Vol. 319 No. 9
I was moving this amendment when the House adjourned the question last week.
I am proposing that the subclause "which is not a tour of inspection made by the inspector specifically to investigate an accident" be deleted. I should have thought that it would be as desirable for the factory inspector to be accompanied by the safety representative on a tour investigating an accident as on any other tour.
As sections Nos. 36 and 37 are drafted, it should be clear that the safety representative and the safety delegate, plus the safety committee of which the delegate is a member, would be primarily concerned with preventive measures in the area of workplace safety. Where despite preventive measures an accident occurs, the inspector who investigates it will need to find out what caused the accident and whether there was contravention of any existing legislative requirements. In order to get this information the person or persons employed, whom it is both relevant and imperative for the inspector to meet and talk with, are those directly involved with the accident—in other words, those who may have seen it, who may have been present, or who may have some information to offer. That is the practice already followed by the industrial inspectorate. Unless the safety representative or safety delegate was one of the persons directly involved, he would not be in a position to give the useful information which would be supplied by eyewitnesses to the accident. Therefore, his presence would not serve the inspectors twin purpose in making the investigation. It is not inconceivable that the safety representative or delegate might feel that he had some share in culpability for an accident and, indeed, his presence might even hinder the investigation if it inhibited those directly involved from communicating freely and privately with the inspector. This has been the practice and it is a good one.
In rejecting the Deputy's amendment I am bearing in mind the special nature and purposes of a tour made by an inspector specifically to investigate an accident and the fact that the practice followed at present to achieve the purposes of the investigation is satisfactory where the inspectorate are concerned.
I move amendment No. 60b:
In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(b) Before the commencement of any inspection the safety representative shall be informed of the inspection by the inspector, and shall be afforded the opportunity of a private discussion with the inspector.".
This amendment is something along the same lines as the previous one. It is to reinforce the role of the safety representative and also to protect the safety representative and give him an adequate opportunity to discuss with the factory inspector, in private, the safety measures at the particular place of employment. We propose here the addition of a further paragraph.
If we do not make some provision along these lines the inspector could very will be led astray by the management of the firm who would have a vested interest in insisting that they had observed all the safety requirements when sometimes they might not have done. It would be highly desirable that any inspection by the factory inspectorate should be notified at the outset—not necessarily in advance—to the safety representative at the beginning of the inspection and that he should have an opportunity to discuss in private, without anyone else being present, the whole safety situation at the place of employment concerned.
My first point in reply to Deputy Mitchell is that I could not accept that the inspectorate could be influenced by anyone. Since I came to the Department I have been impressed by the competence and the independence of the inspectorate. I know that will continue in the future. I am glad the Deputy has clarified a point because I was not sure from the wording of the amendment whether it referred to prior notice. It is important that the inspectorate have the opportunity of deciding when they will call on a company, not necessarily giving advance notice. That should remain the decision of the inspectorate. However, I think arrangements could be made on an administrative basis to ensure that the safety representative is informed before the inspector commences inspection. I know the FUE will encourage their member companies to see that this is done. In addition, the name of the safety representative will have been entered on the general register by virtue of subsection (4) of this section. Therefore, the inspector will know if a safety representative has been appointed and can ask that he accompany him on his tour.
Furthermore, subsection (3) will oblige the occupier to consider representations made to him by the safety representative on matters affecting the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed and such representations could include the fact that the safety representative is to be notified by the occupier before an inspector commences his tour of inspection. With regard to the question of the safety representative being afforded the opportunity of having a private discussion with the inspector, it goes without saying that the inspector would be pleased to afford him such an opportunity since the inspectorate place considerable importance on the advisory role of inspectors. It goes without saying also that it would be in the interests of the occupier not to frustrate the opportunity for a private discussion because he stands to gain by anything that will improve knowledge and awareness on matters of health and safety on the part of the safety representative and, consequently, of all employees.
I believe the position is covered adequately. I am almost satisfied that this amendment is not necessary but as I want to ensure that the Bill is as comprehensive as possible I am prepared to look at the amendment between now and Report Stage. However, I wish to repeat that I do not think there is need for the amendment.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I want to press the amendment.
The Deputy has the choice. However, if he presses the amendment he will lose.
We have lost every amendment we put down.
That is not correct.
