John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I apologise to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, for the fact that I was not present to hear his introductory remarks but I have read them. I was impressed by the figures he quoted for the number of work days lost as a result of injuries. He said 117,800 people were affected in 2002 resulting in a loss of 3.16 million working days. This problem, therefore, is of great significance not just for the people who are affected but also for the economy and the knock-on costs for the State in terms of health services and so forth. That is an important dimension of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill.

I welcome this legislation. The number of days lost as a result of strikes is far lower than the number lost as a result of injury. This underlines the scale of the problem. Furthermore, it is a problem that is not highlighted. Strikes get great attention but the effects of injury do not. There was some discussion this morning and yesterday on the Order of Business about the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. There was a general welcome for the fact that awards had been accepted and there had been a tenfold decrease in the legal costs associated with the awards. Hopefully, the board will have an active role to play in dealing with claims that might arise from work injuries.

The minimum expectation people have when they go to work is that they will be safe there and will return home safely. That applies equally to people who come to the relatively safe environment, physically, of the Houses of the Oireachtas and who work in more dangerous places such as farms, construction sites and quarries. Even those who work in dangerous environments, and I spent a good deal of my working life on a farm, tend to be quite blasé about injury. The more one becomes familiar with the job at hand, the more risks one tends to take. One might not even know there are risks.

However, we have left behind the days when people stood on the drawbar between the tractor and trailer. I can remember when there were no cabs on tractors. Many people were killed as a result of the tractors overturning. Happily we have moved on from there although we still have some way to go. As I said, the dangers depend a great deal on the place of work. We must accept that some workplaces are more dangerous than others and try to minimise the possibility of people getting injured whether it be in agriculture or on construction sites. Sea fishing is also a dangerous activity even in terms of the physical environment in which those people work.

Twenty three people were killed in work-related accidents in 2005, which is one of the worst starts to the year for a decade. That would appear to indicate that lessons are not being learned and that people are dying needlessly because the proper measures have not been taken into account, put in place or enforced. For that reason I welcome the Bill before us.

The Bill specifically sets out the duties of the employer and the employee in terms of compliance with the legislation. I welcome the acknowledgment that both the employer and the employee have responsibilities in regard to the safety of the workplace. New and increased penalties are being introduced for non-compliance, which is to be welcomed in light of the tragic statistics recorded to date this year.

There is more to this matter than just fines and penalties. It is important that there is a degree of ongoing employee consultation, which can have a positive and long lasting effect. It is critical that the employee be consulted in terms of health and safety at work and that there is a general level of co-operation and participation between the employer and employee. The Bill provides protection for employees from penalisation as a result of raising a concern regarding their health and safety at work. That is an important issue because people may feel vulnerable and fear they would be seen as troublemakers should they raise a concern, which could have a detrimental effect on their career well-being. Workers know their work environment better than anyone else and they should be the people to help to sort out any problems that may exist. It would be a most unwise employer who did not try to ensure that the needs and concerns of employees were taken into account.

The large multinational corporations we have happily attracted here have reached world class standards by recognising that the difference between a near miss and an injury or fatality is a millisecond or a millimetre. However, accidents still occur in these enlightened companies. I hasten to add that there are also enlightened domestic companies. Employees must be encouraged to highlight problems in the workplace without fear of penalties.

A central aspect of this matter is education. Perhaps some of the things that have happened in the past have been due to deficiencies in education. Experts have shown that moving to world class safety standards means moving beyond safety audits and physical interventions such as protective clothing, barriers, harnesses and so on to the achievement of best practice. The key to all of this is education. It is somewhat similar to road safety which we discussed in recent weeks. Individuals must take responsibility. Individual behaviour is a critical element in reducing accident rates both on the roads and in the workplace.

I welcome the requirement that every workplace must have a written safety statement which identifies its risks and hazards. That is one of the key elements of the enforcement side. It is easy to identify that there is a problem in a workplace if it does not have a safety statement. If that does not exist, it follows that other more important aspects may not be in place either. Employees must be educated and trained with specific regard to the workplace environment and to the associated hazards within the industry in which they work. Some work environments are dangerous by their very nature, such as farms and quarries, and special care must be taken in regard to these.

