Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 May 1978

Vol. 306 No. 10

Safety in Industry Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

In dealing with the inadequacy of this Safety Bill I am aware that a discussion document on safety and health at work legislation was issued by the Department of Labour some time in July 1977. The Minister's proposals in the Bill totally ignore the responsible trade union movement, the Factories Advisory Council and, if I am correct, some of the FUE's suggestions on that document. The trade unions recommended that a national body should be set up incorporating the activities of the present Factories Advisory Council, the National Industrial Safety Organisation, the Mines Advisory Council and the Office Premises Advisory Body with full powers to co-ordinate activities in industrial safety and health. This suggestion alone is worthy of very much consideration and the Minister has not given to it that consideration. I do not deny that the Minister has good intentions, but a Safety Bill for industry should not be brought in without it being comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of safety in not alone industry but in agriculture, fishing, mines and everywhere. The trade unions suggested also that safety committees which would have real power and joint employee-employer responsibility be set up in places of work where such demands exist. In the opinion of the trade unions the proposed safety committees should also be entitled to paid leave for training and so forth. The safety committees proposed in the Bill would have little power. They would be entitled to the factory inspector's report at the discretion of the Minister. This is not good enough. I had experience of being on a safety committee and I have had experience also of trying to form such committees but I did not have the success that I had hoped for. These committees appeared not to have enough bite.

Regarding the inspectors, their reports should come from the factory floor because there is nothing so frustrating for workers than for an inspector to inspect premises or machinery but not to hear what the workers have to say. Unless there is some element of comeback for the workers I cannot envisage the Bill being welcomed by them. It is not good enough that the discretion be left to a Minister. The Bill ignores totally major developments in respect of safety and health in work legislation in other parts of the world, particularly in the UK and in Northern Ireland. For instance, the Bill would not seem to be concerned about the EEC action programme for health and safety at work.

It is not enough merely to endeavour to patch up the 1955 Factories Act. We must be more alert to the situation that has been brought about by modern development in industry. We are now aware of conditions within industry that were unknown in the past. For instance, we would hardly have been aware in 1955 of the dangers of some toxic elements in various industries. Therefore, we should be legislating for the conditions brought about by modern industry.

Not only should the trade union movement, the employers' organisations and the safety organisations be involved but the medical organisations should be involved, too. The IMA were reported in one of the newspapers last week as expressing concern about the Bill especially in regard to the health and welfare of workers. The IMA maintained that the traditions in this regard were unsatisfactory and they made the point about the necessity for consultation. Apparently there was no consultation with the association.

They have rightly pointed out that it was indicated in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill that the Bill was to provide for safety in regard to the health and welfare of workers in industry. There is little mention of health in the Bill. The IMA, too, were critical of the section dealing with noise pollution. Most people will be aware of the difficulties experienced in working in an environment in which there is a high noise level. During the weekend I spoke with two people who have worked in an industry for 40 years but both of whom now suffer from hearing defects which their doctor attributes to their working life in industry.

There is more information today regarding the dangers of noise pollution than we had before but it would appear that the noise levels specified in the current regulations are deficient in terms of the risk of exposure to such noise levels. The IMA note also that the Bill provides for the appointment of an industrial medical adviser but like myself they are at a loss to understand why it is not with this person that the Minister will be discussing the health questions involved but with the Minister for Health. Would not the medical adviser be the logical person to be consulted regarding, for instance, changing the regulations concerning the protection of workers' eyes? My advice to the Minister is to have another look at the entire Bill and to have further consultations with those groups who have made submissions to him. The medical profession make the point also that the Bill is to be faulted by reason of a limited definition of what constitutes factories and working premises and they point out that for the purposes of the Bill people who may be exposed to occupational diseases in the course of their work would seem to be excluded. We must have regard to developments in industry which result in various toxic substances being used sometimes even without the knowledge of the Department of Labour.

The Bill, then, falls far short of what would be desired by the trade unions and by the Labour Party. We must not forget the agricultural sector in which the accident rate is fairly high. As I said last week, the last legislation covering the safety aspect of farm workers was enacted in 1896 with the exception of the legislation under the Road Traffic Acts. That covered tractors. The Bill should include all such people. What is before us is not adequate especially when one recalls that in 1976 3,581 people were injured at work while 18 people died as a result of accidents at work. The corresponding figures for the previous year were more than 3,400 and 25 respectively and these figures do not include those killed or injured as a result of accidents while at work in the agricultural sector.

We are rather prone to finding out the number of man-days lost as a result of industrial disputes but perhaps we should endeavour to find out how many man-days are lost as a result of industrial accidents. I suspect that the latter figure would be higher than the former. About 69 employers were prosecuted last year under the present legislation and the fines imposed totalled in all £1,567. There is need obviously for updating the levels of fines that can be imposed and I am glad to note that there is such provision in the Bill but even the levels proposed are not sufficient to prevent unscrupulous employers taking chances, being prepared if caught to pay the fines in full. There have always been unscrupulous people in any group but we should do everything possible to ensure that if they are brought to justice the punishment will be sufficient to deter them from acting if such a manner again. We must no encourage anyone to ignore the law. Consequently, I suggest that the level of fines specified be much higher.

I accept the Minister's intention to improve aspects of the 1955 Factories Act but I would appeal to him to have further consultations with those who work in factories and to bring in a Bill which is more in line with the modern developments in industry which are not covered by this Bill.

In the normal course of Dáil debate it would be entirely appropriate that we in the Labour Party would welcome the introduction of any Bill to amend and update the Factories Act, 1955, even though that Act was virtually a replica of the British Act of 1937. It is interesting to point out that the late Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, was directly associated with the preparation and drafting of the 1955 Bill but the Minister who was responsible and who successfully piloted the Bill through the Dáil and Seanad was the then Leader of the Labour Party, Bill Norton. He was at that time Minister for Industry and Commerce. In a purely historical sense, we have a particular interest in that Bill.

I regret that the tenor of my remarks must be cautious because, while there are improvements in the Bill introduced by the Minister, there are undoubtedly substantial deficiencies. During the past 20 years I have spoken time and again about the serious issue of safety, both in industry and agriculture. Like the Minister and his staff in the Department, I am concerned about the needless waste of human life and good health arising from avoidable industrial accidents. As a former trade union official, I have direct experience of the operations of the 1955 Factories Act and as a former member of the National Industrial Safety Organisation I am aware of the efforts of that organisation in this field. Listening to debates on this matter I often think that we are a bit fatalistic about the term "accident". I am quite sure that the Minister and I would share the view that this term has been used and is increasingly used in modern industrial life as an excuse for faulty attitudes and faulty practices. I do not believe that there is anything pre-ordained about industrial accidents or injuries. There is an attitude of fatalism regarding the inevitability of accidents.

We come from the same county.

Yes. It is particularly prevalent in our own backgrounds. Both management and workers must be accountable for safety and should be required to account for damage and injury which they cause to one another and directly to themselves. If there is any measure of inefficiency and of human waste, it is the accident at work. Every Member of this House has personal experience in that regard.

Last year in my constituency I met the father of a young constituent. His son had just started work in the Monkstown area and after two days he was slicing metal rods in a prefabricated workshop and he sliced off his hand. He was 18 or 19 years of age. The staff of the Department were extraordinarily helpful and competent in handling the investigation. The employer had not given the worker any training and he went to hospital to suggest that it was an accident, saying that his sleeve had caught in the machine. The young man was actually wearing a tee-shirt. The employer did not even report the accident and I reported it on behalf of the individual to the Department. They were most helpful in dealing with the situation. These accidents happen regularly.

This morning I was talking to Paddy Murphy of the Federation of Rural Workers and we talked about the appalling number of accidents with power points in relation to tractors. There do not seem to be any statutory regulations relating to power points. Deputy Enright raised this point very competently the other day. Admittedly we cannot legislate for everything but I feel very strongly about a situation of that nature. Many fatal and non-fatal accidents are avoidable by the exercise of normal care and precaution and the thorough industrial training and supervision of workers. There is a limit to the extent to which the 50 or so factory inspectors can supervise 18,000 establishments.

I believe our record is slowly becoming worse. This is no way a reflection on the Department. We have become more industrialised and more used to modern industrial equipment and inevitably the degree of risk grows. If I may draw an analogy, it is similar to our attitude to drunken driving. There has been a horrific increase during the past 12 months in the number of fatalities, even in my own constituency. There is a casual attitude towards this. In any other European country, all hell would have broken loose at this stage on the breathalyser issue.

As public representatives we all know of the human grief, the destroying of family life and the poverty which industrial accidents bring in their train. We have all seen the man or woman confined to a wheelchair for life and we have witnessed the loss of output and the human waste and misery which are also the result of industrial accidents. For that reason I will support any amendment to legislation which will make working in industry safer.

My understanding of the background of this Bill is that my colleague, the then Minister for Labour, Deputy M. O'Leary, in late June 1977, before he handed over his portfolio, circulated a discussion document outlining points of reform of occupational health and safety statutes, which were in the pipeline of his Department. The Minister got his response and we are now faced with this Bill. I regret that the procedures in this House are totally inflexible and that it is impossible to deal rationally with situations like this. The Minister will probably finish the Second Stage today and we will then have Committee Stage. I do not relish the prospect of putting 30, 40 or 50 amendments to this Bill and debating them ad nauseam. Since I doubt that the Minister is going to withdraw this Bill —in Ireland we do not seem to do those things—it might well be——

The Deputy wants to see an improvement, is that so?

