Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 1980

Vol. 94 No. 4

Safety in Industry Bill, 1978: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Labour (Mr. Daly)

It is important to emphasise at the outset that the sole purpose of this Bill is to up-date the Factories Act, 1955. The Bill has, therefore, a limited—but nonetheless desirable —purpose. It does not mark a radical departure in our approach to occupational safety and health. That is not, by any means, to imply that wider aspects of safety and health at work are being neglected. I merely wish to make it clear that they do not come within the scope of the Bill, nor would it be appropriate that they should.

To be effective, an all-embracing Bill, one which was geared to the specific needs of this country, would entail a considerable amount of prior research to ensure that all relevant aspects were properly examined. Consideration, too, would have to be given to existing institutional arrangements and to the question of departmental responsibility. A period of several years for all this was suggested by Opposition members in the other House, and I would not be inclined to disagree with that estimate. The Minister for Labour indicated at the time that it would not be justifiable to wait that long before bringing about the improvements which the Safety in Industry Bill could, and should, make to the existing primary legislation. In the meantime, I assure Senators that an appropriate forum will shortly be provided for the purpose of giving due attention to occupational safety and health in a broader context than that of industry alone and arrangements have been set in train to establish a working party, and discussions will be taking place with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers in relation to their composition and terms of reference.

The Factories Act, 1955—which is now proposed to be amended by the Safety in Industry Bill—has stood the test of time remarkably well, all things considered. This is probably due, in large measure, to the enabling powers which the Minister has under it to make regulations, particularly special regulations in accordance with the Third Schedule to the Act. These powers have been availed of extensively over the years, so that about 100 regulations in all now exist, and more continue to be made every year. A list of those made to date is contained in the yearly Labour Inspection Report. It cannot be said, therefore, that no action was taken in the interval between the bringing into force of the 1955 Act and the introduction of this Bill. More importantly, the output of supplementary regulations has made it possible to tailor safety requirements to meet the circumstances in individual industrial sectors and individual processes in a detailed and specific way. That is something, incidentally, which primary legislation alone, by its very nature, could never hope to accomplish.

The need for amendment to various provisions of the Act itself has become evident over the years, in the light both of the operation of the Act and of changes in technology and in industry generally. As well as the question of amendment, there seemed, in certain instances, to be a case for the addition of some new provisions.

Work place safety needs do not remain static, and experience in the administration of technical legislation would tend to suggest that an Act of that nature, which has now been on the Statute Book for close on 30 years, might conceivably benefit from a critical examination as to the adequacy of its provisions, particularly those which are not enabling ones in the present-day context. For all these reasons, a comprehensive review of the 1955 Act, in which technical and administrative staff participated, was undertaken in the Department of Labour. The outcome of that review was the framing of the legislation which is now before Senators. It might, with justification, have been entitled the "Factories (Amendment) Bill", for that is precisely what it purports to do. The choice of "Safety in Industry Bill" as the short title instead was influenced largely by the desire to select a title which would be more positive, not to say more modern, than that of the 1955 Act. The Bill, when enacted, and the 1955 Act, will be construed together as one Act and they will be cited collectively as the Safety in Industry Acts, 1955 and 1980.

Apart from standard provisions, such as those contained in sections 1 and 2, the remaining provisions in the Bill could be divided into two categories; first, those which are designed to up-date various aspects of the Factories Act, 1955, by amending, extending or repealing existing provisions of that Act. They constitute those revisions—largely of a technical nature—of the 1955 Act which practical experience in the operation of that legislation for well over 20 years has shown clearly to be either necessary or desirable.

Secondly, those which comprise entirely new provisions, with the aim of improving, where appropriate, on the 1955 Act. Sections 3-8, 12, 14, 16-26, 28, 30-34, 40-48, 51-53, 56 and the Schedule, that is about 70 per cent of the Bill, fall into the first category. Sections 9-11, 13, 15, 27, 29, 35-39, 49, 50 and 54-55 fall into the second category.

Turning to the second category, to those provisions which are completely new, I should like to highlight sections 35-39 as being particularly significant. These sections, which comprise Part III, provide for the appointment of safety representatives, safety committees, and safety delegates, and for the preparation of safety statements. While it is true that, under section 53 of the 1955 Act workers were entitled to set up safety committees, the fact is that they did not avail themselves to any great extent of this right. There were, for example, only 274 such safety committees on record at the end of December, 1978. The disappointing experience with safety committees under the 1955 Act has long been a matter of concern to the Department of Labour. The Safety in Industry Bill presented an opportunity, therefore, to take a fresh initiative in this area. I am pleased to be able to tell Senators that the sections in the Bill about safety representatives and safety committees owe their present content to joint proposals in that regard from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers. I am confident that, in being acceptable to both sides of industry, these provisions should thus have an excellent potential for successful implementation.

Briefly, section 35 will entitle the workers in the relevant premises in which more than twenty people are employed to select and appoint a safety representative from amongst their number. He or she will be primarily concerned with preventive measures in the area of workplace safety. Towards that end, the occupier of the premises will be obliged to hold consultations with the safety representative as regards co-operation in relation to all relevant statutory measures on safety and health, and will have to consider any representation which the safety representative makes in connection with the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed. The occupier will also be obliged to let the safety representatives know when an industrial inspector arrives for a regular tour of inspection. Once the safety representative requests it, he will be entitled to accompany the inspector on any such tour. Provision has also been made in section 35 to add to the functions of safety representatives by way of regulations, which will be made only after the ICTU and the FUE have been consulted. Regulations, too, may vary—upwards or downwards—the number of persons that must be employed in a premises before the workers will be entitled to appoint a safety representative. Again, regulations in that connection will not be made before the ICTU and the FUE have been consulted.

Section 37 provides for the setting up of joint safety committees in the relevant premises, where workers would prefer a committee as opposed to a safety representative. The size of the committee will depend on the number of persons employed in the premises, with the minimum number of members being three, and the maximum, ten. In all cases, however, the number of committee members selected and appointed from among their number by the workers will be proportionately greater than the number of members appointed by the occupier. The functions of a safety committee will be similar to those of a safety representative. The possibility of adding to those functions by regulations, after consulting the ICTU and the FUE, exists in respect of the safety committee also. A safety committee will be entitled, if so desired, to choose somebody from among the worker members to be the safety delegate. The safety delegate will then be the person who will make representations on behalf of the committee and who will have the same right as has the safety representative to accompany an industrial inspector on regular tours of inspection.

Should workers not wish to appoint a safety representative, or the worker members of a safety committee, within six months after the coming into operation of sections 35 and 36, then, by virtue of section 3, the occupier concerned has a further three months in which to make the relevant appointment. In this way, it will no longer be possible for a situation to obtain whereby, out of somewhere in the region of 18,000 premises, only 24 safety committees are in existence. It goes without saying that the fewer the occasions on which section 37 is brought into play, the better. Ideally, I would prefer the exclusive use of sections 35 and 36. Worker participation in the vital area of occupational safety and health is deserving of every encouragement. While the main responsibility for ensuring safety at work rests, as it should, on the occupier, workers have a positive contribution to make as well. Indeed, it would be impossible to devise safety legislation which would decrease, or even eliminate, accidents at work if, at the same time, workers did not have due regard for their own safety and for that of their fellow workers. So, what I am hoping to achieve with sections 35 and 36 is a coming together, in a spirit of co-operation and co-responsibility, of occupiers and workers in the common interest of securing a safe and healthy workplace.