It highlights the approach of the Minister and the Government in not giving Parliament the seriousness and importance it should have so that legislation can be improved in the House. If that importance were attached to it we would have a larger attendance in the House. The fact is, there is never a good attendance in the House on occasions like this because Parliament is irrelevant. It is not allowed to make any improvements. The important question is, what does acceptance or non-acceptance of the amendment mean in the context of safety? It is not important that I beat the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, or he beats me. The important thing is, does the amendment improve the Bill?
If we are serious about safety we must build up the importance of safety representatives, delegates and committees. Also, we must make them as imdependent as possible. Because a person suggests prudence does not mean he is reflecting in any way on the factory inspectorate. On the contrary. The factory inspectorate is composed of human beings like every other section. I am saying it is a basic, reasonable requirement that when the factory inspector arrives at a place of employment, whether it be after an accident or on a routine inspection, the safety representative should be informed at the beginning of the tour so that he may have an opportunity to discuss privately with the inspector the whole question of safety. It is not unknown for safety representatives or others to be afraid to express publicly their fears about safety precautions in case their employer might take it out on them because of the financial cost involved. I should have thought the Minister would have understood that very human possibility. Probably it does not arise in most cases but it could in some cases. It does not reflect one iota on the factory inspectorate or the safety representative but it betrays a lack of understanding of human behaviour on the part of the Minister not to make such a provision.
It is no surprise we have had to table an amendment like this but it was a major concession by the Minister to say he would consider it between now and Report Stage. It is symptomatic of this entire Bill. Some two-and-a-half years ago the Bill was put on the Order Paper because of the lack of a legislative programme on the part of the Government. It is interesting to note that the Minister has had to table many amendments to his own Bill. In addition, he conceded that he will have to set up a working party to get a right Bill when this is passed. The approach by the Government deserves to be highlighted and criticised. There is little point in our going through the charade of a debate here, of trying to improve legislation when every single suggestion, however meritorious or non-political, has been thrown out by the Minister. This has happened also in the case of other Ministers.
This is a simple but important amendment. It provides that before the commencement of an inspection the safety representative shall be informed of the inspection by the inspector and shall be afforded the opportunity of a private discussion with him. The Minister has made his position clear. We know the amendment can and will be defeated. Alternatively, I have been told that if I leave the matter, as a concession to me the Minister may have a look at this matter between now and Report Stage. I do not think that is good enough. I want this amendment in the Bill, by fair means or foul, but I will not press it now. I hope the Minister will take what I have said into account.
The Deputy strayed somewhat from the terms of the amendment. I did not say that this Bill was the overall Bill where safety was concerned. I said there was need for the Bill, for updating existing legislation. The setting up of the working party is entirely outside the Bill. The purpose of establishing the working party is to examine the whole area of safety. I never claimed that was covered by this Bill. I am convinced there is no need for the amendment but I repeat, in the interests of safety I am prepared to look at the points raised by the Deputy between now and Report Stage. I think that is a fair approach.
Amendment No. 61 has been debated already.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 23, subsection (6), line 25, to insert ", other than a dock, wharf, quay or warehouse." after "premises".
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 23, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new subsection:
"(8) (a) The Minister may by regulations amend subsection (6) of this section by substituting for `twenty' therein a number specified in the regulations.
(b) Before making regulations under this subsection the Minister shall consult with such organisations or other bodies of persons representative of employers and such organisations or other bodies of persons representative of trade unions or bodies analogous to trade unions as he considers appropriate.
(c) Where regulations under this subsection are for the time being in force each of the references to `twenty' in the following provisions of this Act, namely, subsection (7) of this section and sections 37 (8) and 38 (1) (a) of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the number specified in the regulations.".
The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to a proposal that was agreed jointly by the ICTU and the IEC. It is to empower the Minister to revise upwards or downwards by regulations the number of persons employed in a relevant factory or other premises in connection with the appointment of a safety representative. Before making such regulations the Minister is required to consult the representative bodies of the employers and the unions. Clearly, regulations made under this subsection would have a direct bearing on section 37, safety committees, and section 38, occupier appointed safety representatives of safety committees. To avoid any possibility of conflict paragraph (c) of this amendment provides that where such regulations are in force under section 36 the reference to "twenty" in subsection (7) of that section and in sections 37, 38 and 38 (1) are to be construed as a reference to whatever number is specified in those regulations instead of 20.
Amendment No. 63 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 63.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 23, subsection (1) (a), to insert "members of" before "a committee" in line 35.