I would like the Minister to withdraw this Bill now and reintroduce it in October. Alternatively, he might set up a special committee composed of Deputies with a particular interest in this area. They could discuss this Bill and meet late summer, around September or October when the House is not in session. We need at least two weeks to prepare our amendments for Committee Stage. The Dáil will recess on the last Thursday of June, 29 June. Perhaps we will get the Committee and Report Stages finished by then, but I think there will be some considerable difficulty in that regard. The special committee could meet representatives of interested organisations to get their views and then proceed to elaborate and extend the Bill. That process worked quite well in the Misuse of Drugs Bill. We had a quite fruitful exchange at that time.

As has been stated, this Bill is far too restrictive because it does not cover all workers, particularly office and agricultural workers. I hoped the Minister might accede to the view expressed here that the Bill could be withdrawn to allow the introduction of comprehensive legislation. It will be possible to amend the Bill to include agricultural workers by a number of fairly simple amendments. However, the Minister is aware that if these workers are to be included we must have some form of resolution or instruction before the House. This would have to be adopted at the commencement of the Committee Stage, at least that is my interpretation of it at this stage. This would enable us to broaden the scope of the Bill initially and to take the amendments which would give protection to agricultural workers.

The Bill sets out specific duties of workers with regard to safety and health. I welcome these provisions and would not normally object to them, but it is somewhat extraordinary that there are not general duties placed on employers under this legislation. It is a pity the Minister when he was lifting the section of the duties of employers from the United Kingdom Health and Safety Act, 1974, did not also lift the section dealing with the general duties of employer. I hold the view that it is essential that employers protect their employees when they are using, for example, dangerous substances. If employees are to be protected adequately, employers must give them adequate information and training on safety and health at work. These general duties should devolve directly on the employer.

Many accidents are caused by dangerous machines. It is important that manufacturers, importers and suppliers should ensure that machines are safe. What about the imported tractor where the importer has removed the safety devices and hopes to get away with it because he is selling it at a cheaper price? It must be remembered that it is very difficult to change machinery after the design stage. A designer's word carries weight when a machine is being manufactured. I would go further and include, in a very short section, some general obligations not only on designers but also on installers and erectors of equipments to ensure that the machinery is safely installed. It must be remembered that machines may be manufactured and supplied in a safe condition but what happens if they are not installed properly? People buy safe, well-designed and well-manufactured equipment but often it is not properly installed.

The Bill is too restrictive in that it confines itself to plant and machinery, lifting machinery, steam boilers and so on. We must also cover substances. It must be remembered that the chemical sector is now one of the main manufacturing factors here and the same obligations should be imposed on the manufacturers, importers and suppliers of substances. That should be dealt with in the Bill.

I have already mentioned the need for information because people must be made aware of the danger of the machines and substances they are working with. The manufacturers, importers, suppliers, erectors, installers should supply information to employers and workers on the dangers of machines and substances they are supplying. Such a statutory obligation should be introduced. The people should not be expected to find out the dangers by trial and error or wait for the information concerning those dangers to be supplied after an accident.

One welcome development in the Bill is the provision giving power to the Minister to issue a prohibition notice to stop the carrying on of dangerous activity. It is a pity that the Minister when he was lifting the section concerned from the UK Act did not also take out the section on improvement of notices. The Minister must be aware of the references in this regard. The UK Act is superior. We tend in most of our labour legislation to play the numbers game by limiting protection to the areas where a specific number of workers are employed. It is ironic that the accident I referred to earlier involved only a few workers. The day has gone when we should apply what is called the numbers game to any establishment. Such an approach is unacceptable when we are talking about health and safety at work. It should be remembered that here the vast majority of manufacturing concerns employ fewer than 50 people. When we are considering making facilities legally available the number of workers to be catered for should be scaled down.

It is my view that we could make a major impact by establishing safety committees. They can be of great benefit in ensuring compliance with legislation and developing safety consciousness among workers and employers. In this regard the Bill is a bit of a mess—I use that term advisedly. In legislation we must set out the rights and functions of safety representatives and safety committees. We must ensure that safety representatives and safety committees have a legal right to training and education in safety and health at work. On the question of access to information I should like to state that down through the years one of the biggest complaints that I have had, particularly from workers and trade unions, is that they never see a copy of the report of factory inspectors. We should provide in statute that a copy of the factory inspector's report of the hazards and dangers in a factory be given to unions and safety representatives.

I should now like to comment on our national institutions. It is my view that the Minister should avail of the opportunity to establish a health and safety commission, similar to that operating in Northern Ireland and the UK. I would like to see an expanded role for the National Industrial Safety Organisation. We need a more permanent and stronger body. I would like to see a health and safety commission enshrined in this Bill. Such a commission should consist of representatives of both sides of industry, have independent experts and be given responsibility for developing policies in the health and safety fields. It is obvious that no matter how competent the factory inspectors are or how good the experts employed by the Department are there is always the reluctance internally for them to come forward to the Minister and tell him what is needed and urgently required. That is my view having worked with a number of politicians who were deeply involved in the Department of Labour.

If we had a commission they would have an independent way—not necessarily outside the Department—of developing policies more effectively in the health and safety fields. At the moment there is a lack of thrust at national level in this field. We had a Mines and Quarries Advisory Council and an Office Premises Advisory Council and I should like to know when they last met and how often they have met since they were established. One finds that the pressure on the Minister for Labour to introduce amending legislation in the field of occupational health and safety has been very diffused. That is a pity.

It is also hoped that safety and health issues can be resolved without resorting to the courts, but some consideration must be given to deterrents. Why must there be a limit to the fine on conviction? Some accidents occur where the offending party should be obliged to spend a stiff term in prison. Some accidents are absolutely criminal in terms of the degree of responsibility and it is not enough to impose a fine of a few hundred pounds when a whole family has been destroyed for a generation arising from an accident. In the field of certain legislation, whether it is for drunken driving or industrial safety, where there are proven instances of blatant irresponsibility, although I am not a hard liner in terms of imposing penalties on people, I believe some offences should be met with a prison sentence for the offenders.

It is regrettable that the Minister did not withdraw this Bill as has been suggested by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and by the Factories Advisory Council. Some weeks ago on radio the Minister stated that the was considering setting up a working party on safety at work. Previously, when Ministers and Governments ran into trouble they seemed to set up working parties but I have doubts about the setting up of a working party on safety at work. I doubt if we will see any more legislation like this in the life of this Dáil although I have regard for the industry and common sense of the present Minister. Having been in this House from 1969 to 1978 I have never seen any legislation relating to industrial safety and I doubt if we will see further major legislation from the Minister. The Minister must be prepared on Committee Stage to amend the Bill radically. The Minister should give a commitment that he will introduce comprehensive safety and health legislation in the near future because there are many areas that give rise to serious concern.

I could talk at length about 23 year in the operation of safety committee and the fact that we have only about 250 of such committees in operation. The Minister in his reply could indicate that he will spend some time considering this Bill with a view, perhaps to withdrawing it. I suggest that the Minister at least delay the Committee Stage until the autumn so that he can have a long hard look at the Bill which could be enacted before the end of the year. Otherwise we will be chasing our tails here on amendments right through the month of June and this would not be satisfactory.

I welcome the introduction of the Bill so far as it goes. I hope the Minister will not regard that as being it any way mealy-mouthed on our part. We have a genuine anxiety to see effective occupational health welfare safety legislation enacted speedily.

I am uneasy at the proposals before us. I suggested before that we consider a pre-legislative forum for certain proposals so that we could get the best of everybody's talents and abilities working on them. This Bill was the kind of proposal I had in mind. Such a pre-legislative discussion would, perhaps, allow the Minister to take stronger measures knowing that he had the support of all sides of the House.

The primary impression that this Bill and the discussions surrounding it make is that it brings to mind the horror and the tragedy of a lack of safety in industry. It is difficult to assess this Bill because we accept on a day to day basis that accidents happen in industry. Although we are concerned about strikes and we sometimes talk about introducing radical measures to curb strikes, the damage to the economy and the social cost of accidents in industry are 17 to 20 times greater. In economic terms alone the cost of accidents in 1972 was estimated at £10 million. It has obviously increased since that, possibly to nearly twice that amount.

Last year 3,461 workers were seriously injured at work. Twenty-five of those accidents were fatal. That is an increase of 50 per cent on the fatality figure for the previous year. In 1976 the figures were 2,581 injured and 18 deaths. The numbers would have been more than doubled if farm accidents had been included. But what was the outcome of all those thousands of accidents, the vast majority of which arose from deficiencies in industrial safety? We had 69 prosecutions and the culprits were fined slightly more than £20 each.

The Bill before us is unfortunately a largely cosmetic measure, an attempt to improve an Act which is 20 years old and which is therefore outdated and outmoded by improvements in technology in industry and improvements which have generally taken place in factories and offices. Accordingly, it would have been appropriate to have introduced a totally new measure showing a totally new understanding of current needs in regard to industrial safety. The EEC Commission are doing work in this regard and I do not think it would have been beyond the ability of the Department to have given us a much more meaningful Bill.

Unfortunately it is true to say that due to the depressed employment position there may be, consciously or otherwise, a form of vested interest on the part of the Government to make progress in industrial safety very gingerly, because there is a fear that if we were to tighten up in certain quarters employers might not expand as rapidly as allegedly they are expected to do, or that they might let workers go.

I do not expect that such a fear is genuine. Indeed it is evident that increased or improved safety in industry would inevitably lead to increased production, to a happier workforce and generally to a much improved situation for the owners and for all involved in such an enterprise. Perhaps that is one of the worries, because, unfortunately, Irish labour laws generally make it cheaper for an employer to have a worker killed or seriously injured on the job rather than improve industrial safety standards, and the tragedy is that no matter what type of legislation we introduce it is not likely at present to be accompanied or supported by any adequate or comprehensive enforcement methods.

