by the HSA that has been sent to every primary school. To the best of my knowledge there are perhaps 900 or 1,000 primary schools and we cannot be everywhere. We do what we can and we hope primary teachers will use that resource. Earlier questions about farm safety partnerships have been answered.

Deputy Coonan asked about contractors. The contractors have proved to be a marvellous resource and they are represented on the HSA. Deputy Sheahan referred to greater use of contractors. Teagasc is promoting farm business and good business decision making and we encourage farmers to go down that route. In terms of resources and research we have jointly funded projects with Teagasc and the Health and Safety Authority. Teagasc has provided some core funding for research as well.

On sulphuric acid, that was the standard that applied at the time. I recall in my early days at the HSA that one of my jobs was to reduce exposure of workers and that process is more or less finished.

Teagasc has had reductions in staff due to retirement from approximately 400 to 270 advisers. The world has moved on because there is less paperwork and systems are more streamlined. Our director of knowledge transfer, Dr. Tom Kelly, is working on what Deputy O'Keeffe requires - how to secure the best possible engagement between farmers and advisers on a practical level.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has produced an excellent report, the Food Harvest 2020 report, which plans for expansion in agriculture over the next decade. Teagasc welcomes the opportunity to work with farmers in a safe manner to achieve those objectives.

By nature, farmers are shy people and they will work better with the advisory service of Teagasc. I take issue about the drop in numbers because there is a shortfall of advisory services in east Cork. In an age of specialisation there should be many more advisers. The farmer-adviser relationship is unique. The adviser is friendly; he knows the farmer, his wife and his family. There is no farm in Ireland the Teagasc adviser will not visit once or twice in the year. I know Mr. McNamara is not the policymaker but it is a matter for Teagasc. Has there been a reduction in research and development? It is not getting anywhere.

Is the reduction in the number of advisers not a function of Government policy? Is the Deputy not a member of the Government party?

We will have Teagasc in at a later stage to discuss the issues being raised. I ask members to stick to health and safety.

The HSA used to send out a questionnaire every year to farmers. Is it still doing that? There would be spot checks and advisers would call to farms and farmers would fill out the form on issues such as electricity being in order and the tractor working properly and so on. I got one many years ago from the HSA.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

On the green cert qualification-----

I would like my questions to be answered.

There are people ahead of Deputy O'Keeffe.

I am asking about policy, that is the problem.

The way things are going the Opposition will have the chance to rectify these matters in the next year or so. I want to ask about green certificate qualifications and courses. These are two year courses but when I did mine, I got it in 16 weeks. How long is given to health and safety and farm education during that two year course? This is all about prevention, education and awareness; those are the three issues that will change this scenario.

Sticking to the topic at hand, is there an age profile for the fatalities?

Further inspections will not have the desired effect. With respect to Teagasc, there is a leaflet in the schools but that is not what I was talking about. I want to see a presentation made using slides or films. There are plenty of incidents that could be re-enacted to show how accidents occur. By doing that it will influence young people, leading to a fall in figures in years to come.

I thank the delegation for their responses. Deputy Coonan made the point about the language surrounding inspections. If visits were seen as advisory and follow-up visits, it would be seen as educational instead of as a policing action.

Mr. McNamara mentioned REPS. REPS is gone but we have an agri-environment options scheme and a rural environment protection scheme. A case should be made that the protection of the environment also includes the protection of the environment for the people who work there. In the AEOS, as it is called, that should be considered as a module in the future when this is introduced on a rolling basis. Teagasc and the HSA should examine that and make a submission to the Minister. When looking for revised options, they should include farm safety improvements on foot of a farm safety statement.

I join in thanking the contributors. I assume there has not been an updated study from UCG on recent accident trends and farmer health statistics. Looking at the figures, it would stand to reason that a higher professional such as a lawyer is infinitely less likely to have an accident than a farmer or an unskilled manual labourer. Is there anything in the figures that throws light on the subject? The presentation contains references to the percentage of recent accident trends. For 2008 to date it refers to a value of 50 for vehicles and machinery and between 2001 and 2007 the figure is 43. How do delegates interpret these figures?

What does the Health and Safety Authority and Teagasc propose to do from now on in regard to the issue we discussed today? Do they have ideas on how to better communicate this message? Will the delegates consider holding a joint conference, perhaps with the Garda Síochána and the Road Safety Authority? As there are no students in the Garda College in Templemore, a huge building is available with excellent facilities. A series of conferences can be run there to highlight the issue and to educate and advise people involved in farms and farm safety.