The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to the proposals which were agreed jointly by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Employers Confederation. Under the revised version of subsection (1), which I am now proposing, safety committees will be joint committees with the proportion of the occupier representation being less than that of the employees. As part of the proposal about the composition of safety committees was that the safety delegate was to be appointed always from amongst the employee representation on the committees an amendment of subsection (4) is not necessary in that regard.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 23, subsection (1), between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) Where pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection the number of members of which a safety committee is to be comprised is—
(i) four or less, one member of the committee may be appointed by the relevant occupier and, subject to section 38 of this Act, the remaining members of the committee may be selected and appointed by the persons employed in the relevant premises from amongst their number,
(ii) not more than eight and not less than five, two members of the committee may be appointed by the relevant occupier and, subject to the said section 38, the remaining such members may be so selected and appointed,
(iii) more than eight, three members of the committee may be appointed by the relevant occupier and, subject to the said section 38, the remaining such members may be so selected and appointed.".
Before I move amendment No. 65 I wish to move a small verbal amendment to amendment No. 65.
I move:
After "Acts" to insert "where it secondly occurs"
The need for this is that "Acts" are referred to twice in the amendment.
Could the Minister clarify this?
It should be fairly clear from the reading of the amendment but we are putting in "where it secondly occurs" in case of any confusion.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 24, subsection (4) (b), line 8, to delete "their number" and substitute "those of their number who were selected and appointed by the persons employed in the relevant premises".
Amendment No. 70a is consequential on No. 66a and may be discussed with it.
I move amendment No. 66a:
In page 24, line 11, after "section," to insert "or if no safety delegate is appointed, the Chairperson for the time being of the Committee shall undertake this function,".
This amendment proposes "or if no safety delegate is appointed, the Chairperson for the time being of the Committee shall undertake this function,". This is just to ensure that somebody is empowered to act. If a committee had not selected somebody, the chairperson can be empowered to accompany the inspector and make representations pursuant to this section.
Subparagraph (1) will entitle a safety committee to select and appoint a safety delegate from amongst those of their number who were selected and appointed by the persons employed in the relevant premises. If the safety committee freely chose not to select and appoint a safety delegate they are perfectly entitled to make that decision and I see no justification for permitting the chairman of the committee to undertake the functions of safety delegates in the event of a safety delegate not being appointed in those circumstances. Further, should it so happen that a safety committee became aware of the impending visit of an inspector and while wishing to avail themselves of the functions given to a safety delegate where an inspector is concerned, had not yet appointed a safety delegate for whatever reason, there is nothing in the section which would preclude the committee from calling a meeting and appointing one of their employee members to be the safety delegate for a specified period of time, such as would be sufficient to cover the visit of the inspector. There is no question of any member of the safety committee undertaking the functions of the safety delegate. The committee either appoint a safety delegate or they do without one. At the same time there is no restriction in the section on the length of time during which a safety delegate must hold office. In that way contingencies may be catered for by making a short term appointment. That should satisfy the Deputy.
I had in mind a case where, for instance, the committee had not appointed a safety representative and an incident or an inspection occurs and there is not time or opportunity to call a meeting—there would not be any time if the inspection takes place without notice as it should. In those circumstances the chairperson for the time being would have the same entitlement as the safety representative. I understand the Minister's fear that this might be a way of not having safety representatives or avoiding their appointments, something I would not want, but it occurs to me that it would increase the power and status and authority of the safety committees and safety representatives in this area. I believe we need to strengthen safety committees and I think this minor amendment would help in that regard.
I think I have explained the position. I would not like to see the functions of a committee being taken over by any one person even the chairman. I believe that without this amendment the section is much safer. The committee have a number of options open to them and if they were working as a committee it would be desirable that they should at the first opportunity appoint the persons they would intend to appoint. I fear the Deputy's amendment might be harmful rather than otherwise if I were to accept it.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 24, subsection (4) (b), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new subparagraph:
"(ii) When reasonably practicable a person appointed to be a safety delegate shall have had, within the period of two years ending immediately prior to his appointment, experience in the work in which are engaged in the course of their employment the persons with whose safety, health and welfare he is concerned,".
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are related and may be debated together.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 24, subsection (4) (e), line 23, after "person" to insert "or persons".
The purpose of these amendments is to enable the occupier to nominate more than one person to attend safety committee meetings on his behalf. This would be desirable in cases where, for example, items under discussion by the safety committee involved more than one department or section of the firm and it would obviously be of advantage to the meeting if an appropriate person from each Department or section were able to attend.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 24, subsection (4) (f), line 25, after "nominee" to insert "or nominees".
