Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are related and may be taken together. They are drafting amendments.
Safety in Industry Bill, 1978: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 18, to insert "of" before "regulations".
These are merely drafting amendments. In both sections 8 and 11, lines 18 and 19 respectively, the preposition "of" is being inserted before "regulations" to make it clear that the word "provision" refers to the Acts and to regulations made under the Acts. In section 2 (1), line 19, the verb "apply" is being changed to the third person singular since it refers to the word "provision" in line 18.
I cannot let the opportunity pass without commenting on the number of amendments issuing from the Minister to his own Bill.
Perhaps the Deputy might take that up more relevantly on the next Stage.
These amendments more than any of the others tabled by the Minister highlight the way in which the Bill was rushed into the Dáil in a totally unprepared way. It is my duty to protest that any Minister should come before the House in such an unprepared way especially since the Bill before us is so important. There were more than a hundred ministerial amendments to the Bill. Surely this situation indicates the carelessness with which the Minister has approached this subject. If anything, his behaviour is the antithesis of safety.
I welcome the amendments but I would point out that the Bill has had an exceptionally long gestation period. However, what we have now is the result of a good deal of negotiation between the Department, the trade unions, the ICTU, the employers, the various working parties and the Opposition parties here. Admittedly, about two years ago we were of the frame of mind that perhaps the Bill should have been withdrawn but the Minister has been amenable and this party have been in a position to put down somewhere between 40 and 50 amendments. Fine Gael, too, have tabled amendments to the Bill. While there has been some difficulty in coming to grips with individual amendments, the Bill is now in its final Stages and it bears no resemblance to the document that was put before the House originally. This is a healthy situation. Our spokesman on Labour, Deputy Ryan, cannot be here this morning but in his absence I can tell the Minister that we are happy with the progress being made now and hope that the Bill will be completed within the next few days and its provisions put into effect as soon as possible. This legislation has been pending for a number of years. It will be a vast improvement on the existing state of affairs because the legislation that is in use in this regard is very much out of date. On that basis we welcome the multitude of amendments the Minister is putting before us this morning.
We have discussed this whole matter with the ICTU and while we adopt our own view on legislation we are acquainted with the view also of the employers on the matter. It is important that the Bill is not delayed further because if it is not completed before we start discussion on the Finance Bill it might be difficult to have it completed before we begin the Adjournment Debate at the end of June. Consequently, we are happy to facilitate the Minister.
I should like to add a few words to the discussion on these amendments and to underline one of the points that have been made. People who have been following the progress of the Bill will not be under any misapprehension about the source and the direction of many of the amendments. The one we are dealing with bears a strong family resemblance to an amendment that was moved by Deputy Ryan for this party but withdrawn by agreement.
The basic point one would like to make about the amendment is that it refers to other amendments also and indicates that in so far as this Bill is concerned the House is behaving in the way in which it rarely behaves, that is, as a legislative assembly.
There are times when the Minister must feel, and with some justice, that he can never win, that if he brings in a Bill which is not amended he is accused of steamrolling it through the House whereas if he brings in a Bill and amends it subsequently he is accused of having come to the House unprepared in the first place. We would prefer the latter course of action because it indicates that the Members of this House are not mere rubber stamps, that the House is more than just a sounding board for grievances and it acknowledges the rights of Members and their competence in regard to any legislation brought before them.
Could I take this opportunity of thanking both Deputy Horgan and Deputy Desmond for their comments. I believe safety in industry is a very important aspect of our industrial life. In introducing this Bill, having prolonged discussions with both sides of industry and listening very carefully to the comments and points raised by Deputies, there have been many amendments but it is our duty as a legislature, and it is the Minister's duty, in an area as important as this that every line of the Bill should be checked at every stage. Many of today's amendments are the result of points raised by Opposition Deputies during Committee Stage. I was prepared to bear in mind some of those points and having considered them felt that introducing amendments covering those points to some extent, and in some cases perhaps going a little further, would have the effect of strengthening the Bill. This is what we should all strive for, particularly in an area as important as safety in industry.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 in the name of the Minister arises out of Committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(7) Where a request is made of an occupier pursuant to subsection (6) of this section and the name of the person by whom the relevant plant was sold or otherwise supplied is within the knowledge of the occupier of whom the request is made, then if such occupier fails to comply with the request he shall be guilty of an offence.".
