Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Before Question Time I was explaining why the authority was necessary and why it should be separate from the Department of Labour. There is no need to go further into that point but it is a fundamental part of the legislation and a requirement which Mr. Justice Barrington's Commission was anxious to have.

The authority will have to clear their policy proposals with the Minister each year which will ensure that the overall policy control remains in his hands. Various agencies like local authorities will only be used where the authority give them a function or role to do something when they are called out to a premises anyway — it would not be an additional job. It would arise where a local authority inspector or agent would be called out anyway, but normally it would be the staff and inspectorate of the Authority.

Deputy Mitchell asked about the repeal of existing legislation. The formula in the Bill for repeal by order of existing legislation is qualified by a requirement to make copies of the regulations to be laid before the House. The authority will have the task of identifying the risks that need to be tackled in the various sectors and of making proposals to the Minister for the making of regulations. Deputy Mitchell asked under which Part of the Bill are the regulations dealt with. They are dealt with in the Fourth Schedule. Under this Bill, a tripartite safety and health authority will be established. In limited circumstances the authority seek orders in the High Court for enforcement of the safety and health law. In our view there is a case for a separate safety tribunal which would result in a duplication of the number of bodies in this area. Only very important cases would be referred to the High Court.

Various queries were raised as to whether this Bill would impose any duties on employees. I pointed out in my opening remarks this morning that section 9 would impose general duties on workers and these are laid down in detail in that section. In particular employees would be required to take reasonable care for their own safety and health and prosecutions may be brought against them if they fail to do so. These duties will be fleshed out in greater detail in the regulations and codes of practice. Section 9 requires an employee to take reasonable care of his own safety and health and that of others who may be affected by his acts or omissions while at work; to co-operate with his employer and others, such as a subcontractor on site, would ensure compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Deputy Mitchell asked if there was any obligation on an employee to wear protective clothing. Under section 9 an employee would be obliged to wear protective clothing and to report to his employer or his immediate supervisor any defects in plant, equipment, place of work or system of work which might endanger safety, health or welfare of which he becomes aware. It should be pointed out that this section does not place the responsibility on the employee to check equipment, but it clearly places a responsibility on employees to take reasonable care for their own safety and health and to wear protective clothing.

As Deputy Mitchell is aware, it is not usual in legislation to earmark funding for authorities such as this. As I said this morning, it would be the responsibility of the Government to provide funding for the authority as it will not generate its own funds. It will be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way.

As I mentioned previously, each year my Department take a number of prosecutions under safety laws and the authority will continue this practice. Last year, based on road checks, the inspectors brought a number of prosecutions before the courts. Normally, the inspectors try to convince employers to do the right thing. Yesterday Deputy Wyse and I had a good discussion on a question he had tabled to me at Question Time. The function of the inspector is to find out what is wrong and how it may be corrected. If the safety inspectors were to become like traffic wardens — the only time they say hello is when they stick a ticket on the window — there would be no co-operation and people would not give the necessary information to them.

My Department operate on the basis of good will and confidentiality with the result that companies report accidents which then can be investigated and the wrongs put right. If the Department of labour or the authority think only in terms of enforcement, there will be a lot less co-operation from employers. They will not report accidents. We discussed a good example of this yesterday — a major fault is being properly handled, and major changes are being made in the plant to protect the people living in that area. Normally, if an employer ignores regulations or orders we will bring him to court. I would not like this authority, which needs the co-operation of both workers and management, to adopt hardline attitudes.

It was correct to say that workers have not been prosecuted in the past. Section 9 prosecutions can be taken by the authority against workers. The possibility of imprisonment would only arise in extreme cases, such as where there has been disregard of a prohibition notice which resulted in serious or fatal injuries.

Deputy Mitchell asked if this legislation would apply to State bodies. It will apply to the public sector. He asked who would go to prison if my Department were prosecuted. In that event the person with responsibility for the Department, the Minister for Labour, would be brought to the court or if a prosecution were brought against the Houses of the Oireachtas, it would be the Ceann Comhairle who would be brought before the court. There is no passing the buck. The person in control would have to bear responsibilities and would be summoned to appear before the court. This is the only way to ensure that the legislation will be implemented effectively.