The two remaining sections of Part III are in keeping with this attitude on safety matters. Under section 38, an industrial inspector may be asked by the Minister to investigate a danger in the premises to the safety, health or welfare of the workers where the safety representative or safety committee or safety officer, in the case of building operations or works of engineering construction believes such a danger to exist and requests the Minister to have it investigated. Section 39 will require occupiers to have a written safety statement prepared for relevant premises in which ten or more persons are employed. The safety statement will have to specify how the safety and health of the workers concerned will be secured and safeguarded. If the statement is not adequate in that regard, the Minister has the power to direct its revision in the manner specified by him. As soon as the statement has been prepared or revised, a copy must be given to the safety representative or the safety committee, whichever is appropriate. Where neither a safety representative nor a safety committee has been appointed, a copy must be given to every person employed in the premises. The intention behind section 39 is to stimulate occupiers into formulating a safety policy which would be suitable for their particular premises. This would not, in any way, be a substitute for the statutory safety requirements with which they have to comply, rather it would be a question of supplementing those requirements on a non-statutory basis. In many cases the safety statement may well articulate in a formal way the steps which are already being taken by the occupier and by management. In other cases, the preparation of the safety statement may cause occupiers and management to give consideration to the steps which need to be taken in addition to those already imposed on them by legislation. Either way, both occupiers and workers stand to gain from the focus placed on the need for internal safety policies by the provisions of section 39.

Despite all the good intentions behind Part III of the Bill, it is only realistic to envisage that, in certain circumstances, ministerial intervention may be necessary. I would single out, in this connection, sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill, in ascending importance.

The industrial inspectorate of the Department of Labour make use of an administrative device, called a contravention letter, whereby the attention of the occupier is drawn to any contravention of existing safety legislation which an inspector has observed in the course of an inspection of the premises concerned, and to the need to remedy the matter giving rise to the contravention if the occupier wishes to avoid having legal proceedings taken against him. It was felt that power should be taken in law to improve on the position at present obtaining where the occupier chose to ignore the contravention letter—particularly since legal proceedings can sometimes turn out to be a somewhat lengthy process, thereby enabling the contravention in question to continue during that period, to the probable detriment of the safety and health of workers. That is the background to the inclusion of section 11 in the Bill. Section 11 will permit the Minister to serve a prohibition notice in relation to activities which, in his opinion, involve a risk of serious bodily injury to persons employed in the relevant premises. The prohibition notice will direct that the activities, involving a contravention of safety legislation, to which the notice relates, may not be carried on unless the contravention has been remedied. If necessary, the dangerous activities will have to cease immediately, where the Minister believes, and states in the notice, that the risk of serious bodily injury to persons employed is imminent. In such event, the prohibition notice will take effect immediately it is served.

Section 10 empowers the Minister to require an occupier or owner of plant to have such plant competently examined and tested in the event of its having been the possible cause—whether wholly or partly—of an accident or dangerous occurrence in the relevant premises. In addition, when the examination and testing have been duly carried out, a copy of the results must be given to the Minister by the occupier or owner within seven days of its receipt by whichever of them is involved.

Section 9 imposes a duty on manufacturers, importers or suppliers of any plant for use at work in certain premises to ensure, in so far as this is reasonably practicable, that safeguards have been provided in relation to the plant to ensure its safe operation when it is being properly used. In this connection, the Minister will be able, by way of regulations, to lay down specifications or other requirements with which the design and construction of plant must comply.

Finally, before leaving the provisions of the Bill, I would like to refer to section 50. This section has been shaped to take account of possible future developments in the Department of Labour in the field of occupational health, whereby the employment of specialist staff would facilitate efforts being directed towards identification and prevention, rather than treatment and compensation as heretofore. Section 50 will allow there to be more than one registered medical practitioner designated by the Minister as industrial medical advisers for the purposes of the Safety in Industry Acts, 1955 and 1980, while permitting administrative arrangements to vary the name somewhat, for example in order to distinguish between differences in grade. The section will have regard to the possibility of a distinction being made by the Minister in respect of the tasks of industrial medical advisers in the event of there being more than one such adviser. As regards the task of advisers, it is important to note that section 50 will enable surveying to be carried out in the future where workers in the control group would not be exposed in the course of their employment to risk of danger to health.

Obviously, the need to avoid breach of parliamentary privileges imposes constraints on Ministers in relation to disclosing detailed information to interested bodies about the contents of proposed legislation, in advance of circulation of the relevant Bill to Members of the Oireachtas. For that reason, the more substantive discussions with the ICTU and the FUE on the Safety in Industry Bill were held between its Second Stage and Committee Stage in the other House, given that the text of the Bill was then publicly available. Arising out of these consultations, ministerial amendments subsequently effected numerous changes to the Bill, to the extent that certain provisions were completely re-worded and others revised substantially. In addition, the opportunity was taken to perfect the drafting of some provisions of the Bill and to accommodate some of the suggestions put forward by the Opposition spokesmen. In all, amendments were made to sections 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 50, 54, 56 and to the Schedule. Thus I think it should be apparent that the two years during which the Bill was before the other House were beneficial in terms of improving on the content of the Bill as originally presented. Bearing in mind, particularly, that the Bill in its present form has accommodated, to the greatest extent possible, the proposals made by the ICTU and the FUE, I have no hesitation in commending it to Senators, who, I trust, will facilitate its speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Markey

I congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment. I welcome him to this House and extend to him our best wishes for success in his Department.

In regard to this Bill it is interesting to draw a contrast between the Minister of State's speech today in introducing this Bill in the Seanad and the Minister for Labour's introductory speech in the Dáil as far back as 25 April 1978. The tenor of both speeches conveys a realisation on the part of the Ministers concerned that perhaps this Bill might not have been approached in the best possible manner at the outset, to derive the maximum benefits for safety in industry. The Minister on 25 April 1978 winding up the Second Stage said that he had considered the question of replacement of the Factories Act, 1955. The Minister of State says today that it might with justification have been entitled the Factories (Amendment) Bill. In his last paragraph the Minister of State tries to hide under the excuse of not being the cause of a breach of Parliamentary privilege in regard to disclosing any consultations prior to legislation being introduced, for the very long delay experienced between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage in the other House. This alone justifies the accusation that there was a rather blurred preparation by the Department of Labour for such an important measure as this and that there was all in all a rather unclear idea as to what exactly was the objective of the legislation when it was brought in.

I am convinced that this Bill instead of being entitled Safety in Industry Bill could with very good justification been entitled Factories (Amendment) Bill, 1980. There is no doubt that the delay experienced between the conclusion of Second Stage in the other House in May, 1978 and the Committee Stage commencing almost two full years later requires some explanation in the light of the Minister for Labour's comments on Second Stage that it was not justifiable to wait too long for an all-embracing study. Also an explanation is required in the light of the many amendments which have surfaced in that very long interim period. The Bill, as it were, went into a state of limbo for almost two years and surfaced only three months ago with considerable amendments, most of which were introduced by the Government.

This matter of safety in industry is so important and crucial for our economy that far from there being any fear of danger to parliamentary privilege in not disclosing any prior consultations before the Bill was introduced, it could well have benefited from very comprehensive consultations with all interested parties before any Bill saw the light of day. I am convinced that the Minister has realised that perhaps the approach in the first instance was not as good or as constructive as it might well have been. Be that as it may, we are left with a Bill which goes into law after its passage through the Seanad leaving a certain amount of lack of confidence on the part of everybody concerned that perhaps a better job might have been done on it.

When we consider the scale and complexity of safety measures in industry, when we consider the thousands of accidents that have occurred over the past decade, when we consider the number of fatal accidents experienced each year, the number of man days lost, the cost to the economy, apart from any human cost in terms of life or economic terms to any family, as a result of occupational injuries, when we consider that the Factories Act, 1955, in regard to its provisions about the establishment of safety committees, has not been satisfactorily responded to, we are justified in asking with whom were consultations held before the Bill was prepared in the first instance? Are we worse off for not having had adequate and comprehensive consultations before the Bill was first put into print?