I have the Teagasc annual report before me. The Government provided a huge grant in aid to Teagasc. The board decides how to spend it so I remind my constituency colleague, Deputy Sherlock, that he should look at it. The board of Teagasc should decide to improve its advisory service.

That is for the next meeting.

It is relevant to this meeting on health and safety. I think Deputy Sherlock has a copy of it.

Deputy O'Keeffe can be a special adviser when Deputy Sherlock is the Minister with responsibility for agriculture.

Members can tell me when they are finished so we can allow the gentlemen who have been here all day to respond.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

Regarding Deputy Coonan's question, I thank the committee for its constructive comments and suggestions. We will take this on board and we will see about actively implementing as many suggestions as possible. We will bring the suggestions, which include some of the specific suggestions on strengthening the incentivisation for insurance, to the farm safety partnership and the board of the authority. We have collaborated with the Road Safety Authority. We have a formal memorandum of understanding with the Garda Síochána, as we have with approximately 20 other organisations. We work in a joined-up way and we work collaboratively. Regarding Deputy Tom Sheahan's question, we have a detailed age profile of the victims. We did not include that in the presentation today but we are happy to send it to the clerk to the committee so that it can be passed on.

Mr. John McNamara

I refer to Deputy Sherlock's query. He referred to a percentage figure. Regarding health, at an international level greater progress has been made. We worked jointly and we have a major study under way in that area.

Regarding Deputy Edward O'Keeffe's comments on the availability of advisers, our director is very conscious of the geographical spread of advisers. Deputy Aylward preferred to the green certificate. We have a comprehensive module on the green certificate. We place students on farms for a five-month period and they undergo comprehensive training by well-qualified host farmers. Health and safety is built into all our modules.

Regarding the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, we seek to include health and safety in all of those areas. We will consider all the recommendations of the committee, along with our partners in the HSA and in the farming organisations and do the best possible job we can.

Mr. Pat Griffin

Deputy O'Keeffe referred to spot checks by inspectors. He may be referring to a self-assessment form. This has developed into the code of practice. It is a checklist farmers can use to identify controls they can put in place. Our inspectors are conscious of the difficulties in farming today. They approach inspections in a realistic way and the feedback to us is always positive. Farmers find it improves the level of safety on their farm. We are conscious that farmers are under pressure and we approach these inspections in a sensitive manner. I spoke to an inspector before I attended this meeting. He carried out inspections yesterday. Farmers are willing to put control measures in place once it is pointed out to them but unfortunately they will not act in a proactive manner. Someone must visit the farm. I refer to this as a visit because we do not go in with strict enforcement from the word go. We go in on the basis of a visit, giving advice, and farmers are unfortunately waiting for our inspectors to point out what is wrong. We call on farmers to approach health and safety in a more proactive way and do the work for us rather than wait for inspectors to come on to their farms.

Are these checks done on the spot? Is there any warning? Are farmers selected at random or are they spread geographically or regionally? What is the criteria?

Mr. Pat Griffin

We examine the fatal accidents per county on an annual basis and then consider blackspots. We have carried out three seminars this year and three seminars the last year in blackspots where there are clusters of fatal accidents. There is an annual national farm safety conference that we have run with Teagasc, sponsored by FBD, for the past four or five years. For inspections, we concentrate on the counties with the worst record on fatal accidents. This includes Cork, my home county of Tipperary, Meath and a few other counties. Our inspections are not announced, they are undertaken at random. The inspector goes out and undertakes inspections at random in, for example, County Meath. We try to pick commercial farms where there is risk.

Mr. Martin O’Halloran

Where we carry out farm safety walks, these are announced and the word gets out to as many farmers as possible in the community. The majority are not announced but in the case of farm safety walks, farmers are invited for a safety tour to highlight hazards and risks. These are undertaken by prior notification and agreement.

I thank the Minister, who has left the committee room. I also thank Mr. O'Halloran, Mr. Griffin, Mr. McNamara and the departmental officials for updating the committee on health and safety issues in the farming sector. It was an informative meeting. It would be appropriate for this committee if delegates return at least once a year. This would be particularly appropriate at the beginning of the farming season, in spring and early summer, when all activity starts. The clerk to the committee will keep this in mind and may include it in our work programme for next year. The delegates play a major part in this area.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 November 2010.
Barr
Roinn