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 24, subsection (5), line 51, to delete "the request of a safety committee," and substitute "receipt of a notification in that behalf,".
This amendment arises from discussions which took place with interested bodies between the completion of Second Stage and the initiation of Committee Stage of the Bill. As the subsection is drafted at present the occupier is obliged to enter certain particulars about the safety committee on the general register only when the safety committee request him to do so. The amendment proposes to change this so that once the occupier has been notified about particulars by the safety committee he is obliged to enter these particulars in the general register irrespective of whether or not he has been requested to do so by the safety committee.
Amendment No. 71 was already debated with amendment No. 33.
Before passing amendment No. 71 there is one small point. There is a small verbal amendment to this.
I move:
"To insert after "premises""where is secondly occurs".
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 25, subsection (9), line 30, to insert ", other than a dock, wharf, quay or warehouse," after "premises".
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 25, subsection (9), line 31, to insert "and are not a premises to which section 36 of this Act applies" after "applies".
This is a drafting amendment. While section 36 gives the right to have a safety representative in a premises in which not more than 20 persons are employed for the time being there is no reference in section 37 which would give the right to have a safety committee in a premises in which more than 20 persons are employed. The reason for not having included a numbers qualification in section 37 is that the intention was to allow the setting up of voluntary safety committees irrespective of the total number of persons employed in a premises but if such a committee were not set up the occupier would have to step in under section 38 and appoint either a safety representative if not more than 20 were employed on the premises, or a safety committee if more than 20 persons were employed there. The parliamentary draftsman advised me that there was a conflict in section 36 and the amendment is intended to dovetail the provisions.
Has any provision been made for very large places of employment in this section?
The provision is for over 20.
Suppose a firm employed 2,000 or 3,000 people they would need more than one safety committee. A safety committee of 20 would be satisfactory for a place that employed 100 people but a place such as the Inchicore works which employs about 1,000 people would need more than one safety committee. Has the Minister thought about providing for such firms?
I take the Deputy's point but in our industrial circumstances as the Deputy is aware, our numbers in any premises are not exceptionally high. The Deputy can take it that the safety committee provisions are adequate.
There is a provision with which we dealt earlier whereby the safety representative is required to have, after two years, some first-hand knowledge of the type of work going on in the place for which he is the safety delegate. In a place such as the Inchicore works, Asahi or Guinesses there are many different types of work in very big premises and I feel that they would require more than one safety committee, they would need departmental safety committees and safety delegates. Will the Minister consider that aspect between now and Report Stage?
I support Deputy Mitchell's point. At the moment we are not talking about industries employing 2,000 people but the history of Ferenka which employed about 1,500 people should be borne in mind. Safety factors were one of the things that contributed to the situation at Ferenka which subsequently closed down. For that reason the Minister should consider this point.
We had extensive discussions with both sides on this point. More than ten members on a committee might make them unwieldly, inefficient and perhaps not as committed. I take the Deputy's point that what may be appropriate for one concern is not necessarily appropriate for another but a committee with a maximum number of ten seems adequate. I am reluctant to bring in an amendment to change the size of the committee, especially to enlarge it because a proper representative committee of ten should cover the situation.
I agree that a committee that is too big will not be appropriate but from my experience of serving on safety committees in very large employments it is desirable to have a central safety committee responsible for safety policy and also to have more localised safety committees in the departments. Otherwise a safety representative is unlikely to be fully aware of the nature of the work and the hazards involved in so many different areas in places of employment. Consideration should be given to making provision for sectional or departmental safety.
These amendments have been discussed in great detail with both sides of industry. If any such changes were regarded as being necessary I have no doubt that those people would have pushed for them. They did not do so. It would be undesirable at this stage to consider it because obviously it would involve a further consultation and we want this Bill to pass through the House as quickly as possible. Having had detailed consultation on these amendments, particularly with regard to the committee, the Deputies could accept the position as it is now stated in the Bill.
We may not be able to live up to amendment No. 67 which we have just passed. The amendment reads:
When reasonably practicable a person appointed to be a safety delegate shall have had, within the period of two years ending immediately prior to his appointment, experience in the work in which are engaged in the course of their employment the persons with whose safety, health and welfare he is concerned.
How does a safety delegate so provided get experience in all aspects of the work in a multi-process concern where there may be as many as 4,000 people employed, as there is for instance in Guinness's Brewery, where the safety provisions now being suggested are already in operation? I wonder if we should take Guinness's as an example and see if other large concerns are living up to that standard because otherwise amendment No. 67 is not going to be enforceable or practicable.