Deputy Mitchell also asked what would happen if a worker disregards safety regulations and causes an accident, and he also asked for a breakdown of the accident figures. No breakdown of the number of accidents caused by the lack of safety equipment and those caused by workers disregarding safety regulations is available. However, it is accepted that most accidents are caused by human error, and this is borne out by the fact that most accidents are caused as a result of a fall, slip, hand tools and material falling.

The part of the Bill dealing with the general duties on employers to prevent ill health could be used to tackle the question of smoking. It would be very difficult to decide how best to tackle this issue but, as I said yesterday and I repeat now, this would be easier to implement in legislation enacted by the Minister for Health. Implementing no-smoking areas and banning smoking in certain parts of offices and plants is not easy. Most people have experience of the difficulties arising from that. It is not so difficult to ban it in hospitals and certain plants or workplaces, and there is a major extension of these areas in the legislation proposed by the Minister for Health. In regard to general duties of employers to prevent ill health it could be taken up under codes of practice in this legislation.

Regarding the application to transport work, the place of work has been defined in the Bill to ensure the provision will apply to all work activities of any description. Vehicles is one of the examples given in the definition. While the new Authority will have no direct control of road traffic legislation in general, they will have the power to keep under review provisions such as the Road Traffic Acts in so far as they relate to people engaged in work and to make recommendations for change where desired to the appropriate Minister. Wherever people are engaged in work in any form this legislation has a dominant role. It applies to transport. It does not have to be a person in a set place.

The question of mobility is covered in the Bill. On the environment, the term "non-employee" as used in the Bill is intended to include, for example, persons who are on the premises for the purpose of collecting or delivering goods for another company, employees of an outside contractor carrying out repairs, maintenance and contract cleaning and the general public, whether on the premises conducting business or residents in the vicinity of the premises.

The Barrington commission recommended that the new system would have regard to the safety and health also of non-employees and the public in general wherever this is a significant consideration. The commission recommended that where inside or in the immediate surroundings of a workplace danger arises to the safety or health of non-employees from work activities, the employer or the self-employed person should be required to take suitable measures to prevent such danger. For practical reasons the provisions of this section of the Bill have not been limited to persons in the immediate surroundings of the workplace. First, to attempt to define adequately the immediate surroundings would be extremely difficult. Secondly, any definition would of necessity have to be somewhat arbitrary and, while it might be appropriate in the case of a physical hazard such as destructibility of the premises, it could be totally inadequate in a case of chemical hazard such as hazardous fumes being given off which could be lethal a considerable distance from the premises. Therefore, administration, application and enforcement of this section will have to be considered carefully by the Authority and in this regard they will have to liaise with other bodies such as the Department of the Environment which Deputy Mitchell mentioned and the agencies charged with responsibility for matters such as general pollution control. The provisions of this section are not intended to cover matters which are already clearly the responsibility of other Government Departments or institutions. While the regulations that are there are remaining on in law side by side with the new regulations of the safety, health and welfare legislation, where there are duplications the idea is not to continue them.

I dealt at some length with the need for the Authority. The setting up of the Authority is the key to getting employers and workers to co-operate and work together on safety and health. The Minister will retain the overall policy control and make the final decision and will make the regulations on the recommendations of the Authority. The Barrington commission were strong in their recommendation of a tripartite Authority. I hope I have convinced Deputy Wyse that it is not a white elephant or quango. This Authority are essential to the operation of this legislation and to the co-operation of the social partners.

We are trying to classify a few things. Is there a contradiction down the line? Why have advisory committees?

The Authority are the supreme body. If they take in some hazardous area they could have a committee working on an aspect of it. We are covering everything. It would be hard to envisage how this Authority would have expertise on, say, agriculture to the extent they would have it on for instance Irish Steel. We have committees of safety at the moment under the safety Acts. In time we will get advisory committees in many areas to assist with codes of practice and to advise on the regulations. They will not be big statutory bodies or part of the tripartite system. They will be there assisting the authority.

How many?

A specific number is not envisaged. It is based on whether there is an area of difficulty. They would be for sectors, maybe one for agriculture and one for heavy industry. That is a matter for the Authority. It is difficult to attempt a forecast. A person on a committee would have all the advice and expertise and perhaps would have the general duty of saying what should be in safety and health legislation. As the Deputy knows from some of the complications that arise in some chemical industries, they would have to be very specialist and technical. I do not believe every industry needs one. Advisory committees are not necessary for straightforward matters but they are needed for complicated areas.