The 45 or 46 inspectors who are involved in the present monitoring system are undoubtedly overworked and are probably doing a good job in so far as they can. They are, of course, not nearly adequate. The whole impact of this or any similar legislation, the success of its provisions, will depend to a substantial degree on the numbers of people regularly involved in the monitoring of it, and I see no indication in this Bill that more people will be employed or that a more stringent approach will be taken in regard to inspections. Accordingly, there is the possibility that this Bill will become just another piece of legislation which will gather dust and not be implemented.

I have no doubt that is not the Minister's intention. I accept his sincerity in wanting to improve the position of Irish workers, but I would ask him to tighten up this Bill by accepting the spirit of the remarks made on this side of the House and embodying them in amendments which would put flesh and blood into a measure which in its present form is a cosmetic skeleton.

The construction industry is the most serious element in the whole question of industrial safety. In this year there were 430 accidents on sites. I do not see anything in the Bill which would impose a new approach to onsite safety in this industry. Any set of measures in this field cannot be proposed in isolation: they must be accompanied by a new attitude in regard to education and the moral and social responsibility of workers and employers. In other words, the approach must be fundamentally preventive. But there must also be a substantial curative element, and the only curative element in the Bill is a fine and that fine is too modest. Indeed the highest penalty provided for in existing legislation, a fine of £200, has been rarely if ever implemented—I cannot recall any instance, though there may have been. The basic irony of a monetary fine in relation to industrial safety in that the culprits in effect never pay a fine. Because they are engaged in commerce, industry, all that happens is that the trivial financial imposition is passed on automatically to the customers or is in some way lost in the financial web of the company involved. In other words, there is not direct responsibility imposed on the bosses or the workers involved, regardless of the type of company.

Therefore, this lightweight Bill will not make a heavyweight impact in this area. The social implications of the Bill—the increased tensions in the workplace, the knowledge that conditions are not satisfactory or are not conducive to safety—as well as the implications of the loss of a member of a family or the loss of earnings involved for a number of people away beyond the number physically maimed or killed, are not there.

It seems to me that the deplorable lack of safety features in factories, in industry generally, is unfortunately a symptom of the outdated attitude which looks on the problem as being one of management versus the worker or vice versa. I suggest that it would be helpful if the Government, in conjunction with measures such as this, were to pursue a positive policy of industrial democracy, with workers on company boards. It would mean inevitably that the attitude would be eliminated of one side pitting its wits against the other. It would lead to an attitude of both sides becoming echelons working for the common good of both. In such circumstances there would be a substantial voluntary improvement brought about by mutual responsibility and respect and leading to the kind of safety conditions we all desire.

Another regrettable feature of the present situation is that it is the fair employer—and there are some—who is victimised, the person who spends money, time and energy on providing for industrial safety in his work place, the entrepreneur who because he respects people will not demean them or act in an unfair way towards his colleagues on the work floor by asking them to accept outdated standards. By virtue of his financial commitments, his capital investment, that man suffers because his renegade brothers down the street are getting away with it. If 69 prosecutions in a period of two years is a record in this area there can be no denying that it is far more financially attractive simply to ignore industrial safety measures than to implement them.

In other words, despite the good work of the inspectors, we have been relying almost totally on the voluntary goodwill of the people involved, and that is not satisfactory. Obviously there is room for voluntary effort in these areas. The voluntary safety committees referred to by the Minister are useful and important. But where life and limb are involved there cannot be any substitute for statutory mandatory provisions imposed rigorously throughout the whole industrial sector. Anybody who believes, when it comes to profit and loss in our economic system, that the management, automatically and spontaneously, will implement the correct system without positive sanctions is living in cloud cuckooland. It will not happen.

Another aspect of the Bill which is not satisfactory is in relation to the issue of modifications or improvements which owners can make to their premises subsequent to inspections. In Dublin recently we had an unfortunate fire in which a major tragedy was averted narrowly. That incident is still shrouded in some doubt I understand the premises was inspected earlier this year and the report—for which I asked—seems to confirm that the initial safety measures asked for in the first inspection in 1958 are still there. However, it does not mention that since then grills and bars were erected on the windows obviously for the purpose of trying to ensure that damage from vandalism and theft would be minimised. This is a serious urban problem.

People with small factories, shops and premises are increasingly subject to vandalism and break-in and, therefore, they are taking precautionary measures. Obviously, these measures are designed to keep people out but, in the event of a fire, tragically they may also keep people in. It is common not only in the industrial but also in the private sector. Some landlords and flat-owners are beginning to use this method and this is an area that the Minister should consider seriously. In the fire I have mentioned 35 people were involved and but for the good work of the Dublin Fire Brigade a real tragedy would have happened.

The Bill should be able to tackle serious industrial problem areas in a much more concrete and terrier-like way. Obviously the construction industry presents serious problems. After building, the most dangerous occupations seem to be mining and quarrying. It would be sad if what may be an embryonic industrial development here had its origins marred by a disproportionately high rate of industrial accidents. Certainly that is the evidence so far. It may be that the lure to produce massive development of our native resources may tempt us to accept standards not acceptable in other areas, but if that is the case that temptation should be resisted. The truth is that in the mining industry people have been killed and injured but so far as I am aware there has not been as yet any full, satisfactory public explanation of these deaths and, even more important, any ability by the companies to guarantee that these accidents will not recur. It is a very serious matter.

The Bill has a number of other deficiencies. However, it is only fair to say to the Minister, in case he thinks we are totally gloomy about the prospects, that the introduction of the Bill is accepted as a token of his integrity and his genuineness about wanting to do something concrete in this area. It is our concern to ensure that the Bill is as effective and strong as possible to deal not only with the problems of 1978 but also the problems of 1980, 1984, 1988 and for the other years during which it will operate. This is basically a backward-looking Bill. It takes what we have and tries to improve on it. It might have been far better to have adopted an entirely fresh approach, even if it had taken a little longer. I suppose the Minister may think he can do nothing right. If he had taken longer perhaps we might be blaming him for not introducing the Bill. Because this Bill to some extent is patchwork, it is unduly complex and is over-technical.

The question of consultation is worrying. I am not one of those people who believe in the growing popular definition of consultation as being that one keeps on talking until one comes around to the other persons' point of view. However, there are people and organisations in the community who have a strong interest in this area. They could make a valuable contribution but I understand they were not utilised to as great an extent as they thought they should have been. Perhaps chief among such groups is the trade union group. They are on record as describing this Bill in terms that may be unparliamentary but certainly are unmistakable for their tone of condemnation. Perhaps that is going too far—I am not sure. Similarly, the Irish Medical Association have reservations, as have other groups. That is a pity because, whatever chance the Bill had of succeeding with the goodwill of the various groups, it will have very little if it starts from a base that is somewhat narrowed by the fact that it does not have the public support in certain quarters where it is desirable that it should have support. The unfortunate fact is that apparently the ICTU and the ITGWU produced submissions with regard to this Bill but they feel they were ignored. I am sure they were not ignored totally but their thinking on this matter, which is vital because we are talking about the safety and well-being of their members, does not come through in the Bill.

The question of making safety committees compulsory in factories is welcome. However, safety committees by their nature will never make up for the basic statutory sanction that a Government or Department of Labour can implement and which should be on the Statute Book. If we have not an immediate increase in the number of inspectors and in the monitoring procedures available for ensuring standards, the safety committee provision will fall by the wayside. At present I understand there are 250 committees out of a possible total of 1,000. Unless we mean business in these matters it would be far better not to bring them in in the first place. One can point to a variety of areas in public life where the law is being flouted daily, whether it is with regard to traffic, litter or many other matters. What is happening is that there is a growing disregard for the law. I should hate to have that attitude with regard to implementation of this Bill.

There should be far more inspectors to enforce the law and there should be heavier penalties to make prosecutions worthwhile. These penalties should not merely be money fines on the companies involved. Inevitably they are too small in the first instance and, in any case, they are passed on to the consumers or to the customers. In other words, the companies slip through the mesh and, in fact, the fines imposed are not penalties on the guilty. If a factory has bad safety conditions, it is the same thing as having a weapon that can cause loss of life or limb. It is a kind of Russian roulette. It is very serious but a serious view is not taken of it. Generally accidents are caused because of deficient conditions. In other words, they are not really accidents but are the inexorable and inevitable result of shoddy standards. It is the job of the Government to end that situation but I do not think that will happen in this Bill. The Minister should have gone a little further with regard to safety committees. They should have real powers to be able to insist mandatorily on employers taking precautions. Recommendations, consultations and discussions are all fine and are a useful peripheral area in which safety committees and managers can get involved but the basic statutory compulsion is missing. The safety committees could be the eyes and ears of the Minister for Labour in offensive and offending practices.

That challenge was not taken up. The very serious social and economic effects of such accidents on employees should be looked at in this Bill. There is untold tragedy when a breadwinner loses his or her life. There are very serious social, economic and other implications when a husband or wife is seriously maimed or injured for life. There is not only the loss of job but the loss of activity in many areas, the loss of ability to enjoy life to the full, to help with the rearing of one's family, to take pleasure in their growing up. It is reasonable to conclude that all these factors should be looked at when we talk about gauging the degree of loss to people involved in industrial accidents.

It should be a minimum standard that compulsory insurance be taken out by employers against such industrial injuries to workers. This would at least mean that there would be some financial compensation. It would be impossible to compensate for loss in the other serious and important areas. Several speakers mentioned that farming and fishing were not covered in the Bill. This seems to be a serious omission.

I believe it would have been better to introduce a new Bill because technological and industrial progress is now so rapid that new and improved methods must be continually brought forward to cope with the newness of industry. Progress is so rapid that the statutes will not be able to keep pace. I believe that this Bill is outdated before it gets on the Statute Book. Technology is improving faster than man's rate to cope with it. I can see the Minister's difficulty in trying to produce legislation to keep pace with such rapid change.