There is also little merit in our considering this Bill here in this House if the implication of what the Minister is saying is that, having consulted with both sides of industry, there will be no change in the proposal and no further consultation and that it is accepted. We should take every opportunity as the Bill passes through the House to discuss any improvement in safety suggested.
I accept entirely that the House has the final decision. It would be very foolish of any Minister for Labour or any spokesman to pass such legislation without consultation. It is extremely important. But I would also emphasise that the point the Deputy is making is not relevant to the amendment we are discussing.
It did arise on the discussion.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "one month" and substitute "three months".
This amendment arises out of discussions with the interested bodies which I referred to. It was requested by the Irish Employers Confederation. The purpose is to extend the period within which the employer must provide a safety representative or a safety committee, as appropriate, in cases where employees have not done so. The extension is to three months instead of, as provided at present, one month after the expiration of six months from the commencement of sections 36 and 37. This will enable the employees themselves to select and appoint either a safety representative or members of a safety committee, depending on the number of persons employed in a factory or premises.
Notwithstanding the Minister's statement that there is apparent agreement between the social partners on this point, I think this is a move in the wrong direction. It weakens the Bill. We are now going to give three months over and above a period of six months when no safety representative or safety committee or safety delegate will be appointed. In other words, there would be a possibility of a maximum of nine months. Seven months is long enough and I regret this amendment. The one month should stand.
I want to clear something up. Amendment No. 73a is on the brief here as relating to section 38. It really relates to section 40, so we will have to deal with the sections in between before we deal with that.
I move amendment No. 73a:
In page 26, line 48, after "premises" to insert "and in each part thereof".
This deals with making provision for large places of employment. There are many of those in this city and indeed around the country, particularly in Cork, Limerick, Shannon and Ballina. A general statement on safety from employers could be a very long one and therefore meaningless in respect of each place of employment, especially where there are different processes going on. I do not know the lay-out of the Asahi plant in Ballina but I do know that they use vinyl chloride which is a very dangerous substance. Obviously, in departments where such a dangerous substance is used there would have to be a very clear statement of safety policy and everybody in the department ought to be aware of that safety statement. If this is to be included with a safety statement dealing with the maintenance shop or the offices or the distribution depot it could well get lost. Therefore, I propose inserting here the words "and in each part thereof" so that the matter does not get lost in a very big statement or so that at least the statement would appear in each department. It would improve the section under discussion if we added those words.
The Deputy's amendment postulates a position where in every premises there would be a place in which the safety and health of the persons employed would be at risk. This is obviously not true. There will be parts of most premises which will not constitute an inherent danger to safety and health—for example, the place where people hang up their coats. The requirement placed on the occupier under section 40 is that he has to specify in the safety statement the manner in which the safety and health of persons employed in the premises will be secured. I can, therefore, assure the Deputy—legal advice has confirmed this for me—that, should there be a risk in relation to safety and health of the persons employed in any part of his premises, then the occupier must include the arrangements for safeguarding the safety and health of such persons in those parts of his premises in the safety statement. If the occupier fails to do this, then his safety statement will not be an adequate one and section 40 (4) (a) empowers the Minister to require him to revise it. The position is adequately covered without the Deputy's amendment.
I accept what the Minister has stated, that the safety statement should include reference to the particular departments where there is a danger or hazard but in large premises one would need a comprehensive statement dealing with different hazards and dangers within each department. Employees of a big concern could not go through a long statement. I am not pressing my amendment but I suggest that the Minister again consider the point I raised.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 27, subsection (1) (b), lines 2 and 3, to delete "if necessary be revised from time to time", and to substitute "be revised as often as may be appropriate".
This amendment deals specifically with the safety statement. Subsection (1) (a) states that the occupier of a premises must prepare or cause to be prepared a statement in writing specifying the manner in which the safety and health of persons employed in the premises will be secured, and without prejudice to the generality of the former, the statement should specify the arrangements for safeguarding the safety and health of such persons. My amendment seeks to revise the statement "as often as may be appropriate" and not "from time to time" as is provided for in the Bill. The subsection I refer to is not strong enough. With diversification in industry and changes in the use of machinery the safety factor can alter over a short period. The statement should be revised as often as may be appropriate to the safety of the workers in the industry.