On the detailed regulations and their effect on the workplace about which Deputy Wyse inquired, the objective of the Bill is to encourage workers and employers to consult with each other under the guidance and supervision of the tripartite Authority to solve safety and health problems in the workplace. The aim will be where possible to provide guidance and codes of practice and not detailed regulations. The working order and guidelines will be spelled out in codes of practice rather than trying to cover all Irish employers and employees and self-employed in detailed sets of regulations. As technology changes the code of practice would have to change and if we put a code of practice into legislation or detailed regulations, that would be out of order. The advisory bodies or the Authority can keep the regulations up to date.

Deputy Wyse asked about the aim of the regulations. The idea of the Bill is to reduce and consolidate existing laws and regulations. From well researched matter, he read out this morning the number of Acts and regulations currently involved for 20 per cent of the workforce, and we still have the horrific number of accidents I counted out this morning along with, 100 deaths in a number of years. If we were to continue the way we were going and extend that practice, system and operation to 100 per cent of the workforce we would have literally thousands of regulations and codes of practice and probably still would be unable to do the job. This system would be far tighter with just one authority working through their advisory committees and codes of practice.

Deputy Wyse raised a question in regard to welfare. The provision in the Bill is not a vague concept. It includes clear basic requirements such as washing facilities, drinking water, cloakrooms, sitting facilities and first aid. That issue was raised by Deputy Flaherty.

Will restaurants be included in that?

What about créche facilities?

I do not wish to mix créche facilities with the list I have given. Deputy Wyse raised a question about State initiatives on safety and health and I clarified for him the constitutional position of the Minister for Labour vis-à-vis the Authority.

An interesting question was put by Deputy O'Sullivan in regard to this. He pointed out that if he wanted to question the activities of the Authority he could not put a question to the Minister for Labour. That takes a certain amount of authority from Members who may be anxious to question the activities of the Authority.

Such issues raise difficulties here from time to time, as I can recall from my days in Opposition. The position is that Members can put questions to the relevant Minister on policy issues or in regard to finance but the decision on whether such questions will be allowed is a matter for the authorities in Leinster House. They must decide what is a policy issue and what is a day to day matter. When I was first elected to the House the Order Paper was cluttered with questions to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs about phones throughout the country. I understand that the same position prevailed in regard to electricity connections. The position in regard to the new Authority will not be any different from that governing other State agencies. If a policy issue in regard to FÁS, CERT, Great Southern Hotels or the new national Authority is raised by a Member in the House, I, as Minister for Labour, will answer it but day to day issues are matters for the Authority. I accept that the question of what relates to the day to day running of the Authority and the policy of that body will cause difficulties.

It is not true to say that the Government have not taken any initiatives in regard to safety at work. The targeted programme in the areas of safety and health relate to construction, the meat industry, milk products and glass manufacture. A clear initiative has been taken by the inspector in regard to them. Members who contributed to the debate highlighted the difficulties in the construction industry. The Safety in Industry Act, 1980 was a national initiative to cope with the problems of occupational safety and health. The Department, the inspectors, and the occupational medical service are trying to do something in the area where major problems have occurred. The Authority will be in a better position to initiate changes.

I agree with Deputy Wyse that more training is required. The new Authority will have training as one of their top priorities and will devote considerable efforts to improving training. Deputy Flaherty also mentioned the question of training. It will be the role of the Authority to organise training. I should like to tell Deputy Wyse that the purpose of section 57 is to clarify that the provisions of the Bill will apply to workers within prisons or other places of detention, such as prison officers, instructors and so on, and also to persons detained in such places if they are as workers affected by work activities in so far as the application of them is compatible with safe custody, good order and security. Many such institutions have work shops. Where prisoners are given instructions in various skills involving the use of tools and machinery it will be necessary under the provisions of the Bill to ensure that their safety and health will be protected to the same extent as workers engaged in similar activities outside. The primary objective of a prison or a place of detention is to ensure that a person is detained in safe and secure custody but the Authority, in accordance with section 57, will have to have regard to the essential requirements and enforce the provisions of the Bill in prisons and places of detention.

