Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 28, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"(2) An employer shall not be required to appoint a competent person under subsection (1) in respect of the employment by the employer of a person whose sole or principal function is to perform domestic duties in or in connection with the employer's place of residence or as part of the employer's household.".

A number of sections draw a distinction between domestic and non-domestic workplaces. I am grateful to the Minister for providing a briefing note in justification of the section subsequent to our Committee Stage deliberations. The Civil Service is determined to justify the unjustifiable with regard to this matter. I mention this in respect of justifying refusal of the amendment the Minister put forward.

The appointment of safety officers under section 18 is a provision that should only have relevance to a non-domestic workplace, and the amendment is designed to make this clear. On Committee Stage, the Minister said the original version of the amendment could mean health boards that employ district nurses for home visits, and other similar examples, could avoid the obligations of this section. I have therefore changed the wording to make it clear that we are referring only to the employment of home workers where the home owner is the employer. Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, if one hires an au pair to work in one's house, one must appoint a safety officer under section 18. That is somewhat eccentric.

In his useful and helpful briefing note, the Minister states that a domestic premises could become a place of work in either of two circumstances. In one case, the person residing there might carry on work of some sort, such as farming or teleworking. For this purpose, he or she may need to call on the services of a competent person to either advise or identify hazards and safety risks, etc. Does this mean that if somebody at home decides to do some telemarketing, telepolling or work on the census he or she must appoint a safety officer to carry out an audit in his or her house?

I am in favour of health and safety but some sense must be applied. There must be limitations to the reasonable intrusion of the State. Trundling legislation into the private dwelling cannot be justified without a compelling reason and I do not see one either in the Minister's notes or in his argument on Committee Stage. The amendment makes it clear that where there is justifiable need for the appointment of a safety officer such a person should be appointed. However, the appointment is not justified when it represents a patent encumbrance and a situation where red tape has gone mad.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has had discussions with regard to placement of burdens on anybody with a spark of entrepreneurship. They will collapse under the weight of regulations and we will kill off the spirit of entrepreneurship if we are not careful. A simple principle should apply. There must at least be a reasonable justification if not a compelling reason to place any obligation on an employer or citizen. I am at a loss to find a compelling reason either in the Minister's briefing note or in his contribution on Committee Stage. I ask him to be independent in this matter and not simply stick to the wording because it was in the original draft of the Bill. He should take the legislative responsibility of this House at face value and allow for a reasonable proposal from this side of the House to be put into effect. I hope he will accept the amendment.

See this speech in context