We obviously got through Bord "Snip" too. Section 9 of the Bill sets out the duties of employees as requested by Senator Manning. These duties may be summarised as requiring employees to take reasonable care of their own safety, health and welfare and that of any other person and to co-operate with their employer and any other person so as to enable them to comply with their legal obligations in relation to safety and health at work. The general duties as set out in section 9 of the Bill can be amplified and clarified in regulations and code of practice as appropriate. As Senator Manning said, it has not been the practice to prosecute employees under the Safety in Industries Act, not least because the employee is often the person who has suffered the injury. This may change because both employers and workers' representatives will be involved in policy formulation and implementation at the highest levels. This may result in the adoption of a different policy in relation to prosecutions under the authority.
Regarding the level of fines there has been a lot of debate and no doubt when we come to Committee Stage there will be further debate on this. I appreciate the concern that an adequate level of fine should be provided for under the Bill. It is important, however, that the possibility of summary proceedings in the District Court be retained. This is less costly on the State, which is a good reason to start with. Despite the limit of £1,000 for District Court proceedings, the fact of taking an employer or a worker to court can have strong exemplary effect because the defendant suffers a loss of image.
Senator Manning made the point that perhaps a fine would not embarrass him. If a person is going to break the law, the level of the fine, no matter how big it is, will not stop him. By increasing the fine, you will not necessarily prevent the person from committing the crime again but you provide a deterrent. The vast majority of decent, honourable people do not like the idea of a prosecution of any kind. It is a matter of their own self-esteem and pride and that has been proven in a lot of cases.
The summary proceedings under the Bill should be taken by the Authority or enforcing agents and proceedings on indictment would be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions if necessary on foot of an approach to him by the Authority or an enforcing agency. In taking proceedings, a number of important factors would have to be taken into account including, first, the gravity of the matter which gave rise to the proceedings and, secondly, the need to avoid the higher level of costs which would arise in relation to less serious contraventions if proceedings could only be taken to the higher court. I feel that the facility of taking summary proceedings in the District Court should remain and would be valuable to the Authority in regard to the many offences which can arise under the Bill, even though the fine is limited to £1,000.
However, the Bill, as I stated at the outset, also provides for the possibility of proceedings on indictment in respect of the more serious offences. The fines which may be imposed on conviction and indictment are not specified in the Bill. In practice the maximum fine which the Circuit Court may currently impose is £15,000. The High Court of course may impose an unlimited fine if the accident or the offence is serious enough. The thrust of this legislation and the whole consensus approach of having the social partners involved is to try to get people to think and act and not just to be seen to be enforcing the law by prosecutions. The Act provides the powers necessary to deal with people who just ignore the whole thrust and spirit of the Bill. Generally, we are not seeking to obtain under the provisions of this Bill jail sentences of two years or £15,000 fines for people who break the law. The legislation is based very much on another philosophy which is that of people thinking and acting in a responsible way whether they be employees, employers or self-employed people. That is the philosophy which I have put forward in this House and the other House and which the Authority will put forward as well. If it is only based on fines and punishment, people will not necessarily follow it.
That is what Senator Manning outlined correctly regarding other legislation. He said if it is based on fines and on imposing fines, you do not necessarily get the corrective action that you need and I would agree with him on that. This legislation is based on the idea that it is good for everybody. It is good for your health and safety and for that of your fellow workers and employer. It also deals with accidents and sadness arising out of those, inconvenience and costs to the individual, loss of wages and salaries and loss of benefits. There are huge savings to the employer as well from the point of view of insurance claims and costs when employees are out of work. All these things add up to being an incentive for people to comply with this legislation.
I note Senator Hillery's comment in relation to the six EC Directives which form part of the social element of the completion of the internal market. These Directives tie in with the provisions of the Bill. It is not anticipated that their implementation will impose an undue burden on Irish employers. These Directives will not take effect until 1992 or afterwards. We had been so far behind in our legislation that only one-fifth of our population were covered by it but so much work has been done, particularly during the last two years in Europe, that we have been able to bring our legislation right up to date. A lot of movements in Europe, as the Senators will know, took place and are still taking place as part of the social charter. We are in the unique position that this Act brings us right back up to the forefront in regard to up-to-date legislation. Certain matters which are not up-to-date can be easily changed in codes of practice and regulations without having to come back to the Dáil and Seanad at a future time. The legislation can be amended by way of regulations.
Senator Manning also referred to environmental issues. He will appreciate that another Minister, in this case the Minister for the Environment, has overall responsibility for environment matters. He enforces a body of legislation dealing with such issues as pollution and waste disposal. This situation is reflected in the terms of reference given to the Barrington Commission at the outset which specifically excluded an examination of general environmental pollution issues. Nonetheless several activities on the safety and health side have a spin-off effect in the environmental area, particularly controls on dangerous substances and the operation of large chemical plants. The so-called Seveso regulations are important in this regard. Companies must have plans drawn up covering the on-site risk created by such plants and in turn, in liaison with the inspectors, the local fire services, health authorities and the Garda drawn up off-site plans to protect the public and the environment.
Section 7 of the Bill is important in that it places an obligation on the employer or self-employed person in relation to persons other than his employees who may be affected by his work activities. The main thrust of the legislation is however quite correctly directed towards the elimination of risks to workers in the workplace and I do not believe it would be advisable to depart from that central objective.
Finally I would just like to thank the Senators, particularly Senators Manning and Hillery, for their contributions and support for the Bill in terms of social progress. It is a radical measure and it will benefit our entire workforce. I look forward to the debate in this House on the remaining Stages at as early a date as possible.