In regard to the number of inspectors, initially the staff to the Authority will be comprised of those staff in the Department of Labour who are currently employed on safety and health duties. It will be for the Authority to decide their priorities and programmes and to make proposals in regard to additional staff to the Minister in the same way that local authorities could be asked to take on more work in this area. The staff of local authorities who visit premises could make a contribution to this. When we are talking about designating functions or roles to local authorities we are referring to local authorities who have officers going out on inspections. Rather than asking the new Authority to employ inspectors to inspect the same premises the function to do so will be designated by the Authority to the relevant local authority.

My point was that many health officers availed of the early retirement package and because there is an embargo on employment in the public service I wonder if local authorities will be permitted to employ additional staff. I am anxious to get clarification on that point.

I accept that there is an embargo but I am referring to inspectors who are in employment. Some positions in the safety and health section of the Department of Labour are embargoed and I do not think we can designate functions to people who may hold such positions in the future. I am referring to inspectors who are carrying out this role at present. If additional staff are required I am sure the local authorities will make a case for them. We are asking officials of local authorities to continue to carry out the inspections as heretofore. We do not want inspections duplicated. I do not deny that some difficulties may arise where posts have not been filled or where there is extra pressure put on existing staff. Inspectors in the Department of Labour and local authority and health board officials suffer in the same way.

Deputy Wyse pointed out that the concept of danger money was condemned by the Barrington Commission. The primary objective of any safety and health system must be to eliminate hazards and not compensate workers for tolerating them. That was the view of the Barrington Commission. To attempt to outlaw danger money by way of a provision in the Bill would not work because it would not prevent danger money being paid under some other name or guise. Employers must be persuaded to discharge their responsibilities and workers must be educated on health issues. We should not try to buy out people.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked if employment on airlines, on railways and at sea were outside the scope of the Bill. That is not so but I must point out to him that other Ministers have responsibility under a number of Acts for investigating major catastrophies in the air, on the railways and at sea. The Bill states that there must be consultation by the Authority to avoid duplication but those areas of employment are not excluded. On section 46 (4) Deputy O'Sullivan asked about the publication of reports of inquiries. In general, reports will be published. On occasion there may be commercial secret information or sub judice questions which could not be published.

Taking all the examples given of accidents in the construction industry I accept that the number of accidents in this area is excessive. It is agreed that the safety record of the construction industry is deplorable. The problem is not unique to this country. In the European Community as a whole there is grave concern at the high level of accidents in the construction industry. Particular attention is being focused this year on those areas which were identified by the 1988 targeting programme in the four areas I mentioned, in order to prevent accidents. I accept that some developers and builders have continued to take short cuts, for whatever reason. This procedure is to be condemned and we in the House condemn these short cuts. We are trying to get far greater control and supervision of the construction industry.

Deputy Flaherty raised a number of questions about the adequacy of buildings and about daylight loading which is a concept used in a number of Irish buildings as well as in continental buildings.

There is regulation there. It is the law in most European countries.

From my experience, I know that in hospitals and health care institutions here, there are regulations covering this. One would not find any wards now where there is not daylight loading. I know the Deputy referred to the civic offices and I can not understand why a building only constructed in the late seventies would have that.

That is only one of the things that is wrong with it.

Deputy Flaherty mentioned that, too. I thought that perhaps the protective building was to stop all the protestors outside. It is an area which is attracting a degree of concern. The European Commission has proposed a directive to deal with the subject. I will be participating in discussions with the Council of Ministers on this directive later this year. It is a live issue.

Deputy Wyse did not see the need for the Authority. I pointed out that the Authority would have full independence in day to day activities but that the Minister would retain responsibility for legal policy and for approving of the broad programme of work undertaken by the Authority. The House wished the Minister to retain that responsibility although the consensus was that the day to day activities should be a matter for the Authority.

Deputy Flaherty also raised a point in relation to the need for guidelines with minimum regulations in relation to safety. The Authority will be obliged to identify where serious problems exist and where necessary they will issue codes of practice and will propose regulations. They will continue to develop the work already undertaken by my Department such as the issue which arose in 1987 on guidelines for VDU's. I will give the Deputy a copy of those guidelines. The VDU is an issue in this House and in other offices and it is also an issue in the EC which is formulating proposals in that area.