The number of accidents and the incidences of diseases from work, despite efforts made by member states in the EEC, remains high and in fact is increasing. The social and economic consequences of occupational accidents and industrial diseases is incalculable because we cannot take these factors into account. There is good reason to believe that the total social and financial costs of occupational accidents and diseases is far greater than even the conservative quantitative estimates at our disposal suggest. I do not believe we have fully gauged the enormous impact of loss in human terms, social terms and economic terms in this area. This is very important because the system of life and economics we have at the moment basically means that all men should have a job. If we accept that standards in industrial safety are deficient and that that deficiency is increasing from the point of view of the accident statistics we are compelling people to go into work places where it is inevitable that thousands of them will be maimed, seriously injured or even killed.

Modern technology uses increasingly advanced processes which present new dangers, the monitoring of which is not coped with in the Bill. Chemical substances are used which may be inadequately tested and result in harmful effects on people. We hear dreadful stories from other countries of the effects of some of those substances. This brings to mind the stories we heard about the Welsh coalminers in the old days and the various respiratory and other diseases which were clearly associated with certain types of industries and jobs. Those standards are no longer acceptable. We must make a comprehensive effort in our legislation to ensure that we do not accept them, that they are outlawed and are seen to be outlawed.

All potentially harmful chemical, physical, mechanical and biological agents and their psychological factors connected with work must be readily recognisable and brought under control or eliminated by suitable means in order to avoid any damage to health or a significant reduction in safety. I do not see any reference to that in the Bill. The prevention, limitation and, where possible, elimination of occupational risks constitute major elements of a policy to protect the health and safety of our workers and is at the very nucleus of this Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to realise from the remarks of speakers on all sides of the House that this Bill does not go far enough.

There are certain other initiatives which are necessary. I urge the Minister to consider them sympathetically. I am not one of those people who try to put forward the thesis that I have a monopoly of wisdom. However, it seems to me, having spoken to a number of workers about this Bill, that it does not go nearly far enough. The kind of initiative we should be looking for, to which the Bill in part or in whole does not seem to make adequate reference, includes the incorporation of safety aspects into various stages of design, production and operation. We have a limited view of safety in industry, perhaps in regard to fire escapes and a protective shield against the blade of a machine. It is much more subtle and more complex than that. The determination of exposure limits for workers with regard to pollutants and harmful substances, present or likely to be present at the work place, is a very serious matter and is coming more and more into public focus at the moment due to the increase in industrialisation of certain parts of the country. We had controversy about part of the Dublin port area some time ago in regard to certain types of chemicals which are being imported. The question of the determination of the exposure limits of workers to chemicals such as these is important and bears essentially on the question of safety in industry.

It is essential to have more extensive monitoring of worker safety and health. It should not rest on a small group of over-worked and hardpressed inspectors. At the moment we have plenty of room to employ people. I cannot understand how a Government, committed, on paper at least, to creating more jobs will not take the immediate decision to treble or quadruple the number of people involved in the factory inspector situation. I know they have to have certain qualifications and perhaps that should be looked at. It might be better to have a far wider number of people who do not have the graduate qualifications necessary in some of those areas at present but who are trained. If we can train people over a six week period to cope with the very traumatic and great demands of juvenile delinquency for an institution in Cavan perhaps there is something about training factory inspectors in a certain amount of time as well. The number employed at the moment, less than four dozen, cannot do the job. If this Bill's success is dependent on those limited numbers, then it will fail utterly.

Another matter we should be looking at and discussing is the accident and disease aetiology and assessment of the risks connected with work, also the co-ordination and promotion of research into occupational safety and health. I see no reference at all in the Bill to the question of the need for ongoing research funded and structured by the Government. Are we for ever to be reacting to accidents, wringing our hands when some unfortunate person falls off a scaffolding or is cut in two by a blade? Why not meet the challenge of the future? Why not instigate exploratory research into future trends of technology, industrial safety and so on? Why not, in advance, introduce measures which would mean that not one life would be lost or not one limb damaged? Why wait until there is a high toll? Or must that be our pattern always? It is regrettable to see a new Government with a very substantial mandate acting in what is fundamentally and literally a reactionary manner. This Bill could have been one of long-term vision. They could have borrowed from the best of such measures abroad but they did not. Perhaps the Minister has in mind introducing a second-tier measure at a somewhat later stage embodying this forward-looking approach I am recommending.

We should be looking also at the development of safety and health consciousness through education and training. Obviously there is no substitute for education, for employees learning that they should not take risks, for employers learning that it is only basic respect for their fellow human beings to ensure that they do not ask people to work in Dickensian conditions, that the age of putting little boys up the chimneys in order to clean them and all that that mentality implies is gone. Unfortunately none of those things appears to have been investigated in the drafting of the Bill.

I hope the Minister will look at the proposals and suggestions some of us have tried to put forward in all seriousness and in good faith. We wish him every success in his task because it is a vital one. We are not speaking here of something of minor import but rather of real importance, the life and welfare of all of our workers, those who keep the wheels of the economy turning, people who are trying to sustain wives and families in these difficult days subject to pressures from all sources.

Surely it is not too much to ask that all of our workers be able to go to their places of employment without fear, in the knowledge that the standards obtaining there are not merely adequate or satisfactory but such as will allow them to put everything they have into their work without worrying about whether or not accidents can or will happen. The seriousness of this is underlined by virtue of the fact that whereas in times of fuller employment it was easier for an employee to tender his notice or to leave a job which was unsatisfactory or deficient, today there is obviously a different attitude on the part of the worker simply because jobs are not nearly so available. Therefore there is a greater risk, that the worker will continue to put up with a standard of efficiency and safety which is not acceptable. We might consider offering a safeguard to a worker who would be willing to report deficiencies, as it is his duty to do, or indeed leave his employment where such deficiencies are evident.

I would ask that these suggestions be carefully considered. I wish the Minister success in regard to any amendments he may introduce. Certainly if they are for strengthening the Bill and making it more effective we will do our best to give him every support possible.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Member of this House if I did not avail of this opportunity to express some views on this measure especially having regard to my experience in industry over a number of years and my first-hand knowledge of the need for safety and health in industry. Accordingly, the views I shall express here, will, I hope be constructive ones, designed to improve this very inadequate Bill.

There should be no attempt made whatsoever to put through a Bill of this kind, purporting to provide for the health, safety and welfare of our workers unless and until the Minister, the Government, the Opposition, all of us here in this House are completely satisfied that it has been very carefully thought out, that it is comprehensive, covering all facets of industry, including agriculture, and that it has that high degree of support, understanding and co-operation essential for its future success.

I submit that this Bill, if it is to have a chance of success, must have the support of the representatives of the workers, the trade union movement. It must also have the support of the other sections of industry.

These are views the Minister should entertain and approve of, where found to be practical. When the Congress of Trade Unions speaks for and on behalf of over 500,000 workers it should be listened to with respect and its advice acted on in all matters affecting the vital needs of its members. Likewise the views of the Factory Advisory Council should be entertained. The Bill would be totally ineffective if it did not include agriculture and the fisheries industries.

For the Government and the Minister to attempt to implement a measure of this kind without regard to the wishes of all those important sectors of our economy would be foolhardy indeed. I believe the resultant Act would be doomed to abject failure. To legislate effectively for the safety, health and welfare of all those in industry here is surely a gigantic task. The Minister will require, and should welcome, the advice, help and co-operation of all of us who want to make this Bill an effective one. Therefore we must be satisfied that the Bill will work, that it will have the support of all those directly involved. Otherwise the Minister is simply wasting the time of this House and what will eventually go on our Statute Book will be an effete and sterile thing of no consequence, something doomed to failure. That would be a very real tragedy especially in a situation where the evidence is that so many thousands of man-days are lost to this nation and its economy and so many thousands of lives are blithed by injury, deformity and disease.

The figures issued annually by the factory inspectorate, however incomplete and imperfect they may be, clearly outline the magnitude of the problem in the area of both safety and health. The figures available speak for themselves. In the past five years some 13,000 accidents have occurred in factories. Each year some 3,000 accidents occur in our factories of which approximately 80 are fatal. Many other accidents result in amputations. The average number of fatalities per year is 25. The position has grown worse every year since 1970 when 1,000,000 man-days were lost through industrial accidents and sickness. The lesson to be learned is—it is a lesson that must be brought home—that there are more man-days lost as a result of accidents and illness than are lost through strikes and lockouts. It is conservatively estimated that the cost to the economy each year of industrial accidents is in the region of £10 million. For humanitarian and economic reasons we in this House and society as a whole cannot accept with complacency the record levels of deaths, injuries, disease and waste as the inevitable price of meeting the needs for goods and services required by our society.

There is before us here a unique opportunity to update and provide uniform legislation with equal emphasis on health and safety. The Minister published this Bill on 30 March last. It was made known to him then that the Bill was unsatisfactory and unacceptable to congress and other interested groups. I am sorry that in the interim the Minister did not find it in his heart to consult with those important sectors in our society and bring in the necessary amendments to give the Bill teeth and effectiveness. The Bill will have to be changed radically to meet the needs of modern industry. It ignores the submissions made by congress and by the Factories Advisory Council. The Bill merely amends the 1955 Act. It ignores completely the need to update the Office Premises Act, 1958. It takes no cognisance of the need to protect and workers in other sectors of industry.

The Minister seemingly takes no account whatsoever of what is happening in the world around us, in Britain and the other EEC countries to which we are bound as partners. It is surely shortsighted not to have regard to the vast improvements which have taken place in these countries in respect of the health and welfare of workers. Is it seriously contended that our workers must accept lower standards than their counterparts in the other EEC countries? That is what is involved in this Bill. The Bill pales into insignificance when compared with the legislation that backs the working classes in the other EEC countries. Our workers should not be expected to accept less than their counterparts in the EEC. Indeed, this Bill falls short of the law governing fellow Irish men and women in Northern Ireland.