Under amendment No. 17a at Committee Stage, Deputy Mitchell proposed that failure on the part of an occupier, under section 9 (6), to give an inspector the name of the person by whom the plant was sold or otherwise supplied should constitute an offence. My amendment is designed to meet the Deputy's proposal, in other words, to confirm what I have been saying, that in an area as important as this every consideration should be given by me and my Department to what we believe to be a helpful suggestion at any stage of this Bill.
An addition has been made to Deputy Mitchell's formula in this case. The occupier's refusal to supply the inspector with the name will be an offence only if the name is within the knowledge of the occupier, that is, either he knows it or he could find it out, since it would clearly be inequitable to penalise an occupier where he genuinely did not know the name or where he was unable to find it out. To prove in court that the occupier refused to give the name should be relatively easy but to prove that the name was not within his knowledge may not necessarily be so easy.
As no monetary penalty has been provided in relation to this offence, nor did Deputy Mitchell require such a provision, section 101 of the Factories Act 1955—"Fines for offences for which no express penalty provided" will apply. The maximum monetary penalty for an offence under that section is being increased by virtue of section 56(g) of the Bill from £20 to £100 and the further fine is being increased from £5 to £10, not exceeding £600 in all, for each day on which the offence continues.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related to amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, line 19, to insert "of" before "regulations".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4.
In page 9, line 19, to delete "apply" and substitute "applies".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, to delete lines 1 to 17 and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) In this section `machine' includes any steam boiler, steam receiver or air receiver, or any lifting machine which is driven by mechanical power.
(b) Any reference in this section to working on, at or with a machine shall—
(i) in the case of a steam boiler, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the generation of steam from that boiler,
(ii) in the case of a steam receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of steam in that receiver,
(iii) in the case of an air receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of compressed air in that receiver, and
(iv) in the case of such a lifting machine, be construed as including a reference to driving and operating the machine."
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 7 is related and may be taken with amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 14, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(d) where a person enters the confined space or the other place, there shall be provided and maintained a suitable means of raising an alarm should the person, while inside the confined space or the other place, get into difficulty,".
The purpose of these amendments is to accommodate points raised by Deputy Mitchell on Committee Stage. The first amendment relates to amendment No. 45e tabled by Deputy Mitchell on Committee Stage. He proposed that a method of raising a wider alarm be provided in cases where a person had to enter a confined space. In meeting him on this, my amendment has been drafted to permit such a means of raising an alarm to be either a person or a device. This is because, depending on the nature of the fumes in the confined space, it could be either dangerous or, indeed, impossible, for a device to be used inside the confined space. In such circumstances the interests of safety would dictate that another person should be provided outside the confined space to give the alarm where necessary.
The second amendment arises out of amendment 45f, again tabled by Deputy Mitchell on Committee Stage. As suggested by the Deputy, this amendment will require any person holding the free end of the rope outside the confined space to be trained and practised in the use of the breathing and other apparatus and in a method of restoring respiration. The same requirement will also obtain if a person, as opposed to a device, is provided as the means of raising an alarm under the new paragraph (d) should the person inside the confined space get into difficulty.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 14, line 16, to insert "(including in particular any person who has been provided for the purpose of either holding the free end referred to in paragraph (b) (i) of this subsection or of ensuring that the requirements of paragraph (d) of this subsection are complied with)" before "shall'.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 17, line 26, to delete "hereunder" and substitute "thereunder".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 arises out of Committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 17, lines 40 and 41, to delete "an adequate number of persons employed at the factory or other premises are" and substitute "of the persons employed at the factory or other premises there is for the time being an adequate number each of whom is".