Women workers to a large extent have been outside the scope of the law in relation to protection. Although their safety and health has not been neglected, Deputy Flaherty made some valid points on traditional practices, including the one in the House. I was slightly amused by that example. It arose because when I was Chief Whip I fought to get all the staff recruited. I remember that an entire two blocks of the House accommodated only 14 women. We changed that in a six week period to 120 or 130. We recruited the staff before we could change the offices. Things have at long last been changed. Matters like that are covered under the office premises Acts. It is a matter of enforcing them. The office premises Acts were very old Acts but they were broad and quite far seeing though they need to be continually up dated.

In relation to noise, next year I will be implementing an EC directive in all places of work. I agree with the Deputy that it is desirable to implement that directive.

I have already answered questions in relation to training. The Bill places a duty on employers to provide training. This obligation can be fleshed out in the codes of practices and under the regulations.

Deputy Flaherty referred to the absence of statistics. I agree there is a problem but I expect the Authority to tackle this quickly once the Bill is enacted. Statistics on accidents and diseases will be essential in order to analyse our problems and to compare ourselves with other member states in the European Community. We have statistics for the areas that were covered by law up to this. With the passing of time the full range of statistics will become available.

Deputy Kemmy raised at length the problems with regard to the inspection of construction. This area has been targetted recently. The Departmental inspectors are always glad to be contacted about fly by night people who are taking short cuts. It is our policy to investigate such complaints immediately. I have to say one thing for the health and safety section in the Department of Labour in that "Immediately" means immediately. Almost at once they check out any serious risk brought to their notice in relation to hazardous waste, chemicals, factories, sites and so on. If Deputies have any incidences to report I would be glad if they would get in touch with the health and safety section of the Department.

The Authority will review enforcement policy when it takes over in this area but we will have to wait to see exactly what will happen in the long term with the construction industry. Deputy Kemmy raised a very good point about training by FÁS and suggested that it should cover safety and health. The Deputy made the point that everyone who goes through a training course on heavy construction, on construction materials or buildings should get some kind of training on safety and health. Training does not occur everywhere but it probably occurs in the trades, certainly in the electrical and more dangerous trades. Whether that happens on other courses I do not know but I will certainly take up the point.

Deputy Kemmy raised the question of the death of a worker. I agree there should be serious concern whenever a worker is killed. It has always been the practice in the Department of Labour to take prosecutions in cases where workers are killed and there has been a breach of safety laws.

Deputy Dennehy gave us an insight into the realities of working in a State company dealing with heavy metals, in this case, Irish Steel Limited and about the practicalities of enforcing rules and regulations. I was glad to hear him say there is considerable co-operation between their management and workers. All of these problems cannot be resolved unless there is co-operation at shop floor level. In fact, anything we write into legislation here can never be implemented if there is not the will to do so no matter how much any Minister, authority or organisation endeavours. It is far better that there be co-operation between the people who can make it happen, in this case, employers and workers alike.

Training in health and safety in the workplace needs to be reviewed by the Authority, a clear policy adopted and the best methods to be employed in improving work practices ascertained. Therefore, it will be the task of the Authority to promote training on such safety and health aspects. Indeed that will be their primary task once they have been established, we hope, later this year.

I should like to join others in complimenting the work of NISO a voluntary body who have carried out outstanding work over the years. They are extremely dedicated people who have contributed significantly to the improvement of standards in occupational safety and health. I know they are happy with the provisions of this Bill and I hope they will continue to participate in this work.

Deputy Dennehy raised the question of cover for insured workers. Apart from the State occupational and insurance benefit scheme, the Barrington Commission said that the general question of compulsory employers' liability insurance needed to be examined in the future. Major questions arise here and the Authority will take these up with the parties involved. These are problems that must be thrashed out with the people involved in the insurance industry.