I hope the Minister will recognise the need to change this measure radically so that it will meet with general acceptance by those whom it would seek to protect and have the support of those whom it is intended to assist. One of the senior officials attached to the Congress of Trade Unions, Mr. Donal O'Sullivan, in an article in The Irish Times on Wednesday, 17 May, spelled out the reasons why this Bill is unacceptable to congress. He said:

THE REASONS why the trade union movement has called for the scrapping of the Safety Industrial Bill, 1978, now on its way through the Dáil, are simple. Firstly, our recommendations were ignored by the present Ministry in toto and, secondly, the proposed legislation is already outdated when compared with developments in other countries. The Bill is only an updating of the 1955 Factories Act.

He goes on to say that the present Bill is, in fact, a civil service document, the product of the Department of Labour inspectorate which was asked for by the last Minister, Deputy Michael O'Leary, to be circulated to all interested parties as a discussion document some short time before the Minister, Deputy Michael O'Leary, left office.

Congress has cases elaborated on in this particular article and some of the salient points which they desire and require to be included in the Bill are spelled out here. Some of them would include the following: that a national body should be set up, incorporating the activities of the present Factory Advisory Council and NISO—that is, the National Industrial Safety Organisation—the Mines Advisory Council, the Office Premises Advisory Body, both of which rarely meet, with full powers to co-ordinate activity in the Industrial Safety Health areas this new body to have power to recommend and to initiate new legislation and supervise the work of the factory inspectorate and to include occupational health. Congress would also regard as essential in a Bill of this kind that safety committees should have real, effective power with joint employer and employee responsibility, unlike the present situation. The proposed safety committees have little power under this Bill. As proposed they will be entitled only to factory inspectors' reports at the discretion of the Minister. They may get reports on their place of work with the approval of the Minister. It is fair to contend if that sector of industry happened to be friendly with the Minister or his party, or to be supporters of theirs financially——

We have a new Government now.

I suggest it is very doubtful whether any such report would be made available at all.

That is a terrible allegation. I am surprised at the Deputy.

Proper facilities to train the safety personnel should be included in the Bill. A system of proper fines should be provided. The range of fines from £15 to a maximum of £500 is totally inadequate as a deterrent and to ensure the effectiveness of the Bill.

As I said earlier, developments in other countries have been ignored completely. We would regard it as an insult to the intelligence of the Irish working classes if this House were to disregard the standards obtaining in other EEC countries. Irish management would claim that their expertise, knowledge and know-how and the plant and machinery they operate today are on a par with those of their counterparts in Europe. The productivity of the Irish worker is on a par with that of his counterpart in Europe and, in many areas, higher. Therefore, why should Irish workers have to accept lower standards in the vital areas of safety, health and welfare?

Let us have uniformity in this Bill. Let us go forward together in Europe as was intended, especially in the work place. There was a need to upgrade and update legislation in this area which has not been looked at properly for the past 20 years. Doubtless the present measures dealing with safety and injury have their good points, but they also have their flagrant imperfections. Essentially the old legislation to which I refer, and which is now being amended, relied on a system of factory inspectorship to inculcate into employers and employees the overall need for safety.

I am not unmindful of or ungrateful for the part played by the previous administration, the Department of Labour and some 46 inspectors involved in this area in bringing a degree of safety, understanding and responsibility into the work place. At the same time, they cannot be said to have been successful, whether because there were too few factory inspectors, or because of a lack of safety committees, as such, or because of indifference on the part of too many employers, it is difficult to say. Whatever the reasons, the present situation is most unsatisfactory.

There has been indifference to the Act, indifference to the provisions of essential safeguards in industry, indifference to the establishment of safety committees. Perhaps some companies were concerned about the cost involved. Down the years there has been veiled opposition on the part of certain owners of premises to the implementation of safety in industry proposals. There has been indifference on the part of the larger groupings who were aloof and were disinterested in safety precautions.

There was wholesale evasion of the provision of safety measures by back lane factory operators, and this still continues. They cared nothing for the welfare and conditions of employment of their workers. It is futile for us or for the Minister to assume employers will be wildly enthusiastic about proposals of this nature to improve the conditions of our workers. In most cases employers are primarily concerned about the cost factor. Modern safety devices cost money. Therefore, there will always be a tendency on the part of some employers to evade doing what they are obliged to do under legislation. Unless suitable penalties are stipulated in this Bill, the same evasion will continue in the future as prevailed in the past.

I want to disabuse the Minister of the foolish notion that things have been improving. I contend thousands of workers are still forced to endure very bad working conditions. They are bereft of light, fresh air, proper heating and ventilation. They are forced to operate with disgusting sanitary facilities, with little regard for safety, and not even a first aid kit to be found. Down through the years too many factory owners felt their obligations ended when they provided the minimum for their workers, when they had their premises suitably insured against fire or theft, when they had their workers suitably insured against serious accident.

All the evidence is that there was a marked reluctance on their part to incur the expense of providing what were regarded merely as folderols. Conditions did not count and, in many instances, workers were obliged to work in squalid and dangerous conditions. For some workers the provision of a toilet roll, a bar of soap, hot water, clean towels and a first-aid kit were regarded as unnecessary and expensive luxuries. We are told that the idea of factory committees never caught on, and I accept that. The reason that factory committees never became the norm in Irish industry was that they were never properly encouraged. They were certainly not encouraged by a certain category of employer and any attempt on the part of workers to effectively organise themselves as factory committees were largely ignored by certain employers, if not outrightly opposed.

If we are to have effective factory committees, they will have to be looked at in a new light. They will have to be given a new dignity, status and responsibility. They must not be grudgingly accepted by employers as they were in the past. They must be given statutory powers under this Bill. For too long welfare and safety committees were regarded by certain employers as of nuisance value only and as a very expensive nuisance with fancy notions about safety. Again, the primary consideration was cost. These committees must have a new standing in the eyes of the employer and in the eyes of the State. Not very long ago Irish workers very quickly saw where they stood in respect of these committees. They were not welcomed. They were given no status. They were given no recompense for time lost from the job. They realised that the old adage still counted: the person who paid the piper called the tune. The history of these committees is that they were shunned by the workers.

The Minister must be very careful if he is going to have committees that work under this legislation. As I said, they must be given status, they must be given independence, they must be given back their dignity and they must be given effective power before workers will co-operate. The workers must no longer be seen to be beholden to the employers in this important area. The workers must no longer be seen to be subservient to the employers in this vital area. They must be legislated for as equal partners, otherwise it will not work.

In this same area I want to comment on the role of the factory inspector. I said earlier that whatever I may say now that is critical of them should not take from the fact that great work has been achieved by so few people. Some 46 inspectors trying to cope with 19,000 factories is surely an impossible task, but they too will get nowhere if they are not seen to do their job impartially and fairly.

Up to now, I am afraid, it is only too true to say that too many factory inspectors, rightly or wrongly, were seen to be on the side of the bosses. Whenever they found it necessary to visit premises they were invariably seen in the company of the boss. They were invariably accompanied throughout the factory by the boss or by a representative of the boss. They rarely sought out the workers to inquire what conditions were like or what their views were on safety or on the lack of safety on the job. Many of these inspectors too rarely went out of their way to consult with the representatives of the workers, and to ascertain their views. This, too, is something which detracted from the working of factory safety committees. The indifference of the bosses and the inspectors seeming to side with the bosses on inspection threw the whole idea into suspicion and distrust and brought about the sorry situation we are trying to salvage today.

I contend that this type of situation, where the mass of the people on the job, whose health and welfare were being legislated for, was ignored by factory inspectors must stop. It is no wonder that the safety committees did not work. It is my contention that workers in all sectors of industry must be given an effective say in the operation of these committees in what should apply in respect of health and safety on the job. This is especially desirable in a situation where so much public money is expended on the provision of industry. A high percentage of taxpayers' money is involved in the establishment of Irish industry. In that situation the State has an obligation to ensure that modern conditions shall apply and that the essential safeguards for health and welfare are a prerequisite to the establishment of new industries. Workers do have rights in this regard and are not entirely beholden to employers or to the wealth of employers in such situations. Workers have rights and these rights should be stipulated in law. This is also true in respect of State and semi-State bodies. Workers views in respect of these bodies should predominate.

In essence, the Bill should be an all-embracing Bill, covering the workers in the factories, in the fields, in the mines, in the barn or in the back street, onshore and offshore, in agriculture and in the fishing industry. I do not know what argument the Minister will come up with as to why this Bill should not cover the agricultural industry. With modern plant and machinery so widely used in agriculture today, with the extensive use of insecticides, pesticides, animal drugs and medicines, the animal diseases such as brucellosis, and the attendant dangers to the farmers, the farmers' own families, the workers engaged on and the visitors to farms, does anyone seriously suggest that agriculture and its workers should be left out of this Bill? To do so would be a disgrace. This Bill would be as nothing if that important sector were to be disregarded. It would be foolhardy and irresponsible not to include them. The only legislation covering the farm as such is the measure which provides for safety gadgets on tractors. Big deal. "A roller bar and a cage shall be provided on a tractor." When one looks around the farms of today and considers the nature of the work, the modern implements and machines, the availability of electric power, the use of so many minerals on the land—many of a very toxic nature—one realises the grave dangers to those engaged in agriculture and that they should be provided for in this measure. They should be safeguarded. We are, therefore, asking that measures to ensure the maximum safety of workers be enshrined in this Bill.

