Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

This Bill comes against the backdrop of the Health and Safety Authority report which shows that in 2002, 61 people lost their lives in workplace accidents, almost 8,000 workplace injuries resulted in a loss of four or more working days and there were a stunning 13,000 claims for occupational benefit.

Fine Gael recognises that this Bill is an honest attempt to deal with that dreadful set of statistics which, although improving in recent years, remains far too high. There is much to be said for this Bill; no one opposes safety, health and welfare. My party will gladly support it on Second Stage with a view to a thorough debate on Committee Stage. A thorough debate is what is needed because many of the clauses may have the opposite effect from improving safety and welfare.

The Bill seeks to update the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989. Fine Gael, IBEC, SIPTU, the ICTU and everyone involved in industrial relations recognise it is appropriate. Ireland's industrial landscape has changed beyond recognition, the number in work has multiplied and new technology has revolutionised workplace practices. Where once we exported workers we are now the beneficiaries of net immigration. With industries like construction and pharmaceuticals booming like never before, and like nowhere else in the world, we need an updated code of practice to prevent the injuries and deaths which continue to blight Ireland Incorporated.

The 1989 Act was a workable and practical framework that has been relatively successful in its aim. It injected a culture of safety and compliance that was badly needed, especially in the 1990s when the economy took off and an unregulated industrial sector could have spelt disaster for workers, business and Ireland's economic reputation. The danger with this Bill, however, is that in the rush to tighten areas that need to be tightened, the Government might be too prescriptive and inflexible. It is, perhaps without us realising it, replacing a framework for safety with a strict set of rules which are difficult to adhere to and easy to break.

Juxtaposed against those rules is a total absence of any policing strategy that would ensure these rules are not bent or broken together with total silence on the issue of funding. How much in extra resources will the Heath and Safety Authority receive upon enactment of this legislation? I ask the Minister of State to avoid statements of intent because, as we see from the Department of Foreign Affairs, promises equate with aspirations so aspirations must equate with barely nothing in his Government's view.

SIPTU has expressed its concerns in this area. If the new legislation is to have any chance of achieving its aim of reducing workplace injuries and deaths, the HSA must be properly funded. Instead of improving the resources which the authority needs to carry out its functions, they have been steadily reduced. In the construction industry, for example, out of a target of 8,000 building sites due for inspection by the HSA every year, the figure has been reduced to 4,500. With the increased number of inspectors pursuing cases through the courts, as a result of pressure from unions, their presence on building sites has fallen. This is not good enough. There is real concern that the benefits of this Bill will not be felt; nobody will adhere to it because there will be next to nobody to police it.

I do not intend to go through the Bill with a fine tooth comb. There is much to be welcomed, but much to be ironed out as well. I would, however, bring a number of issues to the attention of the House.

Section 18(4) is an example of the Bill's overly prescriptive nature. It states:

Where there is a competent person in the employer's employment, that person shall be appointed for the purposes of this section in preference to a competent person who is not in his or her employment...

While it may be a mistake, an oversight or it may be deliberate, one wonders why the Government has decided to interfere in companies' internal human resources processes. Similarly, by the time the Bill reached this House, it surely should have been possible to placate the trade unions on the issue of checking employees for evidence of intoxication while handling dangerous machinery. While there is a civil liberties aspect to this, the Fine Gael Party does not contend this argument should take precedence over the need for safety. However, adequate assurances must be given to workers on this matter, which has not yet happened.

This leads to only one conclusion. There has, it seems, been a lack of adequate consultation with employers and trade unions on this important Bill. No Bill, no matter what its content, can hope to succeed without the presence of good will on the part of those affected by it. That is not to say the Government must cave into the demands of vested interests. However, the media briefing, spin and counter-spin from various groups would have been avoided had the Department taken on board the views, concerns and expertise of those in the know.

Section 8 sets out the general duties of employers with the overriding duty of ensuring, as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of his or her employees. Employers are, therefore, obliged to exercise all due care by putting in place the necessary protective and preventative measures, having identified the hazards and assessed risks to health and safety. However, an employer does not have to put in place any measures that are grossly disproportionate, having regard to the unusual, unforeseeable and exceptional nature of any circumstances or occurrence that may result in an injury or accident at work. This is fair and reasonable.

However, it is not fair and reasonable in the case of an employer obtaining staff through an agency where he or she must specify the occupational qualifications necessary for the positions as well as the specific features for which the employee is required. The employer is also obliged to ensure the agency provides this information to the temporary employee. If an employer retains an agency to recruit temporary staff, it is arguably unreasonable for an employer to ensure the agency carries out its statutory duties under the Bill. Why should the employer be held liable for a third party?

Section 10 has been drafted in such a way as to render it almost meaningless. It states instruction, training and supervision is to be given to staff and the employer must take account of an employee's capabilities regarding health, safety and welfare. Does this mean an employee is to be permitted to refuse to work simply because he or she claims it is detrimental to his or her welfare?

There are many good reasons to cheer this Bill. However, those cheering may consider the onus it puts on businesses. Fine Gael has no objection to this in principle. Safety is costly and businesses must pay their fair share. However, has the Government calculated the fair share? While I appreciate there are some very profitable large-scale industrial players who can absorb these costs, what of small businesses? Is there a danger of imposing unnecessary and restrictive regulations on small and medium-sized enterprises which are already regulated into the ground?

The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland launched a blistering attack on how small and medium-sized enterprises have been abandoned by the Government regarding the funding of local authorities. If the Government is priming itself for another fight with the small business sector, may I advise against it? Ultimately, if proper consultation is engaged in, the legislation will be better. I, therefore, advise the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, to listen carefully to what IBEC, ICTU and others have to say on this Bill and reflect that on Committee Stage. He is a reasonable man and I have no doubt he is listening to these concerns.

This is not a Dickensian call for the scrapping of business owners' responsibility in this area. It is imperative for the State to make crystal clear what it expects from those who make profits from their workers. As the saying goes, one may profit from the sweat of one's employees, but not their blood. My main concern with this Bill is that some provisions impose needless rules. It has been brought to my attention that the Bill may compel an employer to display improvement notices on every vehicle he or she owns, while impeding the implementation of certain safety measures. Section 26 confusingly states employers must consult with employees on such measures. If something is not safe, it is not safe; consultation sounds like a recipe for dither and delay to me.

While the Bill is flawed in many respects, it is fundamentally sound. I look forward to Committee Stage when I hope the Minister of State will listen to and take on board our concerns.