This amendment was also put forward by the ICTU in the course of discussions which took place between the completion of Second Stage and the initiation of Committee Stage of the Bill. It was explained to the ICTU delegation at the time that paragraph (b) of subsection (1), paragraph (a) of subsection (4), subsection (3) and subsection (5) of this section adequately met that organisation's proposed amendment. In other words, under the provisions to which I have just referred, a safety statement shall, if necessary, be revised from time to time. That statement must be revised by direction of the Minister, in accordance with the specifications in that regard contained in the direction, in cases where the Minister is not satisfied that the statement is adequate and whether or not the statement had already been revised by the occupier. A safety statement must be given, in the form of a copy, to an inspector once the inspector asks for it. On examination of the statement, the inspector will be in a position to advise the occupier as to whether or not it is adequate. If it is not, and the occupier refuses to revise it, then the Minister has been empowered to give a direction to the occupier in the way I have already mentioned. In addition, the safety statement shall be given, as appropriate, in the form of a copy to the safety committee or every person employed in the premises. This constitutes another check to ensure that the statement is adequate. The points put forward by the Deputy are reasonably well covered by the section.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 27, subsection (3) (c) lines 14 and 15, to delete “in case there is neither such a representative nor such a committee,”.
Subsection (c) of section 40 states:
(c) In case there is neither such a representative nor such a committee, to every person employed in the premises.
My amendment provides that every employee should be given a separate issue of the safety statement rather than through another source.
This amendment was put forward by the ICTU in the course of the discussions which took place. The practical reasons behind the provision at paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section were explained to the ICTU delegation. I should like to outline them again for the Deputy's information. From the eventual commencement date of sections 36, 37 and 38, employees will have six months in which to select and appoint safety representatives and safety committees. If they do not do so within that six month period then the relevant occupiers will have a further three months, as a result of the section we have just passed, in which to make the appointments. Therefore, there could be a time lag of between six and nine months from the coming into operation of sections 36, 37 and 38 before safety representatives and safety committees are appointed. Paragraph (c) of subsection (3) is designed to cover this pre-appointment period and will ensure that, in such case, every person employed in the premises will be given a copy of the safety statement.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 27, subsection (6) (a), lines 36 and 37, to delete "in which more than twenty persons are employed for the time being, and".
The minimum of 20 people would not meet the needs to ensure proper safety. In recent years the emphasis has been on the creation of small industries and in many concerns throughout the country the maximum work force is 14 people. I believe all workers are entitled to the same attention and protection as a work force of 150 people. The same procedures should apply in any workplace, irrespective of numbers.
Basically, amendment No. 77 is a drafting amendment. With regard to the points made by Deputy Ryan I should like to state that the purpose of it is to apply the section to premises where "20 or more" persons are employed, as opposed to where "more than 20" are employed. Amendment No. 77 is relevant to that being moved by the Deputy to this section with the aim of deleting the phrase "in which more than 20 persons are employed for the time being". Acceptance by me of such an amendment would have the effect of applying the section to those premises to which section 26 of this Bill applies, irrespective of the number of persons employed in them.
It is not my general intention to expand legislation about safety statements to cover premises with less than 20 employees. Apart from the fact that such premises are relatively few in number, comprising less than one-tenth of the total number of premises subject to inspection, there is the consideration that their small size would not normally necessitate the formal preparation by the occupier of a safety statement. In such cases the occupier and the employees, being known to one another, could work out safety policy easily and informally among themselves.
I should like to draw Deputies' attention to paragraph (b) of subsection 6 of this section which enables the Minister for Labour to apply the section by regulations to premises additional to those referred to in paragraph (a) of the same section where any manufacture, plant or process is of such a nature as is likely to cause risk of bodily injury to persons employed. Thus it will be possible for premises where the nature of the work is inherently dangerous to be brought within the scope of this section irrespective of the number of persons employed. I have taken into consideration the points made by the Deputy in the amendment. The amendment as outlined by the Deputy is not necessary but I am prepared to have a further look at it between now and Report Stage.
I am grateful to the Minister for offering to look at it on Report Stage. There are a number of small industries doing good work and the workers are entitled to the same protection as in major industries.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 27, subsection (6), lines 36 and 37, to delete "more than twenty" and substitute "twenty or more".
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 27, subsection (6), line 41, to delete "machinery, plant, equipment or appliance" and substitute "plant or process".
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 27, subsection (6), line 45, to delete "machinery, plant, equipment or appliance" and substitute "plant or process".