The Minister made reference to the fact that a certain input into the Bill came from his own Department's medical advisers. The growth and variety, for instance, of occupational diseases has been so immense over the past couple of decades that surely the Department's medical advisers do not have a monopoly in regard to knowledge or expertise in this matter. I wonder why the Government went it alone, as they appear to have done in preparing this important legislation. It had little to gain, and much to lose, from that solo individualistic enterprise. It has lost out and it is not as all-embracing as it could well have been.

The two years which have elapsed would have been a sufficient period for all-embracing legislation to be prepared by all the interested parties. The two years that were lost by the Department in considering the shortfalls in the legislation which they introduced and in bringing in the numerous amendments on the Committee Stage in the Dáil would have been a sufficient period for any committee of experts, departmental advisers or interested parties such as the trade unions and the employers' federation to be involved in and to have concluded with very comprehensive legislation which would furthermore have had the confidence of all the parties who will have to work the legislation and who will be depending on its measures as a safeguard for themselves and their families.

It has been a case of an opportunity lost. It is also a case which presented an ideal opportunity for the social partners to get together and produce a fine example of what they can do. In regard to the Bill which is before us, there are certain improvements on the 1955 Factories Act. If those improvements were not there, it would have been a futile exercise from the outset. Section 3 is to be welcomed for its addition to the definition of what a factory is: it now includes the agricultural processing sphere. This is an area which contains great potential, which has not yet been realised in this country. The fact that there has been quite a large number of fatal accidents in the agricultural sphere over the years means that, in the agricultural processing industry, we must pay far more attention in the future to safety matters.

Section 8 is very important because it puts a responsibility on employees to pay attention in a far more constructive manner than hitherto in regard to their own safety. The 1955 Act was less positive than the present section—it was more or less left to the occupier of the factory to ensure that safety measures and safety committees were established. Now the employees themselves have a responsibility imposed upon them. That is to be welcomed.

Section 9, which places a responsibility on the manufacturers of plant to ensure that that plant is in a safe working order and condition, is also a commendable section. Section 12 is better than section 37 of the 1955 Act. It makes it obligatory on the occupier of the premises to keep in a safe condition any place of work. Even here we have seen changes since the Bill was first introduced in the Dáil. A period of three years allowance whereby such safe conditions can be brought about has been introduced into the Bill. There was no such period within the terms of the Bill as it was first introduced. I would like the Minister to explain why this period of grace of three years has been introduced.

The working party to which the Minister again refers today and which really only came along as a belated suggestion by the Minister for Labour in winding up the Second Stage debate in the Dáil, will have very important work on their hands. They will have to ensure that this Bill contains the safeguards that exist in other EEC countries, even in Northern Ireland. How do we stand in regard to the EEC countries and Northern Ireland in regard to safety measures? The working party will have to consider any current and intended EEC programmes in the safety field. Very importantly, they will have to make sure that whatever measures or provisions are put into legislative effect in the future will be quite comprehensible and simply understood by the workers. There have been far too many instances where workers were more or less given a copy of the Act. That was what covered them.

I remember experiencing a case where there was a fatal accident, and all that concerned his immediate supervisor was going to the files to ensure that that worker had signed a copy of a receipt document indicating that he had been given a copy of the safety document on his first day of work. We should get away from that attitude of playing safe by occupiers, employers and supervisors in industry. There must be a continuous process of study and explanation for workers in industry so that they know and are conscious, from day to day, of what the safety measures are and whether there are any shortfalls in regard to the implementation and operation in the plant where they work.

The working party will also have to consider the fields which are not specifically referred to in this legislation. This is where a great amount of preparatory work would have been beneficial if the Department, in preparing this legislation had considered the safety measures so necessary in many other fields such as in hospitals, hotels, even places of entertainment, and particularly the agricultural sphere. On our farms there are quite an extensive number of fatal accidents—too many. I have not got figures but we read about them so frequently in the newspapers that one could almost say perhaps we have the same number of fatal accidents on the farms each year, as are recorded by the Department's inspectors as occurring in industry itself. The working party must study and produce findings to cover safety in all of these fields which seem to have been excluded to an extent that could have been more specifically referred to in this legislation.

We all agree that it is rather disappointing to find that approximately only 270 safety committees are in operation as a result of the 1955 Factories Act. This is a very disappointing ratio vis-á-vis the number of industries. Notwithstanding that, we learn from the Department of Labour's annual report that 93 per cent of the permises are inspected each year, which is a commendable inspection rate, and carried out by certainly fewer than 50 inspectors. However, it is obvious that we cannot rely on inspection alone.

It is indeed commendable that the Bill be seen from its compulsory aspect. Employees will have to pay far more attention in future to safety measures which are provided for their own welfare. If safety committees that have been established to date are disappointing in number, they have done a certain amount of good. That is where they have been given active and positive encouragement by the occupier and the employer, but I believe that we will have to tighten up the regulations to ensure that the employers do not stop immediately after encouraging the setting up of safety committees. There must be an ongoing process whereby the committees meet on a regular basis with the occupiers of the premises and have before them all available up to date information from the Department which they can study to ensure that the most recent and current safety measures are implemented in the factory. In too many places the employers have not actively encouraged the safety committees that have been established. They fulfilled the requirements of the Factories Act of 1955 to the very minimum extent and they have not gone much further than that in ensuring that those committees were briefed on a continuing basis and encouraged financially and by means of time off to attend certain committee meetings to ensure that safety measures were operating properly in industry.

Safety measures are something in which AnCO have an important part to play. AnCO increasingly find themselves as the first body in which so many young workers find themselves experiencing at close hand the requirements of operating and working in industry. It is an ideal forum to inculcate in young people the best measures and the best advice available in the safety field. AnCO should be encouraged positively by the Department to increase their work in regard to safety education.

This voluntary body that we have read so little about and yet which has done so much over the years for promoting safety awareness, namely NISO, is something which must be given teeth for itself. I do not believe that it can operate any longer on a voluntary basis as it has in the past. It must be given some financial subvention, it must be given the best of advice and expert official help to ensure that it can, by publications and demonstrations, extend to workers everywhere the most up to date information in regard to safety. We have in AnCO and NISO two bodies existing today which can do much more than they have been doing in the past to extend the benefits of safety education.

There are a few comments I should like to make about disability pensions which occur as a result of occupational injuries. These are traumatic experiences for the people involved. It is necessary that the cases be heard promptly and sympathetically. It has been a sad feature for me to find that, in reviews carried out by the Department concerned in regard to the percentage pension which these unfortunate people have received, that the reduction in the pension rate appears rather harsh and does not appear to be given with the amount of sympathy that I would like to see. Appeals made against such reductions go on for too long a period. The wage earner of a family has, perhaps, lost a certain amount of income earning capacity and the Department should ensure that he is treated with the utmost sympathy, both in regard to the hearing of the claim in the first instance, and particularly in regard to any review of his case. Where an appeal has to be made by him as a result of a reduction in his pension that appeal should be concluded very sympathetically as quickly as possible.

To the Minister of State I say that this Bill is, as expected, an improvement on the 1955 Factories Act. It is to be welcomed, but it does not take away from the fact that a great opportunity has been lost whereby this field of safety in industry could have been tackled in a most comprehensive manner. As it appears to date the legislation on the stocks is incomplete and the working party must immediately get down to the task of ensuring that the very many fields which appear to have been left out, which are not covered adequately if they are referred to at all, must be given far greater coverage by safety measures for the future. It was regrettable that the social partners were not brought in. It was one field where there would have been nothing but the utmost co-operation and it would have been a great opportunity for the Government to let it be seen where the social partners could give of their very best in improving a most crucial part of our economy.

The Safety in Industry Bill as it comes before us is welcome. It will not be opposed unduly on this side of the House, but in welcoming it we continue to maintain that the Minister could have done in much better job in regard to this legislation.

