Mr. Joe Kenny:

There are a number of points that we can address. First, our policy is already well defined in terms of how we test for drugs and alcohol. We do not actually carry out random testing at the moment because of the absence of legislation, but our policy is in place to allow for it. International best practice suggests that somewhere between 5% and 10% of the workforce should be tested annually on a random basis. That is regarded as best practice internationally.

In the case of small businesses only a small number of people would be tested. The company could have a choice on whether the person tested is taken out of the testing, but normally the person is kept in. One could have a situation whereby someone is tested more than once on a purely random basis, for example. Anyway, the service provider we have uses what is called a randomiser. Our company has no input into who is selected for that. The process is clear to the staff as well as any other interested parties. It is completely transparent. We would not get a situation whereby someone would be victimised, for example.

There is another way that people are called for testing and that is using for-cause testing. This is what Deputy Ellis was referring to. This is where someone displays behaviour consistent with being under the influence of a substance and a manager or supervisor finds that someone is displaying certain behaviours. Under those circumstances we can have a for-cause test.

In my experience we have had no real cause to suspect that anyone is turning up for work under the influence of anything. However, as Deputy Ellis rightly pointed out, the movement is now away from alcohol it seems and more towards drugs, which are more difficult to detect. I do not necessarily mean so-called illegal drugs, they could be dispensed drugs that have an effect on people's capability to drive. Some of these are even over-the-counter products that indicate they may cause drowsiness and that users should not drive.

This brings me to the other point Deputy Ellis made, that is, the responsibility being put on employers to carry out this. There is a responsibility on employees to look after their health and welfare and that of those around them as well. This is encapsulated in the 2005 Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act. I envisage the two Acts working in tandem to show that there is shared responsibility.

My last point is that education is very important. Before anyone implements a policy within this company or any company there should be a full education programme. Since the introduction last year we have produced good quality education pamphlets, like the one before the committee now, which tell people all about the potential effects and what they should be looking out for in order that they do not accidentally contravene any of the policies we have on drugs and alcohol. For example, we tell people the position if they are going out for a night before they are expected in work the next day. They need to be conscious of the fact that alcohol can stay in the body for a number of hours and that each unit of alcohol takes at least two hours to get out of the body. That sort of education helps. In this way the responsibilities are therefore shared between employee and employer.