This amendment is designed to meet the point raised by Deputy Mitchell's amendment No. 53a on Committee Stage. He proposed that at any given time an adequate number of the persons employed at the factory or other premises should be familiar with the suitable means to alert the local fire brigade in case of an outbreak of fire, which regulations under section 27 (3) may require to be provided.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 is a drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are related. Amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 15 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 22, line 32, to delete "with".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 16, which arise out of Committee proceedings, are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 22, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"(7) Where an inspector enters a premises for the purpose of making a tour of inspection (other than a tour of inspection to be made for the investigation of an accident), the occupier shall take such steps as are practicable to inform the safety representative.".
These amendments are designed not only to accommodate Deputy Mitchell on the points raised in his amendment No. 60d on Committee Stage, that is that the safety representative be informed of an inspection before the inspection commences, but also to improve on his proposal by applying that same requirement in connection with the safety delegate as well. This will make for a consistent approach since both a safety representative and a safety delegate are entitled, on request, to accompany an inspector on a tour of inspection—with the exception, for reasons for which I already explained on Committee Stage, of a tour of inspection specifically to investigate an accident.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 22, line 58, to delete "at" and substitute "in".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 23, line 5, to delete "with".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 23, line 21, to insert "or under" before "this".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 24, line 8, to delete "consultation with" and substitute "consulting".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 24, between lines 59 and 60, to insert the following:
"(j) where an inspector enters a premises for the purpose of making a tour of inspection (other than a tour of inspection to be made for the investigation of an accident), the said occupier shall take such steps as are practicable to inform the safety delegate,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 25, line 6, to delete "nominated" and substitute "appointed".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 27, line 36, to delete "twenty" and substitute "ten".
When discussing Deputy Ryan's amendment No. 76 on Committee Stage I assured him I would examine it further before Report Stage to see to what extent I could meet him on it. Deputy Ryan had proposed that occupiers of the premises coming within the scope of section 39 should have to prepare a safety statement, irrespective of the number of persons employed in those premises. As the section is drafted at present there must be 20 or more persons employed in the premises before the preparation of a safety statement is required. After careful consideration of the Deputy's point, while I feel it would be neither appropriate nor necessary to burden very small employers with the requirement, I am prepared to reduce the number of persons employed in the premises by half, in other words from 20 to ten, and the Deputy will agree that this is a reasonable compromise.
On behalf of the Labour Party I should like to welcome this Ministerial amendment. I am sure the Minister will understand when I say that many amendments put forward on Committee Stage are, to some degree, like arguments put forward at a negotiating table in that they are negotiating positions. While the amendment we introduced on Committee Stage was to require a safety statement for all enterprises, regardless of the number of people employed there will be recognition that the law of diminishing returns might apply and that the problems of small businesses in meeting this requirement might outweigh any possible advantage to be gained. In the light of that and of the fact that even small businesses which are not covered by this section will have to comply with other aspects of the Bill we accept the compromise the Minister has offered to us.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 28, line 24, to delete "(3)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 29, to delete lines 28 to 34 and substitute the following:
"(b) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4):
‘(4) Subsection (3) of this section, in so far as it applies to plant containing explosive or inflammable gas or vapour under pressure, shall not apply to plant installed in the open air.',
and the said subsection (3), as so amended, is set out in paragraph 1 of the Table to this section.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 29, line 36, to delete "substitutions" and substitute "substitution".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?
Now.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The law on safety here is a veritable jungle. It is covered by several Acts, many parts of Acts, a host of Ministerial orders and hundreds of regulations and exemptions, all of which have the force of law. As far as I am concerned this Bill is but a further piece of the incomprehensible jigsaw. That is my major criticism of the Bill. If it is to be a stop-gap measure then we accept it, even welcome it, but I am afraid that this half measure will postpone indefinitely—notwithstanding the setting up of the working party—the bringing before the House of a comprehensive safety at work Bill. This Bill has been delayed here for two years. A total of 18 months elapsed between the conclusion of Second Stage and the commencement of Committee Stage. That showed a lack of preparedness on the part of the Minister. It is my belief that it was thrown on to the floor of the House soon after the Government came to power for lack of any legislative programme. That is highlighted by a number of facts. One of those facts is the number of amendments the Minister has tabled to his own Bill. Some of the amendments introduced by the Minister today did not have anything to do with the amendments put down by the Opposition on Committee Stage. That highlights the fact that the Bill was introduced without much care.