Professor Hillery

This Bill updates and makes immediate improvements on existing legislation in industrial safety. While employers clearly have a responsibility, successful industrial safety is not a one-sided affair. Workers themselves have an interest in safety which should be reflected in active involvement with their employers in promoting and achieving appropriate industrial safety standards. In this connection, as emphasised by Senator Markey the experience of the Factories Act 1955 has been disappointing. Workers have availed of the right to set up safety committees in about only one in 65 of the premises on the Factories Register. Safety committees can serve to promote safety at work, thus reducing preventable accidents. Clearly industrial accidents can be costly in financial terms to all concerned not to mention the untold human misery that can be caused from time to time. Moreover, in the context of worker participation safety committees provide an opportunity for workers actively to participate in this vital area of working conditions.

On a more positive note I welcome the Minister's initiative on the proposed working party to study safety and health in a broader context than in industry alone. This should bring about the comprehensive study that Senator Markey is advocating and clearly it is going to take several years to complete.

The Bill itself contains many desirable features, and I wish to refer briefly to a few of them. Section 3 has been substantially changed following proposals submitted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers. This is certainly a desirable development and it augurs well for the effective implementation of these provisions.

Section 39 obliges the occupier of a premises to provide a written safety statement. This should act as a stimulus for the formulation of a safety policy and is certainly a step in the right direction. Section 11 permits the Minister to serve a prohibition notice. The position up to now has been that where equipment or processes could cause a risk of serious injury, it has been necessary to go through the courts before such activity could be halted. In addition to the time involved in going to the court, the dangerous activity could continue until the court decided otherwise. Under this Bill the Minister is empowered to stop a dangerous activity immediately if the circumstances warrant it. This will avoid unnecessary and potentially dangerous delays where the risk of serious injury is concerned.

I commend the Minister and his officials for the very considerable effort that has obviously gone into this Bill and I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Minister, Deputy Brendan Daly, on his first visit to the Seanad. I wish to congratulate him warmly on his appointment as Minister of State and wish him every success in his new and onerous position.

Dr. Martin

I should like to welcome the Bill. I appreciate fully the reservations that have been voiced on this side of the House about its shortcomings. Its general thrust and intention are altogether commendable. I want to give my full support to it, particularly to the aspect that allows for a long review by a working party for well considered legislation on this very important area of our lives.

The one question I would like to ask is in regard to the public conscience in relation to safety in industry and hygiene in every area of our lives. The track record of the Irish in this respect is very poor. Senator Hillery quoted statistics that the workers in only one factory out of 65 bothered to set up a safety committee in order to look after their affairs. That bespeaks a deplorable apathy on the part, not just of workers, but of the country at large. I wonder to what extent the management encouraged them to do it in these cases. What general communal concern was there about safety?

We need massive education in this area. We have been rather slipshod and makeshift in our attitude towards a matter that should be of very great humane importance to us, that is the safety of people when they work, the resultant effectiveness of their work if they are safe, and the pride they take in their work if they are thinking actively about how well their work proceeds, their equipment serves them and the hygiene—I mean hygiene in the largest sense—surrounding their operations.

This last point is one that everybody in Ireland should take cognisance of. We are probably the dirtiest race in Europe. The symptoms of this are obvious, not just when one moves into a factory or a garage or into places where people are working, where one sees the deplorable unconcern about the most basic decencies of hygiene, but when one moves through the country. If one calls into some of the more vainglorious roadhouses, say between Dublin and Limerick, one can see what the lavatories are like, see that the floors have not been swept for days, see the ashtrays piled high, see the marks of spittle on the counters, see the absolute contempt for basic hygiene in the way the glasses are washed and the way drinks are served. It is a matter of utter disgrace to the country. If one is to experience culture shock in the real sense it is to move from Ireland to France or to anywhere in northern Europe and suddenly realise that one is in an environment where cleanliness is a major priority and where people are proud of their premises, all kinds of premises including industrial and catering premises, where people work.

This situation can be cured in two ways. It could be cured with punitive legislation and I would be all for punitive legislation. If I had plenipotentiary powers I would have inspectors call on these roadhouses and if they did not live up to signs outside the door as being pleasant and habitable I would start by refusing them the right to advertise. Let people find them out but do not let them advertise what they are not supplying. A few sharp inspectors could raise the standards of hygiene in the country very rapidly, by a number of these punitive swoops.

On a larger scale, an increased drive towards education in this matter of hygiene should be instituted. Wherever people work, whether on the factory floor, in the pub or in the large catering premises, if these basic levels of hygiene are not observed our whole sense of dignity as a nation suffers.

While I welcome the Bill, I would like the Minister of State to take cognisance of the fact that we have a long way to go before we have a sufficiently alert and alive conscience on the matter both of safety and of hygiene in practically every area of our public life.

Míchéal Cranitch

Is é an chéad dualgas atá orm ná fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit Breandán Ó Dálaigh. Cúis áthais do gach aoinne é a bheith ina Aire Stáit agus cúis áthais dar ndóigh leis go bhfuil sé ag obair ins an Roinn ina bhfuil sé faoi láthair. Is maith is eol dúinn go ndéanfaidh sé job maith agus guímid gach rath air féin agus ar a chuid obair.

In presenting this excellent Bill this afternoon, the Minister is probably unduly reticent and humble in his approach. I refer to his statement where he said that the Bill does not mark a radical departure in our approach to occupational safety and health. That is not by any means to imply that wider aspects of safety and health at work are being neglected. I wish to make it clear that they do not come within the scope of the Bill, nor would it be appropriate that they should.

The Safety in Industry Bill, 1978, is an excellent one. It has dealt with the vital aspects in so far as they can be dealt with at the moment. Part II of the Bill mentions practically everything one can think of, from the duties of persons employed right through prohibition notices, noise, temperature, accommodation for taking meals and so on and washing facilities, cleaning of machinery and protection of eyes get honourable mention.

To my mind the most important section in the whole Bill on which the efficacy and the success of the Bill depends is in Part III. That is the section dealing with safety representatives, safety committees, safety delegates and safety statements. To write or to frame a comprehensive Bill on safety would require the best brains we have in this country. In addition, such a job would require many years, and no matter how well the job would be done there could still be failures and more accidents and deaths, that is, unless we come face to face with what I think is absolutely vital in our approach to this question of safety, because whatever may be in our mentality as a race, we have three situations to contend with.

First, in industry we have no tradition. By tradition I mean the sort of tradition that obtains in countries that have been industralised for many years. It is in the comparatively recent past that industry has been developed here and problems are arising that we never had to deal with in our history. Along with that—again the question of race comes into it—we have a false idea very often of what courage is. Courage may not be equated to carelessness, and unfortunately in our mind it very often is. I remember how often when we were going to school we dared each other to do this, that or the other, and the person who, for instance, would not jump off the highest pier we could find in the locality was more or less branded a coward. So we just did it in order to keep our dignity and our status. Unfortunately, as far as the Irish race is concerned we are inclined to let that attitude continue into manhood. We run extraordinary risks, and it was only recently when I was reading some of Aristotle I came to a remark of his where he was dealing with foolishness in behaviourism and he mentioned that he had heard that even the Celts at that time often undertook to roll back the waves single-handed. We are apt to be very careless, to equate, as I say, carelessness with courage and to despise any safety precautions of any kind.

Finally, the third fault we have to find with ourselves is simply that we are very often satisfied with half measures. If, say, there is a question of erecting a scaffolding, how many people except the real professionals will erect it in a kind of way that is not ultimately safe? When somebody draws attention to the fact that all the precautions have not been taken somebody will come along and brush aside the objection and simply say "it is all right. It will do. It might not fall down at all".