I spoke recently to a person who used to rent out chainsaws; he had to stop because people stated they would not use the safety equipment which he offered to them. He was in a difficult position and stopped renting out these machines because of his concern about people's lack of care. In some cases the people renting chainsaws gave them to employees to do the work which was obviously a serious situation.

The general provisions which include a €100 on-the-spot fine, increased fines and sentences, the naming and shaming by the HSA, testing for intoxicants, employers' duties, safety statements, codes of practice, safety representatives and prohibition notices are all to be welcomed. Enforcement is a crucial aspect of the legislation. We have had a raft of legislation in this area and others. It all comes down to how well it will be enforced; whether the resources will be invested to ensure that enforcement is carried out; and whether, when deficiencies are discovered, they will be pursued vigorously and rectified. It is difficult to enforce on-the-spot fines in this kind of environment.

Will initiatives be put in place to target problem sectors? Cowboy operators are a continuing problem. It is well known in the construction industry that companies disappear after working on a particular project. The same person will then form another company and so on which leads to a difficulty in establishing liability. Such companies often do not have resources. I am aware that company directors can be held responsible and that there is a degree of individual responsibility which is to be welcomed but a vigorous approach must be taken to cowboy operators who hold no assets and are probably not even tax compliant. They may not even register on Revenue's radar. These people are some of the biggest culprits in the area of health and safety and their sites appear to have the greatest potential for injuries and fatalities. When companies fold up and disappear, it is difficult to have legal redress if things go wrong. The shortage of craftspeople and tradespeople has encouraged those who are not qualified to set up as builders which leads to employers as well as consumers being left exposed.

The HSA's fatality figures show the same sectors are the worst offenders time and again. The construction industry tops the list this year along with agriculture. Nine people have been killed in the construction sector which is up from seven in the same period last year. Seven people died in the agriculture sector which is an increase on four in the first four months of 2004. It is unfortunate that these things happen but there is a dual responsibility on the worker and the employer. The protection against penalties for those who highlight problems is important. Other welcome measures relate to enforcement, education and the targeting of specific sectors and locations.

My next point does not come strictly within the terms of the Bill. I live in an area outside the town of Newbridge in which there has been significant housing development. One estate was built across the road from where I live. Every few weeks I had to pick up the litter that was generated there. I accept that building sites are messy places but what is not acceptable is construction site workers who park on the side of the road throwing their lunch wrappers out the windows of their vans. That happens all the time. Bottles, cans and papers are all left strewn about. I accept this is a matter for local authority litter wardens to enforce but something should be done about it.

Some companies move on to building sites and only put up health and safety signage weeks later. That is a matter on which the Health and Safety Authority must be active. In one case where a fatal accident took place, the company owner was fined in court. However, he immediately went to another site where it again took a long time before health and safety signage was erected. One would have thought he would learn what was required from his first experience. I telephoned him to inquire why his signs were not up.

If a farmer transports a load of beet, grain or silage, he has to clean up the road after him but construction companies appear to have impunity when it comes to leaving muck on the road. In my area there is mud from Athgarvan to Newbridge because of the carry-on of these people. If there is not mud, there is dust. I recall when the motorway was being constructed along the Newbridge bypass the mud and the dust was cleaned off every day. A contractor was employed on this at all times. However, these fellows seem to be able to carry on without let or hindrance. They leave the roads in a state of minimal repair and when they have cleared off it is up to the local authority, several months later, to put matters right. The State is picking up the tab and that is not acceptable. There are issues for the planning and local authorities with regard to litter. While I accept these are outside the scope of the Health and Safety Authority, perhaps it might have a quiet word to get them to ensure that some of these sites are at least maintained to an acceptable standard.

A balance must be struck in all of these matters, however. People must work, frequently in dangerous environments. If such environments are over-regulated or over-restricted, then the work itself and output is affected. Nonetheless, safety of the employee and of the public must be dominant in our thinking. For that reason, the Bill strikes the right balance and I am happy to support it.