Two other facts highlights the lack of care in bringing the Bill before the House. In preparing my brief for this Bill I was amazed to find that the National Association of Industrial Medical Officers and the Faculty of Occupational Medicine had not been consulted by the Department about its contents. That highlights the carelessness with which this legislation was thrown before the House. That carelessness manifests itself in a bigger way in the major omissions which a number of Members tried to highlight. The lack of consultation with the concerns I mentioned was unforgivable. The omissions of the Bill are due in many respects to the lack of consultation with those bodies. I hope that the bringing before the House of comprehensive safety at work legislation will not be delayed although my fear is that it will be long-fingered, notwithstanding the setting up of the working party.
The Bill is notable for its many omissions. The principal Acts governing safety are the Factories Act, 1955, the Offices Premises Act, 1958, the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890 and the Mines and Quarries Act, 1965. In addition we felt that the Act dealing with dangerous substances of more recent origin also governs safety. Those Acts cover different areas and we also have the various Acts dealing with shops, public health and sections and provisions in other Acts such as the Nuclear Energy Act, 1971, which cover conditions of employment. Under the Factories Act alone more than 120 different detailed orders, regulations and exemptions are specified.
I should like to remind the Deputy that we are on Fifth Stage and during the course of the debate on that he is confined to what is in the Bill.
My point is that the Bill is very confined. The orders, regulations and exemptions I mentioned are still current and have the force of law and there are, in addition, provisions of international law and agreements which have like force. Given the number of Acts, regulations, orders and agreements that cover the different aspects of safety and health at different places of employment one might consider that no aspect of work or place of employment was left out. However, all this legislation, covered and policed by the factory inspectorate, does not cover transport, agriculture, horticulture, fisheries, offshore installations, research laboratories, hospitals, clinics, dental surgeries, canteens, hotels, restaurants, places of entertainment, pubs, portable shops and stalls, the Army, the Garda and so on. The Bill is deficient.
It was because we felt it was deficient that we called on Second for its withdrawal and its replacement by a comprehensive Bill which would not only consolidate and co-ordinate all existing legislation but could be extended to cover, without unnecessary distinction, all persons at work.
I have allowed the Deputy a lot of liberty in dealing with this matter but it is not in order for him to continue to deal with all legislation which is concerned with this subject. The Deputy is confined to what is in the Bill.
I am arguing that the Bill should not be passed because of its deficiencies. It should be withdrawn and replaced by a comprehensive one which would not alone consolidate and co-ordinate existing legislation but extend without unnecessary distinction it to cover all places of work. Such a Bill would replace complexity and confusion by clarity and simplicity, both of which surely constitute prerequisites for laymen to understand and implement it. The Principal Act is the Factories Act, 1955——
We are dealing now with the Safety in Industry Bill, 1978, Fifth Stage, and the Deputy is confined to what is in the Bill.
I shall endeavour to confine myself and obey your ruling, Sir.
There has been enormous advancement in technology since the passage of the Principal Act. Indeed the advancement made in technology in those 25 years has been greater than in any previous 100 years in history. What is needed now is a comprehensive Bill to match those technological, cultural and social advances. It would be better that this Bill would not be passed. It would be better to await a proper, comprehensive Bill rather than support this one which is "ad hoc-ery" at its worse. Ad hoc additions to existing legislation merely add to the complexity which in turn leads to non-enforcement and, rather than being the friend, is the deadly enemy of safety. This matter was dealt with in the United Kingdom in 1974 when the British Parliament enacted their Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill——
The Deputy must deal with the Bill before the House.
I am trying very hard.
