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.