Amendments Nos. 82, 84 and 86 are consequential on amendment No. 80. Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 85 are related. All these amendments may be debated together.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 32, lines 9 to 14, to substitute the following for subsection (1):
"(1) (a) The Minister may designate under this subsection a registered medical practitioner.
(b) A person who for the time being stands designated under this subsection shall be known, and is in this section subsequently referred to, as an `industrial medical adviser'.
(c) It shall be the duty of an industrial medical adviser—
(i) in case for the time being there does not stand designated under this subsection any other industrial medical adviser, to advise the Minister professionally in relation to his functions under the Acts,
(ii) in case there stands for the time being so designated one or more other industrial medical advisers, to advise the Minister professionally in relation to such of his functions under the Acts as the Minister shall from time to time specify in writing in relation to him.".
Further consideration has been given to section 51 of the Bill since completion of Second Stage. The amendments I am now proposing are aimed at re-shaping the section to take account of possible future developments. In that connection the amendments have regard to the possibility of there being 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, as for example to distinguish differences in grade. They have a regard to 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. Also they have regard to the possible tasks of the advisers, permitting 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.
The reference in the singular to industrial medical adviser is being changed throughout the section where appropriate and is consequential on the terms of the proposed new subsection (1) which now permits the designation of one or more industrial medical advisers.
I accept the amendment, but there is a great need that such registered medical practitioners as are appointed should have industrial medical experience.
I accept the Deputy's point.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 32, lines 15 to 17, to delete subsection (2).
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 32, subsection (3) (a), lines 19 and 20, to delete "the person who is for the time being the Industrial Medical Adviser" and substitute "any person who is for the time being an industrial medical adviser" and in line 25, to delete "the Industrial Medical Adviser" and substitute "an industrial medical adviser".
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 32, subsection (3) (b), line 27, to delete "the Industrial Medical Adviser" and substitute "every industrial medical adviser".
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 32 subsection (5), line 37, to delete "the Industrial Medical Adviser" and substitute "an industrial medical adviser".
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 32, lines 42 to 48, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:
"(6) An industrial medical adviser may—
(a) invite any person who, in such adviser's opinion, either has been or may be exposed in the course of his employment in a factory or specified premises to any risk of bodily injury or other danger to his health,
(b) for the purpose of comparing with that of other persons the state of health of persons employed in different factories or specified premises or in different places in the same factory or specified premises, invite any person
to be medically examined, at such place as he shall designate, either by him or on his behalf or by or on behalf of such certifying doctor or other registered medical practitioner as he shall specify".
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 32, subsection (7), line 49, to delete "the Industrial Medical Adviser" and substitute "an industrial medical adviser".
Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 33, paragraph (b), line 49, after "premises," to insert "or".
These are drafting amendments. Their purpose is to distinguish between subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and to apply subparagraph (iii) to both of those subparagraphs.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 33, paragraph (b) (iii), line 53, before "the fact" to insert "in either case,".
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 34, after line 6, to add the following new paragraph:
"(c) an inspector shall, for the purpose of keeping persons (or the representatives of persons) employed at any premises adequately informed about the matters affecting their health, safety and welfare, give to such persons or their representatives the following information:
(i) factual information obtained by him in relation to those premises or anything which was or is therein or was or is being done therein.
(ii) information with respect to any action which he has taken or proposes to take in or in connection with those premises in the performance of his functions.".
This amendment would be a concluding paragraph to section 55.
This amendment was also put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the course of discussions which took place. It was explained to the delegation at the time that this section was drafted in accordance with legal advice to the effect that its provisions should be permissive and that, in the circumstances, acceptance of the amendment was not possible. Section 55 as drafted will enable information concerning factual matters relating to safety, health and welfare to be made available. There are clearly serious legal obstacles to going any further than that. This in fact was acknowledged by my predecessor in the discussion document of 29 June 1977 in which it was stated:
Employees have an interest also in the investigation by the Minister for Labour and his Department of complaints concerning non-compliance with existing safety laws. There are however serious practical and legal problems involved in making available information of this nature in cases which might ultimately have to be brought to the courts for determination. In the interests of stimulating and maintaining worker involvement, the new legislation could give power to the Minister to reveal specific kinds of information consistent with the reasonable interests of all parties in the safety situation.
That quotation acknowledges that serious legal obstacles were considered in that discussion document. When I examined the legal advice obtained on this matter I saw no reason to disagree with my predecessor's acceptance of it, and the terms of section 55 correspond to the proposal made in that discussion document.