Before we can say to ourselves that the implementation of this Bill will be even 50 per cent effective we must, by every means in our power, by the educational process, at first level, second level, and third level, in all our dealings with factories and with employees, with employers' organisations and with trade unions, keep on emphasising that we cannot get the work done until such time as we make sure that all safety precautions are attended to.

Mr. Butler

I, too, should like to welcome the Minister of State to the House. He and I have been very good friends. We have often stayed in the same hotel and discussed our problems. We were the best of friends and I should hope we would remain so. Perhaps from time to time I will be knocking on his door looking for favours.

I welcome the Bill. It is much improved on that introduced by the Minister for Labour in the Dail on 25 April, 1978. That is nearly two-and-a-half years ago, and it has taken that length of time to bring the Bill to the state it is now. Even though it has taken so long it was worthwhile to have waited for a Bill such as we have here this evening. I should like to compliment all those who helped the Minister. He did not act on his own. He was helped by the Opposition Deputies in the other House and by some of his own Deputies also. He was helped also by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers. This in itself showed that the workers through their unions and the employers through their unions felt that there was a necessity to improve the Bill, a Bill that was out of date in 1978. Technological change in industry over that period has been great and more people were working in industry in 1980 than was the case in 1978. Young people had to be protected in the workplace, and this Bill in one way or another seeks to protect them. It is a Bill that should help to prevent many tragic accidents. Accidents will happen in the workplace, no matter how careful employers and workers may be, as a result of something other workers will do such as leaving electric wires loose and that type of thing. Therefore, the formation of safety committees is a very important step. This Bill did not just set in motion the formation of safety committees. The safety committees have been there for a long number of years. I know that because I represent management on a safety committee. I work in an industry where there are more than 2,000 people employed, that is the creamery industry in Mitchelstown. I should like to compliment the inspectorate who have been visiting us from time to time there. They have been very pleasant and because of their visits there have been improvements in the workplace in Mitchelstown Creameries. When management and workers hear that there is an inspector coming to visit the place there is a rush-around in order to ensure that everything is all right. I am sure the inspectors know all about what happens. At the same time one must give due credit to the inspectorate for the role they play in helping to improve safety in the work place.

Safety regulations are very, very important, and we can identify areas where most of the problems are. In my opinion most of the problems, as has been said in the other House, are really caused by the workers themselves, not intentionally I may say, but unintentionally. This is because of the pressure of work, or because of long hours, or because of rushing to get machinery installed so that production may start on the floor and that the machinery may be paid for as quickly as possible, and not enough interest is taken in the safety aspects of the machinery. I see that the Bill covers all of that. It is a pity that there are only 274 safety committees in 18,000 work places or, has been said three safety committees to every 200 factories. I would recommend that each of those 18,000 work places should have a safery committee. I think management should insist on the formation of safety committees.

It is very important that accidents are reduced because of the effect that accidents have not only on the person involved but on his family. If the father of a family is injured, the entire family are affected. When notice is given by the inspectorate that improvements should be carried out on the factory floor, they should get notice within a short time that the work has been done. When notice is sent to management that something needs to be put right, there is an obligation on them to see that the dangerous element in the industrial apparatus concerned is rectified.

I would insist as a representative of management that not alone should management see that faults are corrected but also the safety committees should be notified that there is a dangerous section within the area of employment. I would also agree that when the inspection is taking place both management and workers should be represented on the inspection team. This would give greater assurance to both management and workers that the safety of the work place is being regarded as a top priority. I attend safety meetings and I hear many complaints from the workers. I investigate those complaints and, as I have said, many of the faults are caused by the workers themselves. For instance, they are not very aware sometimes of the need to keep a place tidy. Perhaps in rushing off to lunch they neglect to take proper safety measures. Somebody in the process of wiring a motor, for instance, may be called away to do another job, thereby leaving the first job only half done.

Naturally, such a situation creates a dangerous area within the work place. It is a pity that it is allowed to happen, but no matter what legislation is imposed and no matter what the inspectorate say, unless you have a live safety committee and management represented on that safety committee you will have this sort of thing happening all the time. If representatives on the floor of that safety committee saw that happening naturally they would alert management very quickly of the danger.

There is one area in which there is often carelessness, that is, where contractors are installing machinery or building factories. Where I work the safety committee are adamant that contractors carry out their job as any safety committee would wish it to be carried out, to ensure that the scaffolding is erected in a very safe way, to ensure that the installation of machinery is carried out in a dry area, where there is sufficient light, where people can move around and where there is room to move around the machinery. It is often the case where heavy machinery is installed in small areas that are dark that the movement of people around that machinery is very confined. The safety committee should insist in that regard that they have something to offer, and that they would guarantee that the safety of their own workers is protected. It is often the case that scaffolding is not properly erected, that loose planks are put across where people walk so that when you walk on one end the other end of the plank lifts up, thereby causing an accident.

A very important aspect of safety in the work place is that of fire safety regulations. The causes of fire should be seen to be eliminated. Anything can cause a fire, especially a worker smoking a cigarette, going into a corner and dropping the butt. I have seen this happening, and the amazing thing is that when you speak to workers and chastise them and go back and inspect that area again within two or three weeks you find that the offence has been committed again. It is amazing that some workers do not recognise the safety committees. In cases of breaches of safety regulations, the safety committee should report immediately to management. That is the procedure where I work. Management should then investigate what is happening. My personal opinion is that if after a worker has been warned on being found in breach of the regulations, he should be dismissed on being caught committing a second offence. There should not be any leniency in regard to a worker who endangers the lives of his colleagues.

The provision of fire alarms, too, is very important. All personnel should be made aware at the existence of such devices, and these devices should be examined periodically by the inspectorate. They should be examined at least every six months. It is very important that people be trained as to what to do when a fire starts within a factory. There should be periodical fire drills. Breathing apparatus should be readily available and there should be suitable harness to allow people to escape. I noticed when I started in this field that offices are very much neglected in this area, especially offices two or three storeys high where the exit of the office is only one door and then probably down a stairs and out the next door. It often happens that people are trapped in such areas. The inspectorate must ensure that people in offices have at least the same protection as those who are working on the factory floor.

The placement of telephones within factories and within offices is also very important. The safety committees should know where the telephones are placed. When a fire starts the telephone is the quickest way of getting the message across to people from one area to another, and also the quickest way of informing other workers of the easiest way to escape. It is important in this context that there be a sufficient number of telephones available, regardless of the cost. Management must ensure that sufficient fire fighting apparatus and water are available. I must compliment the inspectorate in that they concentrate on all these points.

Another area is noise and the wearing of ear muffs. It is very strange that many people do not wear ear muffs regardless of how noisy a place is. I often inspect areas where I would think ear muffs should be used but it is amazing that one usually finds at least one or two people not wearing ear muffs. There should be insistence on this sort of protection in areas of a certain level of noise. The same might be said about goggles. We know how important goggles are especially in the machinery section of the industry where, because of the type of work going on there are very bright lights that could harm the eyesight. There is also the danger of flying splinters. It is amazing that very often workers fail to take the advice of safety representatives in this regard. Usually in my area management is notified and once the management goes there the eye goggles are on. When the management go there the eye goggles are on again. When the management leave shortly afterwards the same people are not wearing the eye goggles. I do not know what can be done about that. I do not know if they can be sacked for not wearing the eye goggles. I do not think that can be done because the owners would not allow that to be done. Some stern warning should be given to them by the workers themselves. The workers should see that those things are being worn.

I worked in a food area where the machinery was six or seven feet up from the ground and it was necessary to wear caps because loose hair could get caught in the machinery. You will get some people to wear them and others will not wear them. Unless management insist on them being worn they are not worn. The only people who can insist that those people carry out their instructions are the people on the floor working with them, even putting some type of penalty on them or informing the safety committee and the safety committee having the authority to penalise them in some way. That would be one way of safeguarding them if they are not trying to safeguard themselves.