I am afraid that the Deputy has not at any time come to grips with the contents of this Bill.
The point I am making is that this Bill has been extracted entirely from the British Act. Indeed the British Act is an excellent, overall one of the type I believe that is needed here. For that reason I am puzzled that the Minister did not go the whole way and copy the entire British Act rather than extracting parts. The enactment of the British Act was the result of the Robens Committee set up in 1970 which was representative of employers and trade unions both of whose commitment and involvement are essential to the success of all safety law.
That has nothing to do with this Bill.
The employers and trade unions were not involved in this Bill before it was introduced in this House. There have been consultations since but none before the Bill was tabled. I am comparing that fact with what happened in the United Kingdom when the Robens Committee, representative of employers and trade unions, was set up. Normally that type of committee is associated with delay but the expedition of the Robens Report and, more importantly, of the British Government's reaction to it and the enactment of legislation should have been an example to our Minister for Labour in this very important area.
Since these points were raised on Second Stage I am glad the Minister has seen fit to concede them. After the enactment of this Bill there will be set up a working party on safety. We have heard of chicken and egg situations but this is ridiculous and the lack of consultation has been sharply criticised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who gave adequate testimony to their dissatisfaction—
The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech. That Stage has long since passed. We are now on Fifth Stage and speakers are confined to what is in the Bill.
While the Bill has been improved somewhat in Committee it remains sadly deficient. I can only plead that it will not be used to delay the extension of further consolidating legislation to all places of work, not alone that but an extension to cover the safety of citizens who live in the vicinity of work places which are potentially dangerous. That is another deficiency in this Bill. I can give an example in my constituency of how this Bill does not cover safety adequately, where there is a factory utilising a lot of lead, having magnificent safety precautions within the factory itself, as is required by legislation, but where the people living within the vicinity are polluted by lead because there is no protection in law for them.
Another sad deficiency in this Bill is its lack of dealing with the responsibility of individuals to abide by safety procedures, to use safety equipment and wear safety clothing as required by law. The question of individual responsibility, the psychological resistance of many people to observing safety procedures, wearing safety clothing and so on has been the cause of many an accident. Individual responsibility for observing such safety procedures and precautions should be the major mission of this Bill. We should require employers to provide all sorts of safety equipment, protection against noise, dangerous machinery, substances and so on, but we should also address ourselves to the problem of normal human resistance to the use of such safety measures. The Bill is particularly deficient in that respect.
The Bill is also deficient in the sense that is does not involve sufficiently the trade unions in the area of safety. I should have hoped that the Bill would have aided the trade unions in having their own safety officers, people who would vet every collective agreement being formulated by unions at different work places thereby ensuring that the interests of safety and health are not rendered subordinate to those of—
The Deputy cannot continue to make a Second Reading speech. I am sorry. I do not want to curb the Deputy's desire to deal with matters but it is not in order.
I believe there is a much larger role to be played by the individual and by the trade unions in the whole area of safety. Had the Minister made provision for the trade unions themselves to appoint safety officers that would have constituted a major step forward in the context of a Bill such as this. This is a serious omission from the Bill which would have improved greatly the safety of people at work. I should like the Minister to tell us that our fears about the putting of further safety legislation on the long finger are unfounded and that the working party which he announced on Committee Stage following our protest on Second Stage will report expeditiously. He should set a time limit for that report, based on whose findings he should bring before this House a further Bill concerning safety at work. If we urgently apply ourselves to the task we may save life and permanent injury. This is not a trivial matter, although it is not the sort of thing which makes headlines every day.
I will finish by making another major criticism of the Bill which I made also on Second Stage. The Bill does not seek to update provisions regarding cleanliness at work. It is a matter of great shame for me that we as a country seem to accept filth and dirt which in many work places lead to accidents. Standards are far too low throughout industry, commerce and every aspect of Irish life. Here was a glorious opportunity to take major action in regard to cleanliness and tidiness and the Bill is deficient in its failure to deal with this matter. One has only to stand on any city street to see the dirtiness of commercial vehicles.
