Dr. Sharon McGuinness:

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to come before the committee to present the Health and Safety Authority's views on the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Amendment) Bill 2020. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Yvonne Mullooly. In the interests of time and with the committee's understanding, I do not propose to read the detailed statement and will instead concentrate my comments on the specifics of the proposed amendment, which are detailed from paragraph 16 of my written statement onwards.

In considering the amendment, the authority would state first that the protection of workers and the prevention of accidents, injuries and illness is always our primary goal. To achieve this, we need to have robust and reliable information and data. With regard to Covid-19, I would point out that the authority already has a significant level of information available to it in respect of cases of the disease in the workplace. This information comes from both public and occupational health and safety reporting systems that are already in place and operating. These include the requirement, under the biological agents regulations of 2013 to 2020, for an employer to report to the authority if an employee contracts Covid-19 as a result of occupational exposure from working with the virus. The public health computerised infectious disease reporting system, CIDR, is managed by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre, HPSC, and the national incident management system, NIMS, collects data on incidents from the public healthcare sector. All of these reporting systems are important sources of information not just for the authority but for public health authorities. We have access to the data available on all three systems.

In addition, we have initiated the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis, RIA, on foot of a request from the board of the authority. The intention of the board is to ensure the authority has comprehensive and immediate data to support the protection of workers from Covid-19. The purpose of the RIA is to identify a range of possible options for the potential achievement of this objective and to provide detailed information on the costs, benefits and impacts of each option. The RIA will provide our board with a basis for recommending the most appropriate way forward and will be considered by the board in the coming weeks.

I will now return to the specifics of the amendment, and I again refer members to paragraph 16 onwards of the written statement provided. As I have already said, the authority would point out that the protection of workers and the prevention of accidents, injuries and illness is always our primary goal. Covid-19 is an infectious disease which has caused a public health pandemic, and an individual has the potential to be infected by contracting it in or out of the workplace. The most reliable data on Covid-19 in the workplace are the data collected in the infectious disease database known as CIDR, as these data are medically validated and confirmed by a Covid-19 PCR test. The CIDR data are provided to the authority by the HPSC every week and give details of all cases of Covid-19 in all workplaces. This allows the authority to identify quickly the workplace, its geographical location and the number of cases associated with it. The information provided for in this Bill is, therefore, similar to that already supplied directly to the authority by the HPSC every week and, as such, there may be no additional benefit in the proposed amendment.

The Bill may be contrary to the scope of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 as the Act only provides for an occupational illness or disease that is attributable to work.

The wording in the Bill would in essence make Covid-19 an occupational disease if any worker in a workplace were to contract it, irrespective of where he or she caught the disease. As Covid-19 can just as easily be acquired by employees outside of work and subsequently brought into the workplace, such circumstances would not be considered "attributable to work" under the Act.

The Bill needs to consider the implications on all employers of imposing a Covid-19 reporting obligation on them. Most employers would not be in a position to assess or attribute Covid-19 infections to their workplace with any degree of medical or legal reliability, since Covid-19, as I stated already, can be acquired in community, domestic and workplace settings. The amendment may leave employers with an obligation, which they may not reasonably or legally be able to fulfil, as there is no counter-obligation on the employee to provide detailed confidential medical information to his or her employer.

The Bill may introduce a significant administrative burden on certain employers, particularly those in the healthcare sector, to report information that is already reported to CIDR, and in certain circumstances is also reported to NIMS, as well as reporting requirements under the biological agents regulations directly to the Authority. In that regard, information is already available through these three systems.

Employers who have a due to report to the authority under the biological agents regulations are saying that it is difficult to determine if cases of Covid-19 amongst their workers are occupationally acquired or have arisen outside the workplace due to community transmission. Determining the source of Covid-19 infection in an individual can require detailed medical assessment by both public and occupational medical professionals.

There are, as has been stated, three reporting requirements in the State related to Covid-19 in the workplace – CIDR, NIMS and the reporting under the biological agents regulation. A fourth is also under assessment by the authority, that is, the regulatory impact analysis noted earlier. The added value in creating a fourth or possibly a fifth reporting system in Ireland for the infectious disease Covid-19 is questionable, as it may not provide any additional public or occupational health assurance or relevant policy-making information on Covid-19 in the workplace.

Guidance from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform requires the preparation of an RIA to support significant legislative developments which is why the authority initiated the RIA development process to consider options for reporting of Covid-19. The authority believes that the RIA should be completed before any amendment is made to the 2005 Act or, indeed, any other occupational health and safety legislation. Any regulation for Covid-19 reporting needs to be made on both a sound legal as well as a medical basis.

The authority's RIA development process involves consultation with a range of parties, including employee and employer stakeholders as well as Departments and agencies. It is nearing completion and will go to our tripartite board for its consideration and recommendations. We feel, therefore, amending the 2005 Act at this juncture may be premature.

To conclude, there are already three reporting systems in the State for cases of Covid-19 in the workplace. The authority has access to all three and is currently completing a regulatory impact analysis, which is looking at options for a possible fourth system. Worker protection is already well served by all these reporting systems and by the work that the authority is doing in relation to the work safely protocol and specific occupational health and safety legislation such as the biological agents regulation. Worker protection is also at the forefront of all the engagement and supports the authority provides to public health, which is ultimately responsible for addressing this global pandemic. The key to managing Covid-19 ultimately resides with all of us adhering to public health advice, guidance and regulations.

On behalf of the Health and Safety Authority, I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to present to the committee today and I look forward to answering questions in due course.