Further areas in the work place which are very important are places where people can have something to eat or where they can wash up. This is an area where there is carelessness, especially in the wash-up area, where people half wash themselves and then dry themselves with a clean towel and after five or ten minutes the towel is very black. There is need for safety here, as any dirty towel is not a safe thing to have around. Bacteria are carried. This can cause rashes and skin disease. Inspectors should insist that towels are kept clean, and the management should see that this is done. Those people who are not obeying the rules should be chastised by the workers even if they have to notify the management. Often when the workers notify management they are the worst in the world for coming along and spilling the beans on some other person. For the safety of all concerned they should be brave enough to do that.

Other areas that can be dangerous are areas where acids, caustics and dangerous materials are compounded. The fault for putting them in an unsafe way is not merely that of the workers but of the suppliers. Often the supplier's driver is in a hurry and puts them anywhere he can get an open space. Management could do more in this regard. They could stop the purchase of the caustics or acids from that company. That would quickly clear up that area.

There are many other areas I would like to talk about but I would go on for too long and would repeat the same thing about different areas. I would like to see what the Bill hopes to achieve being achieved. It is very important that there be total safety at work. The Bill will help in that regard. I would like to compliment all those who helped in the production of this Bill. On behalf of the workers and on behalf of management I would like to say again thanks to all those who helped in this regard. I hope this is not the end.

The quayside is another area at which a new look must be taken. I know what happens at the quayside. Even though I work in Mitchelstown I come from Dungarvan, which I am proud of, where boats come in. It can be very dangerous unloading or loading boats. There are not enough safeguards at present in the loading and unloading of boats. When lorries pull in there and the hoist comes up it can be very dangerous. I am sure the inspectorate could look into it and see what can be done in that area.

On the agricultural end of safety there is a lot to be recommended. Recently I read of an accident where a young man was shifting a container by fork loader when the container slipped and killed the young man. I do not know how we could safeguard that type of person. At the same time, there is a need for alerting the people working on farms to what should be done in regard to their safety. Another area where it is also necessary to safeguard people on farms is where they are using poisons to kill weeds. These poisons can burn the hands. They are not covered by the Bill. Some other type of Bill should be introduced to cover those people, because not alone are we protecting the farmer or his family but there are a lot of other people who work for the farmer and who are hired by him who may, because of the negligence of the farmer, be in danger. It is necessary to look at that and to see that those people who are working for others should have safeguards. I hope the Minister will look at that aspect and see how it can be improved.

There are many lectures and courses given on safety. The National Industrial Safety Organisation give courses and it is amazing how few people attend them. The main reason may be because management do not encourage people to attend them or do not pay their wages while they attend them. These courses are very important to management but workers' representatives should also attend them because they can learn a lot from them and can help to make the work place a safer place.

I would like to say something about the statement Senator Martin made about dirty Ireland. I do not believe him. I have travelled in many countries and through areas that were dirtier than Ireland. Some of the other countries are dirtier than any place you would see in Ireland. I am not saying that all of those places that are dirty should not be cleaned up. They should. We are as clean as any other country in the world.

Mr. Dowling

I would like to add my voice to that of other Senators in relation to this Bill. It was interesting to read at the end of the Minister's speech:

I think it should be apparent that the two years during which the Bill was before the House were beneficial in terms of improving the content of the Bill as originally presented. Bearing in mind, particularly, that the Bill in its present form has accommodated, to the greatest extent possible, the proposals made by ICTU and FUE.

When we look at another section of the Bill we find that these two groups for the past 23 or 24 years should have been charged with callous neglect when we see that in section 73 of the 1955 Act workers were entitled to set up safety committees. The unions and the employers should have ensured that these safety factors were set up.

At this particular stage it is a lot of rubbish for Congress, the trade unions or, indeed, the FUE to come along and indicate their anxiety in relation to safety factors. I feel that 23 or 24 years ago, when an effort was made to ensure the protection of workers they should have made available the necessary machinery to ensure that the safety factors were installed. There are problem employers and problems with employees but this shows that there are two sides guilty of callous neglect over that period. I wonder no matter what type of legislation is brought before these Houses no matter what type of legislation we pass here, if the same people are involved in the future, will they treat the new legislation with the same type of neglect as they did in the past?

We are working here from a base of 4,073 accidents notified to the Department plus the accidents that were not notified plus the coverups, which are very substantial in industry. I worked in CIE, Aer Lingus and other industries and I know the situation very well. I was once a union representative. I know the callous regard unions and employers have in relation to safety factors. I hope the Minister, when this Bill is passed, will ensure that there is a follow-up to see that safety factors are installed and maintained.

We have a number of undesirable situations at the moment. From the workers' point of view we have a continuing situation of practices developing in industrial disputes where there is interference with machinery, plants and safety factors by the workers, putting at risk many other workers. This is a dispicable action. We must ensure that the trade unions and Congress are made aware that there are factors that have put the safety of workers at risk. They have been named in this House by me and by others.

This is a development taking place within the area of industrial disputes, where sabotage has been an undeniable factor in many disputes and workers put at risk by their workmates. We must have a new look at the whole situation. Legislation must be updated. The Minister is doing his job, but there is another job to be done. Our voices should ring out loud and clear to ensure that these practices that are developing in industry are curtailed at the earliest possible moment.

We should bring it home to the trade unions that they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their members. They may think that that is the responsibility of somebody else. They may feel that unless the employer moves they will not move, they do not want this additional burden. It is a most important item, and it must be backed up by legislation that will impose fines on people who fail to play their part in protecting the lives of other people. The accidents notified were: Factories 3,475, in the construction industry 487, electrical 60, warehousing 11, docks and quays 27, mines 5 and quarries 8. There were 28 fatal accidents in 1978. The number of cover-ups and the reasons for them are important.

Two years ago, two cases came to my notice. The cover-up was because of the failure of the employer to pay insurance in one case and have his employees properly insured in another case. There are hundreds of cover-ups in industry apart altogether from the notified number of accidents. The position is more serious than is indicated by notifable accidents. For that reason the Department will want to take a further look at this situation. After the accident happens we hear the Act quoted time and again by the employers and the trade unions concerned. It is too late at that stage; someone is the victim of neglect. There is no solution to the problem when the factors are not installed.

I agree with the previous speaker, that where safety factors are provided, the abuse of the safety factors by workers on many occasions is responsible for very many of the accidents. On the other hand, we have the employer who issues a helmet to a worker and thinks that is the be-all and the end-all and the preventive of all types of accidents. There is much more in it than a helmet and a first-aid kit in relation to accidents. If legislation is to solve anything, there must be a back-up to this to ensure that what we legislate for will be applied and that the personnel themselves will be fully protected.

There are, many organised industries, where they are organised on a union basis, but there is a weaker section, the unorganised, where there is no union involved. Then we have another situation, and it is in this area that the Department of Labour will have to ensure that the regulations are applied to people who are unorganised. There is a very large section of the community unorganised at the moment without the aid of the trade unions to see that their rights are protected. It is in this particular that there is a vast amount of neglect. Any employer who does not instal the maximum amount of safety equipment should have a sanity test. The trade unions who do not ensure that the facilities afforded by the Bill in the protection of their members are available should be charged with callous neglect of duty in relation to the safety factor.

I hope that it is not the end of the line in relation to safety, because as the Minister states this is one aspect. On every occasion he comes in here it gives the Members of this House the opportunity to project their views. Some of these views may percolate back to the various organisations.