I have no doubt, but it is not relevant to the discussion.
It is relevant.
The Deputy has not been relevant since he got up to speak. He is confined to what is in the Bill. If Deputies were permitted to make Second Stage speeches they could deal with an infinite number of matters which would take days. It is not in order.
I have spoken for about 15 minutes and I will finish within three or four minutes. We agreed to take Fifth Stage without any prior request and there is no question of our delaying the Bill by speaking for too long. We have not delayed it at any stage.
The Chair is not concerned about the length of speeches but about their relevancy.
I submit that the whole question of cleanliness and tidiness is very much connected with health. We are a filthy dirty country. The Principal Act of 1955 dealt somewhat with the subject but this Bill, while purporting to update the Principal Act, does not address itself to the whole problem of the lack of cleanliness and tidiness. It is sufficient to stand on any street in this city—or, in the Minister's case, in Cork city—to see filthy commercial vehicles on which children have scrawled "please wash me". These vehicles come from factories which very often are similarly dirty. Filth and dirt are enemies of health and safety. I would urge the Minister to deal with this and other problems I have mentioned when the next safety Bill comes before the House.
I am grateful to the Minister for including on Report Stage some of the amendments which we moved on Committee Stage, but it would have been a little more graceful if he had accepted our amendments. I accept Deputy Horgan's point that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that Parliament will be allowed to improve Bills which come before the House by making constructive suggestions.
This Bill illustrates both a paradox and a dilemma. The paradox is that as administrations, civil service Departments and trade unions, attempt to increase the necessary protections available to workers, particularly those in dangerous and high risk industries, the degree of complexity of the legislation required in order to enforce adequate standards means that this legislation becomes increasingly inaccessible in a real sense to the workers whom it is supposed to protect. If there is an accident at work the trade union concerned will naturally become very upset. On one such occasion not long ago in my constituency the response of some members of the trade union concerned was to say that in future all members should have a copy of the Act in their back pockets. With the best will in the world, to inflict a copy of an Act like this on the shop floor worker is less than useless, yet at the same time protection must be provided and written into the Act and it must be reasonably enforced. The dilemma is what to do about this difficulty and how to ensure that adequate safety standards are observed and that shop floor workers are aware of their rights.
I should like to express regret in relation to the fact that we have not yet had from this or any other Department under any administration any Act written in English. We have followed the British system which involves a highly specialised legal language which attempts to cover virtually all possible occasions and exceptions.
The Deputy will appreciate that we cannot depart from what is in the Bill before the House.
I am talking about the language of the Bill which is very germane to my point. I do not propose to take up the time of the House unduly. The language of this Bill in common with the language of other Bills owes more to the grip of the legal profession upon the parliamentary process than it does to any other single factor. I can only express the wish that once in a while some administration in this country will abandon this British precedent and adopt the United States precedent of attempting to write legislation in language which is understood by the people to whom it is supposed to apply.
It has been suggested that, because of the inadequacies and incompleteness of the Bill it should be withdrawn. As Deputy Mitchell said, it is better to have it than not to have it. We should be aware of any idealism or utopianism which would prevent us from doing anything until we got the whole thing right. In that case we would never do anything at all. We would never be satisfied that we had done everything absolutely correctly. In relation to what I said earlier about the complexity of the Bill and its various provisions, it is clear that when the responsibility of the Dáil in relation to it is completed that of the trade union movement begins. It is not just the Minister's inspectorate and Department who will have the major job of securing its enforcement. On the shop floor, trade unions, shop stewards and members will have to play some part in ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are adhered to. I am confident that this responsibility will be taken up by and large within the trade union movement in the spirit in which the trade union movement, in the shape of congress, has already contributed in no small way to the improvement and development of this legislation.
It is a pity that such important legislation has taken so long to go through the House. In so far as time has been devoted to improving its provisions and making them more water tight, and hopefully preventing further serious accidents at work, we cannot complain. We welcome the Bill as far as it goes.