I would hope too for more emphasis on welfare and on health in industry as much as on safety. Let us have involved specialists in this field, especially in the medical profession. I emphasise the need for the medical profession to be involved in this area of legislation by giving an example of what I mean. The instance which I give is the subject matter of great tragedy and injustice and unfortunately, by reason of our present legislation, injustice which cannot be rectified because such cases are even prejudiced before the courts. A constituent of mine sustained an injury at work in which his left hand was badly mangled. It resulted in the amputation of a finger and other fingers are likely to be amputated too. He was accorded his appropriate benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, sickness benefit and injury benefit. The injury benefit was payable after an assessment by specialists in the medical field of an incidence of 60 per cent disability. He underwent the usual hospital and surgical treatment and he will never be able to work again unless he is trained to work with one hand. The 60 per cent degree of injury benefit was payable for some time, but then the unfortunate man was the subject of an investigation. He was called before a medical referee and the incidence of disability was reduced from 60 per cent to 30 per cent. He appealed against this decision on the advice of his own specialist doctors, and his appeal was determined by a man who had no medical knowledge of any kind. He was not a doctor, he was not a specialist; he was an appeals officer, a civil servant. He knew nothing about medical matters. He was totally incompetent to judge the man's disability or the nature of his ailment and he himself would admit that he would not know an X-ray from a bull's foot. Nevertheless he determined that the 30 per cent disability should apply. The man and his medical experts were outraged by this decision. They contended that it was disgraceful. His medical adviser attended the appeal with him but found himself up against a layman who cared nothing about medical reports and knew nothing about them: he went by some norm in a book. The sad feature of all this is that under another code, the social welfare code, the decision of the appeals officer is final and binding and there is no redress whatsoever. Unfortunately, this matter is even worse than that because when this man's case comes to be heard by the courts he will go into the court with his case already prejudiced by reason of his condition of disability having been reduced by the incidence of 60 per cent to 30 per cent.

I hope the Minister for Labour, in consultation with the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, will try to ensure that this sorry state of affairs does not continue, whereby a layman inexperienced in medical matters can be the final arbiter as to what is right or wrong in respect of a man's future. That appeals officer has literally destroyed this man. Apart from the loss of income the case in the courts is prejudiced, as I have said. There is a crying need for a change in legislation in this regard.

In a serious matter of this kind surely there ought to be a panel of experts to determine the true incidence of disability. One would feel that there would be justice in such a tribunal. Indeed, if one felt that the final arbitrator in this case was a medical man, a specialist in the field, one could become reconciled to one's position. But it is an outmoded, arrogant and extremely unjust situation that the decision should be handed down by a mere civil servant backed by a law which says that his decision is binding and final and that one has no redress.

I trust that the Minister has been listening to the points I have been making and that when he talks of health and welfare in relation to this Bill, he will have regard to the type of cases to which I have been referring. The man I have been talking about is no malingerer. He is backed by the medical profession who say that what has happened in regard to him is totally unjust. I expect that there are thousands of similar cases. The people concerned have no redress as the law stands unless the courts in their wisdom decide in their favour.

I have talked a good deal about the role of the factory inspector. Obviously, there is need for a big increase in the number of inspectors. Even after 23 years in operation there are only 250 safety committees in operation. This means that only one in every 70 premises on the factory register has a safety committee. That is a scandalous situation. Radical change is necessary to bring about an improvement in this area.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us in reply how many of the inspectors are female. I am posing the question having regard to the large number of women employed in industry. Women comprise 27 per cent of the total paid work force. They represent 31 per cent of industrial employees and 70 per cent of the women engaged in industry are employed in the clothing, footwear and food processing sectors, which together account for only 45 per cent of our total industrial employment.

These are important statistics to bear in mind. The proportion of women participants in AnCO training programmes has increased from 13 per cent in recent years to 20 per cent. Therefore, having regard to the contribution women are making to industry and to production, I should hope that this situation would be reflected in the number of factory inspectors because women are in a special category in this regard. It is a much more serious matter for a woman than for a man to be maimed or deformed or to suffer from an industrial disease. We should ensure that the women in our work force are protected to the utmost from industrial injury or disease.

In the booklet, Labour Inspection Report for 1977, the Minister in the foreword says that the report reveals a disquieting rise in the number of deaths at work last year, that 26 workers were killed in factories, on docks, at construction sites and in mines and quarries, while the number for the previous year was 18. The Minister says that this is in no way counterbalanced by a slight drop in the number of non-fatal accidents reported to his Department during the same period, that was, 3,441 compared with 3,563 for the previous year. He goes on to talk about every factory having its own special and peculiar dangers known best to those who work in the situation concerned. He talks about safety committees being an effective channel for workers to bring potential hazards to the attention of those who can deal with such hazards. He points out that the Factories Act, 1955, gave workers the right to form these committees, but that while there has been a steady rise in the number of committees in recent years the rise has been unspectacular—270 last year compared with 256 in the previous year and 238 in 1975. The Minister says that this is not enough.

The factory inspectorate as presently constituted has been a failure. We must ensure by legislation that it is successful in the future. To this end the Minister will need the help and support of all of us here as well as of those outside who wish this measure to be made as effective as possible. I wish the Minister well in his efforts. I trust he will regard what I have had to say as being offered in an attempt to be constructive. However, I do not regard this measure as being as effective potentially as we would wish. In reply, the Minister may give us some indication of the extent to which he intends going in order to meet our wishes in this regard. If the Bill is not amended radically I shall be recommending to my Parliamentary colleagues that they oppose the Bill on the basis of its being an ineffective instrument that would do more harm than good. However, I trust the Minister will realise that what we want is a measure that will reflect the dignity and the integrity of the Irish workforce, that it will be a measure that will give them entitlement on a par with their collagues in the European Communities.

There has been a plea for the withdrawal of the Bill. It might be too much to expect that of the Minister, out in the circumstances a withdrawal of the Bill would be a noble gesture, having regard especially to the inherent failures and the flagrant inadequacies in the Bill. But, if it goes to Committee Stage, this party will devote as much time as possible to trying to improve it, and to make it into a worth-while instrument rather than the pale, effete shadow of a measure which it now represents.

Like the previous speaker, I am disappointed that the Minister did not take this opportunity to bring before the House a wider measure. I am particularly interested in areas which concern my own constituency. The first of these is the fishing industry, which is not mentioned in the Bill. I cannot understand why there is such a glaring omission. This is an area which will have to be examined very closely in the years to come.

The number of boats and trawlers in the west has escalated during the past four or five years due, I have no doubt, to the attractions of the fishing industry and the high prices paid for lobster or salmon, caught legally or illegally. Some people now involved in the fishing industry have no experience of the sea and this point concerns me. I do not understand why An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are prepared to give grants for the purchase of boats to people who have no tradition of the sea. Last year off Dingle Bay a launch went out and set lobster pots off the Blasket Islands. The pots were set when the tide was full and when they arrived back three hours later to draw the pots, they found that all the pots were on the rocks. They were lucky. This is the type of accident which I am afraid will become very common if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara do not insist that at least one experienced fisherman must be aboard every such boat. Perhaps the Minister would make some provision for this.

How many trawlers have life jackets aboard? How often are these checked? We all hear of tragedies but the man in the street must wonder when bodies are found whether there were any life jackets available. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter.

I now refer to people who are operating ferries. I mention in particular the ferry between Slea Head and the Blasket Islands. It is ridiculous that 20 people may be carried in a small craft. The journey may take only six or seven minutes but it is over very deep water and nobody in that craft has a lifejacket.

How long has that ferry been operating?

About two years. I drew attention to it at county council level, looking for by-laws to cover it. I am now asking the Department of Labour, since Kerry County Council have not drawn up regulations to cover ferries. I hope the Minister will insist that the county council should carry out their function and make the necessary bye-laws.

In regard to the building industry, too often we see scaffolding in towns and villages and a lack of any safeguards. The Minister should increase the number of inspectors in this area. How many builders have been prosecuted for the erection of scaffolding without the proper safeguards? We hear of many tragedies and sometimes we know the people involved. An increase in the number of inspectors could save human life.

Local authorities are possibly as much to blame as the Department of Labour and I should like to see more co-ordination. I have been a member of a local authority for 18 years. Strange to relate, irrespective of what Government were in power, I never saw a communication from the Department of Labour. I am not blaming the Minister or his officials for that. Local authorities and the Department of Labour have a vital role to play if this Bill is to be successful. Since so many functions are being taken away from local authorities at present, it might be no harm to give them an added responsibility. We cannot expect the inspectors from the Department to be everywhere. The local authorities have the men on the ground who can report to an official of the Department or to the Minister himself.

I am especially critical of the manner of recruitment to the fire brigade service. I wonder about the kinds of physical tests to which applicants are subjected before being accepted into this service. Speaking from experience, I know that some fire brigade personnel would not climb a ladder to clean their own windows if they had to go 20 feet off the ground. The Minister has a great opportunity in this Bill to insist on conditions and regulations for the proper recruitment of personnel.

There should be a clause in this Bill giving protection to people injured or disabled. I have a particular case in mind. A young man fishing out of Dingle got a belt from a winch and was knocked unconscious. The insurance company sent an agent to the hospital in Cork and made him sign a document for £300 or £400. That boy is now threatened with blindness. That is the kind of sharp practice I do not like and I am sure the Minister does not like it either. How are we going to prevent a recurrence of that sort?

I have genuine fears in regard to the matters I raised, particularly that of inexperienced fishermen taking to the sea to make a fast buck. These people are being helped by grants from a semi-State body without that body insisting on proper safety measures and ensuring that these people are experienced fishermen. My second point deals with the ferries. I would ask the Minister to move on that immediately. I am told that last year but for the grace of God we would have had a major calamity off the Blasket Islands. Fog came down and the launch was drifting for a long time before the people on board were taken to the shore. That did not make the papers or television, but I know it happened. Was the boat used for the ferry crossing ever surveyed? I do not think so. Is it suitable for use as a ferry? I do not know where it came from or for how long it has been in use.