I hope that some form of intensified publicity will be embarked upon by the Department of Labour to ensure that everyone knows their rights and everyone knows what their entitlements are in relation to the development of the safety factors indicated in the Bill. I wish the Bill success. I do not want to detain the House any more. I have put my points to the House. I hope there will be a follow-up to this, that when the Bill is passed it will not be left there for another 23 years until somebody else decides to amend this particular Bill, and the workers of this State are put at risk during that period.

Professor Conroy

I would like to join in the welcome of the Minister to the House. He has been an extremely effective and energetic Deputy. I have no doubt that he will be as effective and energetic as Minister. I am delighted that he should bring forward this particular Bill, which is a very necessary one and brings up to date the old traditional safety measures introduced 100 years or so ago and now very much in need of updating.

The Bill is, in many ways, a totally non-partisan type of Bill and in some ways, therefore, may seem a little bit dull in that it does not provoke a great deal of across-the-House argument for discussion. That does not in any way diminish its importance, as the speakers on both sides of the House have so clearly indicated. It is of vital importance to anyone involved in industry today. We are rapidly approaching the stage in which the majority of the population are included in some form of industrial process. The Bill is necessarily limited. There are a great number of situations in modern life which, effectively, are comparable with the industrial situation and yet which are not really covered by this Bill. I am very glad to know that the Minister is setting up an appropriate committee which will look at these matters in much wider perspective that is encompassed in the present Bill.

We have been, for many years, very far ahead in industrial safety. It is very good to see that we are maintaining this situation. We have a very active group of industrial medical officers, the Association of Industrial Medical Officers or as it is now called the Association for Occupational Medicine, because in fact, we have gone far beyond the very narrow and limited view encompassed by the phrase "industrial medical officer". Nowadays we are more and more looking in terms of occupational medicine as a whole.

We have also set up the first faculty of occupational medicine; we are leading the world in this matter. I have no doubt, just as we have post-graduate schools in third year on medicine, which over the years has contributed greatly to this country's standing internationally, so also our new faculty of occupational medicine will play a leading international post-graduate role. I do not doubt that in the new counselling committee that is set-up as well as discussing matters directly with industry, the trade unions and other interested parties, the Minister will also be including the Association for Occupational Medicine for the overall view and the general, not only safety but prevention and increase in health in all people involved in their occupations, whether or not it is in the factory, on the farm or elsewhere.

There are specific aspects of the Bill that I would like to refer to very briefly. I am particularly glad to see section 12 (1), the matter of safety and means of of access and egress. This has been proved, again and again, over the years to be an absolutely critical factor in safety in the event of any accident, fire or other circumstances at work. It has been neglected very often. I am delighted to see it being emphaiised and brought up to date here.

Another factor which has, perhaps, only more recently been appreciated is the effect of noise. I am delighted to see that under section 13 (1) and (2) the Minister is going to take specific action in relation to noise. For far too long industrial workers in certain types of work have suffered from the effects of noise even to the extent of, perhaps, incurring permanent deafness. Indeed it is strange in a way, when one looks back on these Bills which were brought in originally in relation to the cotton and textile factories traditionally associated with Lancashire, the docks, and so on, that one of the factors which was almost totally neglected was the question of noise, and yet if one has ever been in the old style textile factory one will know that the noise is absolutely deafening. Indeed in Lancashire one could tell the people who worked in the cotton mills because even in their everyday speech they shouted at one another. Yet this was very largely neglected. There are many other aspects in relation to noise, and I am glad to see that the Minister is taking steps in this direction.

Perhaps even more important is section 14 in relation to fumes, and indeed this is carried on in section 21. More and more we are realising that noxious fumes can have effects both immediately, for example, in relation to an immediate escape of noxious fumes, in relation to a fire where people are usually killed by the fumes rather than actually burned to death, and perhaps, even more importantly and only very recently realised, long-term effects from certain types of noxious fumes. It is excellent that this matter is being dealt with under the appropriate sections of this Bill.

Section 18 (1) which relates particularly to young people and the question of cleansing of apparatus or moving apparatus is a very necessary aspect. The safety of young people at work has been something which has often been referred to but in practice has so often been neglected. I am delighted to see this specific section here. Another excellent section is section 19 relating to damage or possible damage to the eyes. This is almost always avoidable and yet again so often neglected. It is very good to see steps being taken in this respect. One could go on through many of these sections, but I picked out a few which I am particularly glad to see being emphasised by the Minister.

To be truly effective all these measures require the co-operation of management and workers and indeed of the medical and nursing staffs involved. Unfortunately, all too often this is neglected. The Department could have a specific campaign to bring to the attention to all industrual concerns the importance not just simply of setting up such a council representing workers and management but of specifically appointing someone, whether he be a member of the industrial staff or management staff or whatever, but one individual, who is charged as convenor of such a committee, seeing that it functions, that it meets.

I am glad to see also that under the schedule a number of what were really very out of date measurements have been brought up to date. Unfortunately certain other units being brought in may well have to be updated in a future Bill. One section here shows all too clearly that at the end of the day no matter what steps we take or what safety councils are set up or how much co-operation there is between workers, management, the various inspectors, who are doing an excellent job, and everyone else involved, it comes down to the individual. This is shown all too clearly in section 29 (9) (a) where it states:

Every signal given in relation to the moving or stopping of a lifting machine shall be both distinctive in character and such that the person to whom it is given can easily see or hear it, as may be appropriate.

This in some ways might almost be comical, but in fact it emphasises that at the end of the day it is the individual who has to participate, who has to help in this way. Again here, we could implement an educational programme. We have, for example, health examination of workers under a certain age, and we have health examinations for many types of employment. These routine health examinations date back to the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s when vast numbers of people were malnourished, or ill with tuberculosis and all sorts of other diseases and for one reason or another they could not undertake work. Nowadays, very largely, with certain exceptions, these examinations are irrelevant, and I cannot help thinking at times that the provision of a safety leaflet emphasising the risks and responsibilities of him or her as an individual perhaps, to every worker taking on a job or every executive or anyone else coming into an industrial situation would be money well spent. Perhaps the Minister might consider some form of education campaign in this respect.

I join in welcoming this very necessary, very excellent Bill.

Mr. Mulcahy

Fáiltím an Bille seo. As other Senators have said, it is extremely important that the emphasis be put on prevention rather than on blame afterwards. I am glad to see that the Bill incorporates the need for this safety statement, which seems to be a means by which we can contribute to the whole spirit of participation which the Minister is very interested in arising from the recent publication of Worker Participation. This is an area where the worker is talking about his own health and safety and the output from it, being a safety statement, seems to be a very sensible way of going about it and I commend it.

Other Senators have talked about the need to protect people sometimes from themselves. I worked in industry for many years and I was very often embarrassed by the fact that while working for foreign industrialists it was difficult to get my fellow countrymen to look after themselves in terms of change of overalls, making use of showering facilities, to avoid conditions of dermatitis that could arise from the type of work they were doing. As a humorous aside, one of the factors which managed to get workers to be a bit more careful in this regard in the Minister's home county was the fact that workers had to travel on buses into Limerick from Shannon, and because the girls got annoyed when they found themselves going with chaps who did not change and get into nice suits we found that there was a greater pressure on for the use of the showers. I suppose it helped in the marriage rate as well. I just could not help making that point.

There is another instance of where people have to be protected from themselves, not in industry, it is just a natural thing. One notices the way the hurlers come out to play with their helmets on, but before the match is over they are throwing them off. In the heat of the moment people will throw off shin guards and helmets, and so also in industry. When the pressure is on people will tend to be careless, and they have got to be protected against themselves.

I am delighted to see that in the Bill there are proper provisions for machine examination by competent authorities. There are provisions for proper specifications to be laid down for importers of machines and equipment, and reference to the need for specialist staff. Senator Conroy talked about the role of preventive occupational medicine in this regard.