Practically all Deputies raised the matter of a consensus. It is quite clear that, without a consensus on the part of employers and employees on accident prevention programmes, there can be no improvement effected. That consensus will not be forthcoming unless there is real social dialogue between employers and workers. Indeed that very aspiration has led to the introduction of this Bill. Also the Delors package on social dialogue vis-á-vis the completion of the internal market has highlighted safety, health and welfare in the workplace as constituting an area worthy of careful examination. This is something that has not being adequately examined heretofore. Proper implementation of such rules and regulations could be enormously beneficial to people's working lives and diminish occupational injuries — my primary concern in introducing this legislation — but also lead to savings by way of public liability insurance. We are all aware now that people generally cannot be involved in any type of accident without incurring huge insurance costs. There are also all the claims and hardships encountered vis-à-vis the occupational injuries fund. If the provisions of this Bill are to be even partially successful — it would be my hope that they would be wholly successful — it must be remembered that there are huge financial savings for employers and workers' occupational injuries funds and also for the Department of Social Welfare in reduced occupational injuries payments. That being said, many of the legislative provisions are so commonsensical one wonders why they are not implemented. However, with real commitment on the part of the FUE and ICTU — as there now is — to implement health and safety regulations in the workplace such savings can be effected. Indeed there is now an obligation on them to devise a code of practice, what might be termed a safety plan, which will have a major effect on industry generally. I hope that a consensus approach on the part of both sides in industry, with a high powered independent authority will mean that we can, for the first time since the foundation of this State, cover all workers and employers, including the self-employed, people engaged in agriculture, in heavy industry, in offices and State companies. In that way we can successfully reduce the current frightening statistics on safety and health.

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate. I thank them for their co-operation. I look forward to taking Committee Stage as soon as the Whips can agree so that we can have the Authority established some time later this year.

On the subject of health and safety at work, particularly in regard to women, can the Minister say whether it is envisaged that the legislative provisions would cover sexual harassment?

I do not believe so; I do not think it could. That would all form part of the review of the equality legislation.

For example, women representatives of ICTU would feel that the legislative provisions would be considerably strengthened if sexual harassment could be included within the definition of health, safety and welfare in the workplace. The Minister will appreciate that sexual harassment can lead to stress and possibly lack of safety for women in the workplace.

I take the Deputy's point. There has been much talk about the matter within the Employment Equality Agency under the aegis of my Department who have been playing an active role in all of those discussions. There are many actions being taken at present. However, I should have thought that the problem would be proper to a revision of the equality legislation. I will examine the matter but I would rather see it falling within the ambit of a revision of the equality legislation. I am not saying that the Equality Act in operation is not a good legislative measure but, in the light of all our experience, there is recognition of a need to strengthen its provisions.

I thank the Minister for his response.

I am somewhat worried about the cost of remedial works especially now when there are many self-employed, in turn employing one or two people who form the backbone of our economy. I would be somewhat worried about the costs that might be inflicted on such people.

We are not in the business of trying to impose huge costs on employers which I think is the Deputy's concern. I would think that any remedial work would be done in due time. However, all of the statistics available point to the fact that most accidents are caused by human negligence or error, as was said by Deputy Mitchell this morning, through people ignoring current rules and regulations. I do not like to appear to be harping on the construction industry. However, one must ask oneself how many times one passes construction sites and sees workers four storeys up without helmets. Then such people wonder why they sustain head injuries when they fall. So many accidents can be avoided by people merely adhering to existing rules and regulations.

Any revision in regard to persuading people to update their plants will have to be done in time. However, the condition of plants does not always give rise to accidents. Sometimes if there is a serious occurrence an inspector must close down a plant forthwith if he considers it to dangerous or that it presents a risk to life. However, most of what we can achieve by way of the provisions of this Bill is in the area of human negligence or error rather than any costly capital programmes for changes in industry. We are conscious of this. Departmental inspectors do not play the heavy in that respect.

I thank the Minister for replying in such detail. I did not expect him to be replying so early and I missed the beginning of his reply, so he may have answered this point already. How does the Minister envisage the Bill dealing with, for example, farmers among whom there is a very high rate of serious accidents?

They will have to be dealt with on the basis of regulations and codes and information by way of education. This legislation will cover everybody down to the jockeys, assistant jockeys and the stable boys. There will be no exception. In saying that, I see the difficulties. There is a new awareness. This week a major company launched their safety and health week. People have to see the importance of safety and health because it is quite incredible that in a small country with a relatively small workforce we have accidents to the extent that I quoted today. Any dent in those figures will be a huge help.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday, 21 February 1989, with the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 February, 1989.