Perhaps the Minister might consider publishing on an annual basis, if his advisers are not too overworked as it is, a brief annual report on actions taken under the Bill and on exposing the way in which the Bill has or has not been successful. This will be a useful way, without the prodding of Parliamentary Questions, in which the Minister and his Department could help to keep safety in industry in the forefront and in the public eye and attention.
I am proud and pleased to have had the opportunity of guiding this legislation through the House. There are many people who deserve to be thanked for the final format in which the Bill has gone through. No Bill got so much attention and no legislation received so much consultation and so many hours of consultation with the people who have most contributed. The staff of the Department, both administrative and technical, deserve tremendous thanks and credit. The trade union movement and employers organisation deserve to be thanked.
I do not think Deputy Mitchell read the Bill—I cannot blame him for that because he was speaking on Second Stage when he was speaking on what should have been in the contents of the Bill. He referred to some omissions which were not correct. The medical adviser in my Department gave tremendous time and attention to the preparation of this legislation. Deputy Horgan raised the point about the best way of bringing the Bill to the attention of workers, employers and trade unions. Attention needs to be drawn to the importance of the Bill and what is entailed in it. I will have a clear, concise and simple summary of it drafted to which I will give wide circulation. That is important and I accept that it should be put in simple language that can be understood by the people affected and concerned with the administration of safety.
It is too easy and simple to talk about safety as not being something that has to be looked at day by day, week by week and month by month. We must realise that this legislation is not the end where safety is concerned. As I outlined on Second Stage it is needed. The staff of the Department, both administrative and technical—by technical I mean factory inspectors—were aware of the need for updating the existing legislation. There was acceptance by both sides in industry that it was needed. I agree that more remains to be done.
I said on Second Stage that a review body or working party would be set up as soon as the Bill passed through the Oireachtas. Subsequently I said that I had made arrangements and contacted the parties to say it was my intention to set up such a working party on the whole area of safety and what should be done regarding it. A more comprehensive Bill would have taken more time and the need was and is there for this legislation.
I do not agree with Deputy Mitchell's suggestion of slavishly copying the UK. This may be fine for Deputy Mitchell or his party but I do not believe in it. I believe, as a Minister of an Irish Government, that we should not slavishly copy anybody particularly a system or a country like that. We have a Government, a trade union movement, an employers' organisation and people who can decide what is best for our country and should not be slavishly aping, following or continuing to look up to people across the water. If that is the philosophy of Deputy Mitchell I am disappointed. I hope it is not his party's philosophy. It is not mine; never was and never would be and never was my party's.
Do I understand the Minister to say that he will not slavishly follow Mrs. Thatcher in her cuts in public expenditure?
The Fianna Fáil Government never slavishly followed anyone.
That does not arise under the Bill.
They will do what they believe is best.
I was concerned that the slavish mentality might——
There are to be no interruptions. Even the Minister is obliged to keep to what is within the Bill and not follow Deputy Mitchell's bad example in that respect.
Or not to distort Deputy Mitchell.
The Chair should be lenient to apprentices like myself and Deputy Mitchell.
I am but it is not always appreciated.
Deputy Mitchell went across the board to areas outside the Bill. He referred to individual responsibility not being provided for. He is wrong and I cannot be blamed if he did not read the Bill. I should like to refer the Deputy to part II, section 8, where he will see in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) the reasonable care for his own safety and health, and that of any other person who may be affected, that a worker is expected to take. Obviously the Deputy did not read that part.
He referred to cleanliness, and I refer him to the 1955 Factories Act, Part II, section 10, where he will see a general provision for cleanliness in factory premises. It all has to do with health.
They are the few points I wanted to make. Deputy Mitchell said he had not sufficient notice that the Final Stage was being taken today. It is normal to take Report and Final Stages together. Having said that, I wish to thank Deputies for their contributions, and I ask Deputy Quinn to convey to Deputy Ryan my thanks for the useful points he made. Despite his criticisms, I should also like to thank Deputy Mitchell.
Question put and agreed to.