Derek McDowell (Labour)

Seo an chéad deis agam tréaslú leis an Aire Stáit as ucht a cheapacháin. Is dócha gur chuir cúrsaí moilliú ar an gceapachán ach tá sé tarlaithe agus is maith an rud é, go háirithe do mhuintir thuaisceart chondae an Chláir, áit sa tír a bhfuil bá agus ceangal agam féin léi. Go n-éirí leis.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute on this important legislation, which has been around for some time. While it is largely a consolidating Bill, nonetheless it contains important new initiatives, which my party welcomes and supports, not least, for example, the introduction of on-the-spot fines, which replace the cumbersome enforcement system in place. The statistics provided by the Minister of State are staggering. Approximately 117,000 people were injured at work in 2002 resulting in the loss of 3.16 million days compared with 21,000 days lost to industrial disputes. This gives the lie to the primary criticism by employers of legislation similar to this who say this is the nanny state introducing regulations for the sake of it, which impose unnecessary and unreasonable costs, particularly on small businesses.

The argument, however, is done down by those statistics, which make it crystal clear that the cost of injury and fatal accidents at work far outweighs the cost of implementing safety legislation which seeks to prevent such accidents. It costs employers through increased insurance premia and replacing employees who are out of work because they are sick, and it costs the State, which must pay occupational benefit. All these costs are preventible if accidents are prevented and that is the primary thrust of legislation such as this.

Employers who make the case that the legislation is a waste of money or that unnecessary regulation is being imposed on them are extremely short sighted in their analysis not only from the point of view of the State and employees, but also from their own point of view. It will cost them more in the long run if they do not observe and embrace the legislation's provisions.

There is broad agreement between the social partners regarding the measures that consolidate the 1989 Act and subsequent directives and regulations and that is how these issues should be progressed. It is important that there should be co-operation not only on a national level between IBEC and ICTU, but also on an individual industry and enterprise level where the workforce and employers can work together to ensure a safe working environment.

The legislation provides for a framework within enterprises where this can be done. IBEC has been slow to embrace this framework saying it should be a legislative matter and not an industrial relations matter. IBEC is again taking a short-sighted view. If these issues can be progressed through co-operation and agreement within a workplace, provided that does not involve cutting corners and observes regulations and high standards, that must be the way forward. If that means, for example, that in the construction industry, the CIF is obliged to sit down with the various trade unions that represent workers within the industry and reaches an agreement on how the framework can be implemented and enforced, so much the better. That must be good for all concerned and I very much welcome that approach.

The HSA will remain the primary body responsible for enforcement. The debate reflects the thinking that underlay the debate on the treatment of migrant workers last week. It is great, important and necessary to have a legal framework but enforcement is needed. Regrettably, however strong the regulations may be and however much we increase fines and provide for deterrents, some employers will not observe them. We must be in a position to ensure inspectors are available to enforce the regulations. I understand approximately 160 people work in the HSA. I know the Minister of State was influential in ensuring that number was retained but there is a clear need to increase the number of inspectors available as although they currently number approximately 100, not all of them are available for on-site inspections at any given time.

That figure dates back to a time when the workforce in this country was 1.1 million or 1.2 million but it is now 1.9 million and heading for 2 million, which is an increase of approximately 40% in the past ten years. The number of inspectors available to the HSA has not increased at all or has been increased by a very small number.

In industries that are particularly susceptible to accidents at work, employment has increased even more. We have been remarkably successful in attracting and developing clusters of chemical industries, as we sought to do. With that come the challenges which accompany the chemicals industry, by definition an industry which involves handling and dealing with hazardous substances and waste.

It is important that we are in a position not only to implement EU directives but also to enforce them. The REACH directive is still awaiting implementation. That will be a serious challenge for the HSA because it requires a level of expertise and manpower it does not currently have. We must acknowledge that the success in attracting the multinational chemical industry to this country comes with a new challenge to health and safety at work which requires additional resources to be made available to the HSA.