I see that noise levels, too, are covered in the Bill and perhaps the Minister might comment on what criteria will be used to assess acceptable levels of noise for different types of equipment. I will never forget the conditions I worked under with automatic lathes shrieking high frequency noise at me all day. I wondered what criteria would be used to control that.

In relation to the general point on safety and health in industry, I notice that the EEC have produced a directive on major accident hazards in certain industrial activities which is on its way through the system, though it has not yet come up for consideration by the Joint Committee here. It brings to mind the fact that this Bill is about covering workers in relation to accidents and the safety and health of workers at the work place. What about the public who might be affected by instances where things get out of control? I look forward to further legislation which will look into those matters. I am reminded here of the disasters at Flixborough, Beck, Sveso and Manfredonia and of the fact that in Ireland we do not seem to have any coordinated approach to handling situations where things get out of control in industry. I am thinking here of explosive substances and highly toxic gases.

I wonder if the Minister has it in mind to introduce legislation to cover this area. As this country becomes more industrialised and more and more factories are set up the safety of the public becomes as important as the safety of the individuals at the work place. In this case we are referring to the difference between routine risk which will arise on an on-going basis and which will give rise to regulations which will determine acceptable levels of toxicity, noise and so on, and exceptional risks which will cause the real damage. We have got to take a look at this area in the future.

I gather that some discussions about these exceptional areas and risks to the public are taking place within Departments. I look forward to seeing legislation which will protect the public in relation to processes that might go out of control in the industrial context. I also look forward to seeing competent authorities set up to ensure contingency planning required to cater for situations like that. Obviously, that is a further development as other Senators said and it is something that we will be aware of. Our participation in the EEC will provide us with access to any data banks of information available to ensure that we have the best practices here.

I notice that Senator Butler mentioned the question of attendance at courses to ensure that safety is properly managed in industry, and I should like to support him in this regard. This should not be seen as some sort of an activity that is confined to one or two people in a firm. If safety delegates or safety committees are to exist there should be a high rotation of people who act on these committees so that this goes right through the whole of any industry. I am very pleased to see that this Bill, following extensive consultation with the FUE and Congress has now reached the point where it is about to be passed.

Mr. Dowling

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that on this issue which affects the welfare of workers, there are no members of the Labour Party present to discuss it or to give their views.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The presence or absence of individual Senators should not be referred to. It is most disorderly to do so. I call on the Minister to conclude.

Minister of State at the Department of Labour (Mr. Daly)

I thank the Senators for their welcome this afternoon on my first visit to this House. As far as I am concerned I will endeavour to keep my door open and to be of any assistance that I can to Senators.

This was a very constructive and worth-while debate and I have taken detailed notes of all the points raised and we will consider them and take the necessary action on them. Senator Markey referred to the change in section 12 (3). The insertion of this subsection in the Bill was made on foot of discussions which we had with the Irish Employers Confederation. The case put forward by IEC was that given the physical alterations to plant and premises which would in many cases be required to ensure that they were safe, a phasing in period of two years would facilitate effective compliance with the section. Subsection (3) is designed to accommodate this point by providing that proceedings for an offence under the section cannot be taken until section 12 has been in force for two years. Section 12 relates to the means of access and exit to working places and safe working places. This was put in after some discussions between Second Stage and the Committee Stage to facilitate the views expressed by the Irish Employers Confederation.

A point was made by Senator Markey regarding the very long delay between Second Stage and Committee Stage. The period between these two Stages was used for the purpose of consultations with Congress and the FUE. It took some months for both organisations to come up with their joint proposals on Part III of the Bill which then had to be approved by the Government. I considered the time was well spent given that the provisions in the 1955 Act about safety committees had not worked satisfactorily. The revision which we were making was in order to meet the wishes of both Congress and the FUE. I am hopeful now that with the co-operation of the Congress and of the FUE and with the active involvement of ourselves we can make this far more important and get far more safety committees working than the 274 that we had out of 18,000 work places.

Senator Markey also raised a point about the role of AnCO and the NISO, which I am sure will be the subject of discussions by the proposed working party. It would be useful for the proposed working party to have copies of this debate, and we will certainly make copies of it available to them to ensure that the points that were quite rightly made are considered when the working party get down to meeting.

Senator Markey also referred to the conditions in some factories and other premises. In Part II of the 1955 Act, in section 10, there is provision about cleanliness in factories generally. In fact there have been very few prosecutions under this provision. There is provision for fmes for breaches of the factory cleanliness regulation in section 10 (2) of the 1955 act.

I agree fully with Senator Cranitch when he says that attitudes and traditions of employers and workers are of great importance. It is provided by section 8 of the Bill that workers must take reasonable care of their own safety. Obviously this would be a difficult section to enforce, but I would take the opportunity to ask employees especially to take safety seriously and not in the fashion that Senator Cranitch described here.

Seanator Butler expressed some concern about fire and fire hazards and the need to train people as to what to do by means of fire drills. Several sections of the Bill deal with this area. Section 23 provides for a fire drill involving total evacuation of the factory at least every six months, and section 27 requires suitable equipment for fire fighting and suitable means of alerting the fire brigade to be available in factories. Section 22 requires the means of fire warning to be examined and tested at least once every six months to ensure that, as the Senator recommended, it is working properly. This section also deals with the provision of adequate means of escape in the event of fire. We have concerned ourselves with what was expressed. It is covered in the Bill.

I have also noted the detailed points made by Senator Butler, whose remarks obviously result from his long experience in this work situation, and they certainly deserve our attention. I will draw the Senator's remarks to the notice of the industrial inspectorate.

Some points made in relation to agriculture really concern the Department of Agriculture who have their own inspectors. The working party will, I hope, consider this very important point, and if necessary new arrangements will have to be made.

Senator Conroy spoke about the need for an educational compaign. I understand that the Department of Labour provides a subvention—it is £300,000 in the current year—for education to Congress, and the NISO also does some educational work as well. We propose, when this Bill is passed, to issue a small handbook which will be readily understandable by management and workers. It will be something like the handbook which was prepared with the Wild Life Bill, giving short, easily understandable details of what is involved.

Senator Mulcahy raised the question of noise levels and different equipment. There are already regulations under the Factories Acts in this regard. These are constantly under review, and regulations can be made within the Act to meet the problems that arise. The general noise level will be 90 decibels, but this will be constantly under review. If problems arise there they can be dealt with by way of regulations under the Factories Acts.

There are a variety of other aspects about explosives, with which the Department of Justice would be involved. We will certainly bring all the points raised here to the notice of the working party, which we are hopeful will get under way as soon as possible. It is important that the contents of the Bill, when enacted, should work right down to the factory floor level.

This is a detailed and difficult Bill to read. Most of it is techniclal, and by its very nature it has to be. We will arrange to draft a simple guide to the Act which will be easily understandable. It is my intention to raise with Congress as well how best to bring the provisions of Part III of the Bill on safety committees and so on to the attention of all workers.

The Bill is the beginning only and not an end. I hope to establish the working party on safety in the very near future, to consider safety in its broader aspects. Discussions in the matter are at present being arranged, by Congress and the FUE. These discussions will also include some EEC involvement. The findings of the working party should form the basis for further and more wide ranging legislation as well as other possible administrative actions. I thank Senators for a very constructive debate here this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Mr. Markey

A few amendments are being put down this afternoon so I would ask that Committee Stage be taken no earlier than next week.

Mr. Daly

I would like to get Committee Stage now because there has been adequate time to have amendments tabled on any of the sections.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The amendments cannot be tabled until the Second Stage is over.

Mr. W. Ryan

I appeal to Senators to agree to take the Committee Stage now.

Mr. Butler

The amendments proposed by Senator Markey should be considered. They will not take a lot of time next week, but to prepare the amendments we would be happy enough to take it next week.

Mr. W. Ryan

Next Wednesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28 May 1980.