I have fulfilled my obligation. I tried to fulfil my obligation at local level and failed. I brought it up at a council meeting and I am still waiting for something to be done. I am now putting it to the Minister because there are at least three or four men working on this ferry. The Minister, too, has an obligation. He should insist that proper safety precautions are carried out on that ferry from this moment onwards. With the sun in the sky until 9 o'clock every evening and a golden sunset off the Blasket Islands, a trip on the ferry is more attractive than ever. There is no point in the Minister asking why we did not do this when we were in office. That is beside the point. The problem exists and I want the Minister to do something about it.

I wish the Minister well in his office.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I have brought forward the Safety in Industry Bill with the aim of improving the existing laws. As the House knows, we already have the Factories Act, 1955, and in the region of 82 regulations which have been made under it. While this constitutes a fairly comprehensive amount of safety law, I considered that there was room for improvement. What I am proposing is to improve the 1955 Act to encourage workers to participate in securing their own and their workmates' safety.

The importance of the Bill therefore resides in that it should help to reduce the incidence of accidents in industry—that surely is an important consideration—thereby reducing the suffering and losses of the victims of such accidents and the consequential economic costs to the community. Many of its provisions are based on a detailed review by a steering committee in my Department of the operation and administration of the 1955 Act and the large number of regulations made under it. I am not at present introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation and I have not claimed it to be such. There are several innovations of course and I gave details of these to the House when moving the Second Stage of this Bill on 25 April 1978.

Some of the Deputies in their contributions to this debate questioned the scope of the measure. An all-embracing piece of legislation which they and other Deputies have asked for, would entail considerably more extensive research and examination. The Deputies themselves appeared to be in agreement on this point—in fact, a period of three or four years was mentioned. As Minister for Labour, with responsibility in the area of industrial safety, I do not believe that it would be justifiable for me to wait that long when there are immediate improvements which could, and should, be made to the existing primary legislation. It is on the basis of this belief that the Safety in Industry Bill is now before the House.

I am, however, aware of the desirability of having a more global examination of the general area of safety. I did, I hope, make this clear last week when introducing the Estimate for my Department. And it is with this in mind that, following enactment of this Bill, I intend to set up a working party which will be representative of the interests concerned. I would envisage their task as giving consideration to, and making recommendations about, safety in a broader context than that of industry alone.

This brings me to the matter of consultations, a matter which was raised by a number of Deputies. As is the normal custom, at the pre-legislative stage of these proposals there were consultations with all other Government Departments, including the Departments of Health and the Environment. A discussion document was issued in June 1977 and the views of interested parties sought on its contents. The employers' side indicated that their views would be made available following the circulation of the text of the relative Bill. These are still awaited. In addition to informal contacts with the ICTU, two formal meetings were held with representatives from that organisation last year. A further meeting with their protective legislation committee is scheduled to take place before Committee Stage of the Bill is taken. Arrangements have been made for officers of my Department to attend a meeting of the Factories Advisory Council at which the Bill is to be discussed.

I would suggest to Deputy Mitchell that the question of an all party committee on the Bill would be more appropriate if it were a question of consolidating legislation. As I have said earlier, this is not the case. I do, however, take his point that the number of pieces of safety legislation— both primary and secondary—is such that people could find it confusing, through sheer volume alone. While this volume, in fact, testifies to the concern of my Department in the safety area, I would consider asking my officers to include—in the explanatory leaflet which will be prepared on this measure—a schedule listing all the relevant existing legislation to date, if the Deputy thought it would be helpful to employers and workers alike to have such information in one leaflet for ease of reference. At present, a handbook on the 1955 Act is, of course, available; its aim is to provide factory occupiers and factory workers with a convenient guide to the main provisions of the Act.

I should like to remind Deputy Ryan that, when moving the Second Stage, I referred to the draft Council resolution on a Community action programme on safety and health at work, which is currently under discussion in Brussels. While various initiatives have been put forward, no firm proposals have yet emerged. If and when firm proposals do emerge, the House will be aware that in section 4 of the Bill I propose to take power to make orders to comply with any international obligations assumed by the State.

I must take exception to one of Deputy Mitchell's comments about the industrial inspectorate of my Department. I totally reject the implied slur on the integrity of the industrial inspectors. Indeed, the Deputy's remark is the first of its kind that I have heard since assuming office as Minister for Labour and I think it unworthy of him. To underline the independence of the industrial inspectorate, may I make it perfectly clear that a Minister for Labour does not, at any time, interfere in any way, with the industrial inspectors in the performance of their duties. The powers which they have are, moreover, laid down statutorily.

A number of Deputies alluded to the size of the industrial inspectorate vis-à-vis its efficacy in carrying out inspections. I should like to point out that 6,500 factories here—in other words, over 50 per cent of our factories, if one excludes construction sites—have a workforce of between one and five persons. Obviously, more than one such factory can be inspected per day, something which Deputy Mitchell's figures did not, I think, take into account. I should like to correct the Deputy's idea about the alleged lack of diversity in the qualifications of the industrial inspectorate. A breakdown of their qualifications at present shows that 13 are industrial chemists, two are physicists, seven are civil engineers, five marine engineers, six electrical, five mechanical, one electronics, two mining and two heating and ventilation experts. The current complement is completed by two architects.

As regards the numerical strength of the inspectorate personnel in the context of the new Bill, while it would be premature to be specific at this early stage, Deputy Enright has my assurance that the situation will be monitored carefully following enactment of the legislation. If significant developments emerge in the light of experience of operation of the Act, the necessary steps can then be taken.

I can see a certain merit in Deputy Mitchell's suggestion that each trade union should have their own safety officer. This would, however, be an internal matter for the trade unions themselves and, as such, would not be appropriate for inclusion in legislation.

The view was expressed that training should be compulsory for safety committees. I feel I should point out that to make statutory provision for what is basically an administrative matter would not be warranted. When I say this, it is not that I underestimate the value of training and the contribution it can make towards increasing safety effectiveness. Far from it. Indeed, I would like to see a greater awareness by firms that safety, as the Deputies said, far from costing money, actually saves it. In that context, I would expect employers to be anxious to facilitate those involved in the area of safety as regards arrangements for adequate training and to make the fullest use of the facilities which are already available, for instance, through NISO, an organisation which I hold in high regard. I might mention that it is customary for industrial inspectors to help and guide safety committees when these are set up. Before I entered politics I had experience of the activities of the industrial inspectorate and I found them to be people of integrity who were anxious in the interests of safety to see that the regulations were implemented. They were always anxious to give advice where co-operation was forthcoming and were tough, and rightly so, when that co-operation was not forthcoming.

Deputy O'Brien felt that the time-span between the 1955 Act and the present Bill was too long in view of the changes in modern technology. In this connection he seems to forget that the 1955 Act enabled the Minister to make regulations to take account of the point he mentioned. To date, in the region of 82 such regulations have been made. To focus solely on primary legislation enacted would not give the full picture. Moreover there are provisions in this Bill in relation to technological changes. For example, section 28 deals with asphyxiants and toxic highly flammable or corrosive substances, and sections 5 and 13 deal with noise.

In relation to plant isolation, section 18 on cleaning of machinery provides for a safe system to be in operation and that the person cleaning the machine should be aware of this. Isolation of plant is also covered in the section. In relation to a safety audit it should be noted that the figures given in the annual report of the industrial inspectorate indicate that approximately 93 to 95 per cent of the premises are inspected each year. The remaining 7 per cent to 5 per cent are inspected first in the next year and so on. The total number of visits each year to factories is far in excess of the number of factories. The reports of the inspectorate are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as stipulated by section 93 (3) of the Factories Act, 1955, and the Minister for Labour has always complied with this stipulation.

I assure Deputy O'Brien that every accident report received by the Minister is examined and monitored by the inspectors. Not all reported accidents are investigated. In some cases the indications are that the accidents were not severe or alternatively that the data given shows that investigations are not necessary. Up to 80 per cent of the accidents reported are investigated in depth to ascertain the cause and to either prosecute or to give remedial advice to the occupier or owner on preventive measures to be taken.

Inspection in case of fire was referred to both by Deputy O'Brien and by Deputy Keating. The Factories Act, 1955, requires that factories be certified by the local authority as having suitable means of escape in the case of fire. If the occupiers of factories have no such certificate they are liable to prosecution. Where a certificate is issued the industrial inspector in the course of his inspection will inspect the certificate and compare the exits mentioned in it with those provided in the premises. The inspector will insist that all of these exits are capable of being opened readily from inside in the case of a fire occurring. The improved provisions in this Bill in the case of fire are: the provision of adequate fire fighting equipment and the regular testing and examination of it, fire drills in certain factories and fire certificates for all factories.

Deputy O'Brien objected to the change of legislation by order. I would draw his attention to the fact that affirmative orders are proposed in this Bill. Such orders come before both Houses, where they can be discussed, and they require an affirmative resolution by both Houses before they can be made. I agree with the Deputy that insufficient safety committees were set up under the 1955 Act. Deputy Treacy referred to that this evening. He appeared to blame the factory inspectorate and to say that because of the small number of committees set up the factory inspectorate was a failure. I do not agree with that suggestion because, while agreeing that the number of safety committees is small, the blame cannot be attributed to the industrial inspectorate because the workers were enabled by that Act to set up the committees and once such committees were set up the inspectorate offered their help and advice.

In relation to Deputy O'Brien's contribution, under section 5 of the Bill the Minister will have power to make regulations in regard to radiation. Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the transport and the storage of dangerous substances, as did Deputy Enright. Section 28 does not cover the transport of such substances but the Minister has power to make regulations in that regard under the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972. In relation to comments on AnCO, not only is safety an element of training courses run by them but it is considered a most important element.