The extraordinary increase in the construction industry workforce in recent years provides another challenge. I was astonished to read the second most recent Central Bank report which pointed out that approximately 12% of the entire workforce is in the construction industry, which means that approximately one in eight people in this country are directly or indirectly linked to the construction industry.

The Minister of State is aware that in the early and mid-1990s many corners were cut by small and large enterprises in the construction industry in this country. My father-in-law is a retired small builder in north Clare and he is not short of stories about competitors undercutting their opposition by not paying attention to issues such as health and safety at work. Similar stories and anecdotes are common throughout the country and most of us would have no difficulty in finding one.

Through its advertising campaigns and inspections, the HSA has managed to impress on some operators that this is not the way forward and that there is a cost involved. However, some horrific accidents have occurred — thankfully there are fewer now than there were five years ago — which clearly illustrate the need to continue with those campaigns and inspections.

It is not just small builders that are involved. One or two big companies that were very active in Dublin in the mid-1990s — most people will know to whom I am referring — specialised in building ramshackle structures cheaply and quickly. One of the costs of that was in terms of health and safety and some horrific accidents occurred that attracted significant public attention and action from both trade unions in the industry and the HSA. Unfortunately that was not before lives were lost.

I wish to comment on certain specific provisions of the Bill and I hope my information is not out of date. On Committee Stage the Minister of State was reluctant to change the provision that gives power to employers in reasonable circumstances to oblige an employee to take a test for intoxicants. I confess to being in two minds on this issue. It is self-evident that in an industry where a person's safety depends on others, it is important that employees are certain their colleagues are not under the influence of drink or drugs. However, in most cases it would be evident if someone was under such an influence and the current situation is that the employer would send that person home.

I am concerned that the introduction of mandatory testing is unquestionably an issue of intrusion into an individual's privacy and rights. I know the Minister of State has stated that he is reasonable and that there will be no difficulties in complying with the regulations he will introduce, but not everyone in his party or in other parties is as reasonable as he is and we cannot be sure how regulations might be interpreted in the future. Perhaps we will get an opportunity to discuss this further.

I was struck by what Senator Moylan said about public events because some high-profile fatal accidents have occurred in recent months and years at such events. Strictly speaking public events do not constitute a workplace and so do not come within the ambit of the Department or this Bill, but nonetheless there is a need to examine the concept of imposing standards on public events, such as where two non-professional sporting clubs play each other or where people or children play in a ground run by a voluntary sporting club. We must find a mechanism of implementing standards in terms of equipment and buildings in such places that fall outside the context of the workplace. We can examine this on Committee Stage.

The issue of corporate manslaughter has been raised by the trade union movement in recent years. The Law Reform Commission was asked to examine this issue and it recommended that in certain extreme circumstances a charge of corporate manslaughter would be appropriate. This Bill represents the time to introduce it into legislation. Nobody expects such charges would be brought easily or regularly, but circumstances have attracted public attention where the level of reckless neglect in a particular company is such that, in my view and that of the Law Reform Commission, it would have justified such a charge as corporate manslaughter. The Minister of State should re-examine introducing such an offence in the context of this Bill.

We must give some time to the issue of the public sector. Examining some literature before today's debate, I was struck by the extent to which the public sector has been found to be neglectful of its duties. It suits those of us who choose to examine issues from an employee point of view to consider that this is about neglectful or unscrupulous employers, but the State has not been a shining star in this matter, and there have been many incidents where it failed to ensure the safety of people working for State institutions or the public service.

In his speech on Second Stage in the Dáil, the Minister of State pointed out that violence in the workplace is now a real issue in terms of people's interaction with the public service. Recent controversy about accident and emergency departments is a perfect example. This issue requires a specific response from us. It falls within the ambit of this Bill but perhaps needs to spelt out in more detail.

My party welcomes and supports this Bill and I look forward to teasing out the issues in more detail on Committee Stage.