asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been directed to the fact that there were 20 fatal accidents in place of employment in 1966 and 14 in the previous year; what plans he has to decrease this accidents rate; if there is an increase in the number of non-fatal accidents; if he is satisfied with the work of the factory inspectorate; and if he will make a general statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Factory Accidents.
39.
Information on accidents in factories, etc., is contained in the annual report of the factory inspectorate for the year ended 30th September, 1966, which has been laid before the House.
As is pointed out in that report, the onus of protecting the safety and health of his employees rests on the factory occupier. Workers are required to co-operate with the occupier in securing safe working conditions. It is part of my duty to make, and keep, managements and workers aware of their responsibilities in this matter. This is done through the factory inspectorate and through support for the National Industrial Safety Organisation, the voluntary representative body which promotes safety in industry.
The factory inspectorate is doing all it can to secure compliance with the law in the matter of safety. I arranged some time ago for a review of the inspectorate's organisation to see if its operations can be made more effective. I expect that this review will be completed in the near future.
Does the Minister express alarm at the rise in fatal accidents in industry?
Yes, but I think the Deputy will agree that the onus is on the occupier to see to the safety of the worker.
If he is neglectful, surely the Minister is responsible?
Having regard to what the Minister has said about the onus being on the occupier, surely this highlights the importance of not leaving the onus on the worker in connection with the formation of safety committes? Will he now consider this whole matter as the problem is growing and growing?
The section in the Act which leaves the onus with the worker was brought in at the request of the workers' representatives, so that they would be able to take the initiative but it has not worked. A subsection of the same section permits of committees already established to be regarded as safety committees, if the employer agrees. I had thought that by using this subsection, I could place the initiative with the employer and I have prepared for some activity on this basis; the National Industrial Safety Organisation has agreed to co-operate.
That is fine.
Would the Minister agree that he has a very serious responsibility in this matter?
Would the Minister not agree that the practice of most factory inspectors to ignore workers and workers' representatives could be a factor in the number of accidents?
I do not think they should ignore the workers' representatives, and the safety committee has a right to meet the factory inspector when he comes. Deputies will understand that a lot of these matters are now coming to be fully studied for the first time. I have had a preliminary report from the inspectors and I hope to be able to do something about it.
The Minister will agree it has been the practice of factory inspectors to ignore workers and their representatives?
I am not aware of that but I have heard it said often enough in the House here.
Might I ask the Minister—are we all going dotty? Surely it is not believed in this House that there is a kind of dire conspiracy amongst our own neighbours who employ men to allow them to be killed on their machines? In the name of God, who wants a man killed on his own premises? Am I not right in believing that diligent trade union officials and the normal employer are anxious to collaborate with the Minister in every way possible to prevent working men suffering accidents, never mind fatal accidents, in 999 out of every 1,000 factories in this country?
If we were to accept that, there would be no need for safety committees.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 40. Will Deputies allow Questions to continue?