Deputy O'Donnell also raised the question of the clarification of the certifying doctor. The appointment of certifying doctors is set out in section 96 of the Factories Act 1955. Section 52 of the present Bill amends section 80 (1) of the 1955 Act which referred to the certificate of fitness for employment of young persons. The purpose of the provisions is to enable the Minister to authorise doctors, such as industrial medical officers or doctors in the schools' medical service, to examine young persons in connection with the certificate of fitness for employment prescribed under section 80 of the 1955 Act. This will help to correct the anomaly whereby young persons are examined by both the certifying doctors and industrial medical officers.

Deputy O'Toole queried a reference in the explanatory memorandum to the servicing of machines by male adults. It is obvious that Deputy O'Toole only read some of the memorandum. The Deputy has obviously looked at the first page of the memorandum which contain a summary of the 1955 Act and he is probably confusing this summary with the part of the memorandum explaining the provisions of this Bill. The Safety in Industry Bill will remove discriminatory provisions based on sex from the 1955 Act.

Deputy Brady referred to the recent fire in Dublin and to the question of blocked fire escapes. In this instance no means of escape in the case of fire indicated on their certificate was blocked up. I would also inform the Deputy that surveyors employed by insurance companies are accepted as competent persons to carry out examinations of lifting machines and so on.

Deputy O'Leary said that the main features of the June 1977 discussion document were duplicated in the Bill and that the aim of the discussion document was to stimulate a public debate on the question prior to the drafting of safety legislation. One must try to balance what is said in this House and one must question the sincerity of utterances on a document issued in Deputy O'Leary's last few days in office. I would refer the Deputy to the Official Report of Wednesday, 8 December 1976, to the First Stage of a Safety, Health and Welfare of Workers in Industry Bill for which leave to introduce was granted. The Official Report reads:

Mr. J. Lynch: When will the Bill be circulated?

Mr. M. O'Leary: I hope the Bill will be circulated early in the next session.

Mr. J. Lynch: The Minister is introducing a Bill now and does not expect to circulate it until next session?

Mr. M. O'Leary: It may be circulated before that.

I could go on to quote further passages but I do not think it is necessary.

Deputy Enright was concerned about the danger to people's hearing, especially young persons, from noise in places such as dance halls and discotheques. I agree that this is a very important point. The Safety in Industry Bill does not encompass this issue and I would refer the Deputy to the Official Report for 12 June 1974 when the question was raised with the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully. Although the Bill does not encompass such issues, I do not deny there is a serious problem in this respect. Deputy Enright might also be interested to know that the Department of the Environment have legislation containing provisions about an aspect of noise pollution in a non-industrial context. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963 and 1976 enable planning authorities when dealing with any application for permission for development likely to give rise to noise nuisance to refuse such permission or to impose conditions relating to siting, lay-out or construction or requiring measures such as insulation, planting or screening so as to reduce the emission of noise. The planning authority can also attach conditions to planning permissions to reduce or prevent the emission or intrusion of noise or vibration.

These Acts also make it an offence to make or cause any noise or vibration likely to give reasonable cause for annoyance. There are certain exceptions but in general the provisions enable prosecution for noise nuisance and imposition of penalties, not exceeding £50 and for a continuing offence after conviction liability to a fine of £10 for each day on which the offence is continued.

Deputy Enright also referred to noise in an industrial context. I am pleased to tell him that the areas he mentioned are covered by the Factories (Noise) Regulations, 1975 (S.I. No. 235 of 1975). I would draw the Deputy's particular attention to Regulation 7 of these regulations which is quite specific on the question of ear protection and the duty of persons employed to wear the protective apparatus.

On the protection of eyes, Deputy Enright alluded to section 19 of the Bill. I should like to make it clear that this provision should be taken in conjunction with section 8, which imposes a duty on persons employed to use any means or appliance provided in the interests of safety, health and welfare. The Deputy might also be interested to know that revised regulations on the protection of eyes are at a very advanced stage of preparation in my Department. These regulations will deal not only with persons working in specific processes but also with those employed nearby such processes.

Deputy Enright expressed concern that skin and hands also should be protected. In this connection, I can tell him that this matter has been covered, where appropriate, in specific regulations made under the 1955 Act. To give him some examples, I refer to regulations concerning abrasive blasting of surfaces, aerated water, chromium plating and hides and skins.

As regards Deputy Enright's comments on section 15, about adequate and suitable accommodation for taking meals, I feel it would be unrealistic to go into detail in primary legislation on specific requirements for each type of situation and industry. Here again, as in the case of protection of hands, provision about accommodation for meals is contained more appropriately in secondary legislation and the relevant regulations, made under the 1955 Act, would include, for instance, those relating to chemical works, construction, electric accumulators, heading of yarn, non-ferrous metals and oil cake mills.

Several Deputies referred to agriculture. Deputy Enright quoted The Irish Times farming correspondent as saying that farm safety laws are difficult to enforce. Indeed some people would hold the view that it would be impossible for any official agency to police all the occasions in which dangers arise. Therefore, the question of raising safety-consciousness among farmers, their workers and their families is surely particularly important.

The Department of Agriculture, who have responsibility in this area, conduct a continuous campaign to stress farm safety. Steps in this direction include safety exhibitions at agricultural shows such as the RDS and county shows. If the Deputy has not already got a copy of it, I am sure he would be interested in that Department's illustrated leaflet, No. 148 on Farm Safety which points out potential dangers and the precautions to be taken in their regard. I am given to understand that the leaflet has been widely distributed.

Advertising on television, as the Deputy himself mentioned, has also been worth while. It will be recalled that when introducing the Estimate for my Department in the House last week I said that activities designed to arouse awareness, to educate, advise and lead to the adoption of all possible measures in the safety area are at least as important as legislation providing for penalties and so on.

Both Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Enright spoke about the transport of dangerous substances. While this issue does not come within the scope of the Safety in Industry Bill, I should like to spend a few minutes on the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972, in order to clarify the position for the Deputies concerned.

The purpose of the Dangerous Substances Act is to consolidate and modernise the law in relation to industrial uses of explosives, petroleum and other dangerous substances. The Act is a broad implementing measure; a series of explosives and petroleum regulations—needed to give effect to it—are virtually completed. In addition to explosives and petroleum, my Department are also investigating the whole range of other potentially dangerous substances which may be designated under section 24 of the Act, and the desirability of making safety regulations covering their storage and transport.

Under the Petroleum Acts, 1871-1881, at present in force, each local authority can provide for the safe conveyance of petroleum by road within their own area by attaching conditions to licences. It must be admitted, however, that this practice gives rise to anomalies since vehicles carrying petroleum can travel through areas of many different local authorities.

When the Dangerous Substances Act comes into operation, it will repeal the Petroleum Acts 1871-1881. It will, therefore, be necessary to replace any orders or regulations made under those Acts by regulations which will be made under the Dangerous Substances Act. Included among such regulations will be:

(i) The Retail Stores and Private Stores for Petroleum Regulations, which are completed and ready for publication. They provide for the most stringent safety precautions to be taken in the loading, unloading, dispensing and storage of petroleum at service stations and

(ii) The Conveyance of Petroleum by Road Regulations, which are at an advanced stage of preparation. They will cover the design, construction and marketing of tanks; maintenance of tankers; training of drivers; and instructions about what to do in the event of an incident.

This legislation has a very narrow purpose. The 1955 Act is of itself a good one and what I propose is to improve it, to fill in a few gaps and particularly to try to get workers to participate in securing their own and their workmates' safety. I said I would refer to some of the changes I would regard as improvements as distinct from the discussion document that was issued. More than 20 such changes have been made and I do not recall any criticism of them, although some of them were significant. For example, section 10 empowers the Minister to require examination or re-examination, and tests and re-tests if necessary, by his nominee of any plant or part thereof which he is satisfied may have caused an accident, and the submission of a report of the accident. It also requires the owner of the plant to inform the Minister of the name of any person who may have taken away the plant for examination and to give the Minister a copy of the report.

There are other provisions but I have not time to mention them now. There is a provision regarding dry working conditions in the work place, a matter that was not covered before. The Minister must designate a medical practitioner as an industrial medical adviser. For example, section 54 enables an inspector to take any samples, photographs, measurements and so on which he considers necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the legislation. The Bill has a specific purpose, namely, to reduce the incidence of accidents, thus reducing the suffering to the individual and the consequential economic costs.

As I said at the outset, I am willing to listen to any proposals. I am aware of the desirability of having more global examination of the general area of safety. I made that point clear last week. I repeat again that following enactment of this measure I intend to set up a working party that will be representative of the interests concerned.

Some other items were mentioned but I have not much time to deal with them now. Deputy Kerrigan referred to an article in The Irish Times of 17 May and he said consultations had not been held with the IMA. I want to repeat something I said here when moving Second Stage of this Bill on 25 April. I made it clear then that I was open to suggestions and if they appeared to have general support I said I would respond favourably to them.

Deputy Kerrigan asked why I should consult with the Minister for Health when making regulations, given that the industrial medical adviser would be in a better position to give pertinent advice. Of course the advice of the industrial medical adviser will be sought and consultations with the Minister for Health will be in addition to seeking such advice. This is in accord with the usual procedure when the work of one Minister touches on that of another Minister.

Reference was made to the health provisions. It should be emphasised that they are to be read in conjunction with the Factories Act, 1955. Part II of that Act contains quite a number of general provisions, from section 10 to 20, in relation to health. Deputy Treacy asked how many female inspectors there were in the Department. The answer is four at present and I would inform the House there are no women inspectors in Northern Ireland. With regard to exposure limits, they are provided for in relation to certain regulations. Section 28 makes further provisions with regard to toxic or corrosive substances and it also makes provision for an alarm system, investigation and so on where those substances are present.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13 June 1978.
Top
Share