Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Farm Inspections: Health and Safety Authority

10:00 am

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is very useful to have this debate today. It is good that the delegation acceded to the request by the Chairman to come before the committee at very short notice and discuss this very important issue. All of us know of people who have been killed in farm accidents and the major tragedy it is for the families involved. Many people are injured on farms, and some receive serious injuries.

There was a report that the number of inspections was to be reduced, which is a cause of concern. Mr. O'Halloran articulated the challenges facing the farming and agricultural industry very well. The person doing the work on a farm is normally a sole trader and today many more farmers work on their own compared to the past. Factories have fixed equipment and if there are potential risks one can do a lot to reduce them. Farms are, by their nature, full of mobile equipment which is taken in and out of fields and farmyards and is manoeuvred to different places.

It leads to a much higher risk factor which was very much highlighted in the 8:1 risk factor mentioned.

Today, we are here to work in collaboration to see is there some way that we can reduce the number of farm accidents and fatalities, an objective that we all have. Last year was a particularly bad year for farm fatalities. The first issue alluded to in the report is an obligation on all industries, including farming, to report serious accidents. It was also stated in the report that reporting of farms is much less for the obvious reason that if a farmer, the owner of the farm, has an accident one is unlikely to sue oneself and, therefore, the obligation or imperative to report an incident is not as high.

In the factory or office setting the vast majority of accidents happen to employees. In other words, not necessarily to the owner or employer. For all sorts of reasons, including insurance reasons, I imagine there is virtually 100% reporting of significant accidents in employer-employee relationships. As an employer I learned if there was anything, even quite a minor thing, to report when the health and safety person arrived he or she always made good suggestions. Is there anything that can be done to ensure people report accidents? Reporting a near miss, or an accident that did not have the serious consequence it could have had, could prevent a more serious accident happening.

The authority must carry out more inspections proactively because there is not as much reporting of non-fatal accidents. Does the authority need resources from its parent Department to carry out more inspections? More resources would mean the authority would be more proactive and would go to farms to ensure safe practices are in place.

Are there other mechanisms by which we could encourage farmers to prepare their safety statement, to think about safety and to self-audit or get somebody to audit what they do without an inspection? That would be helpful because the authority will never get to every farm.

As I have suggested in the past, could an arrangement be arrived at with the insurance companies, following informal discussions, that they will give a discount on insurance policies to farmers who carry out a safety audit and had a certified safety audit conducted by an appropriate person who was able to confirm it to the insurance company? Such a financial initiative would encourage people to have a safety statement and have somebody carry out an inspection. That would be preferable to the financial penalties spoken about because they exacerbate the problem. I do not favour financial penalties because a lot of the reason people do not invest in safety is that they do not have money. A penalty would take even more money away and would create a vicious circle. We must look at positive ways to encourage people to move forward. A small incentive would be a positive move and much preferable to exacerbating the problem by taking necessary grants away.

Has the authority analysed which type of farm has a high rate of accidents? Are more intensive farming methods more susceptible to accidents due to having more machinery in the farmyard? Is there a higher rate of accidents on more intensive farms rather than on less intensive farms? Insurance premia and investment are likely to be a lot more for more intensive farms and, therefore, it would pay them a lot more to have some type of audit in place. In contrast, a farm with very low intensity other than from livestock, which might have one tractor on it, would be a much lower risk. Has the authority got a statistical analysis that says the more equipment and machines on a farm, such as a slurry tank versus not having one, the higher the risk? In a lot of cases small farms contract out a lot of the machinery work. It would be important to have some measure of the matter.

Have we any idea what the compliance rate is for safety statements? I often have my doubts about safety statements. I would not like to ask my colleagues how many of them have read the safety statement as an employee in this place. I remember one day reading it because we had been given a big book which contained the statement. Cases where one must prepare a statement and one is involved work better. I am not sure how many employees read the safety statement. If an employer prepares one then he or she might get better engagement.

I noted the statistic of 17.9% of people fell from a height. I compliment the Minister on introducing the safety scheme last year. It was an innovative and positive idea. Unfortunately roofs were not included and replacing roofs that might be defective was not included. How many of the falls from a height were caused by a person falling through a roof? In other words, a person was doing something on a roof that was not up to standard and he or she fell off a ladder or through the roof because it was rusted or whatever. Should roofs be included in some new iteration of the scheme? I suggest it should include the replacement of defective roofs because almost 20% or one fifth of people fell from a height. Is a defective roof a significant cause of accidents on farms? The other causes are obvious - tractors, machinery, livestock, etc.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.