I should like to draw the attention of Deputies to other provisions on safety, health and welfare in the Bill which are broadly designed for informative or helpful purposes where safety representatives, safety committees and safety delegates are concerned. Under sections 36 and 37 safety representatives and safety delegates are entitled to accompany an inspector on any tour, or on any part of such tour, of inspection of the relevant premises which is not a tour of inspection made specifically to investigate an accident. Safety delegates are entitled to make representations to an inspector on matters concerning the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed in the relevant premises.
Under section 39, on the request of a safety representative, safety committee or safety officer, the Minister for Labour is empowered to cause an investigation to be carried out as regards a danger, or potential danger, to the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in the relevant premises and to communicate the outcome of the investigation to whoever requested it.
Under section 40 the occupier of the relevant premises is required to prepare a written safety statement which has to be given to the safety representative or safety committee. I might also mention that when talks are being held with representatives of both sides of industry prior to the making of regulations, as is required under sections 36 and 37, and additional functions for safety representatives and safety committees, I intend to have considered the question of disclosure by the occupier to such representatives and committees of adequate information to facilitate them in the efficient performance of their functions. Effective communications and information flows in both directions should be the aim in any firm. It should not only be the aim but the rule, where safety, health and welfare are concerned in the interests of both employers and employees.
I have explained the position and the legal obstacles to the Deputy and ask him to accept the position.
Amendment No. 90 is consequential on amendment No. 96. The Minister to move.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 34, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the" and substitute "The".
The main amendment here is the proposed deletion of subsections (3) and (4). The amendment to subsection (1) is a drafting amendment and is clearly consequential on that deletion. Subsections (3) and (4) have been reconsidered since the completion of the Second Stage of the Bill. The Attorney General drew my attention to a decision that was taken—and with which he is in agreement—by the previous administration in relation to the then Consumer Information Bill, whereby a proposal to include provisions similar to subsections (3) and (4) of section 57 of this Bill was rejected on the grounds that such a course would be open to very serious objection from the point of view of public policy in the area of criminal law. That proposal was, therefore, opposed as a matter of principle, apart from any other consideration that might arise. It is on the basis which I have just outlined that I tabled these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 34 subsection (1) (a), line 14, to delete ", 91 (5) or 102" and substitute "or 91 (5)".
The text of section 57 as drafted at present does not lay down the maximum monetary penalty in respect of continuing offences. These amendments are designed to rectify that error. As any person guilty of an offence under the Safety in Industry Acts shall be liable to a fine on summary conviction, it is the District Court which is in question and trial by jury is not involved. Therefore, my legal advice is that it is essential to fix a ceiling on the amount imposable for a continuing offence—that is, not to exceed £600 in all—given that, were the monetary penalty to go beyond that amount, the offences in question would be outside the jurisdiction of the District Court.
On this section——
We are dealing with amendments, not the section.
This highlights the problem. Parliament is continuing the practice of fixing fines which quickly become irrelevant. Years ago when inflation rates were not very high that was all right, but lately inflation rates can be of the order of 20 per cent or 25 per cent and very quickly the significance of these fines is reduced. There are still in law many Acts which impose fines which were relevant when they were enacted but which have become totally irrelevant, thereby subverting Parliament's intention. We should consider having an annual indexation Bill which would update all these fines, including the authority of the District Court. Obviously the fining authority of the District Courts should be index-linked. The maximum fine in the District Court is the same as it was several years ago. In real terms that fine is much lower. I advocate that we consider having an annual indexation Bill——
That is a general point but I must point out that something which is not in the Bill cannot be discussed now.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 34, subsection (1), lines 23 to 31, to substitute the following paragraph for paragraph (c):
"(c) the maximum penalties for an offence under section 45 (2) of the Principal Act shall be a fine of £150 and a further fine (not exceeding £600 in all) of £30 for each day on which the offence continues, and, accordingly, that section shall be construed and have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph,".
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 34, subsection (1), lines 37 to 45, to substitute the following paragraph for paragraph (e):
"(e) the maximum penalty for an offence under section 78 (2) (g) of the Principal Act shall be—
(i) in the case of the offence first mentioned in that section, a fine of £60, and
(ii) in the case of the further offence mentioned in that section, a fine (not exceeding £600 in all) of £30 for each day on which the offence continues,
and, accordingly, that section shall be construed and have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph,".
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 34, subsection (1), between lines 50 and 51, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(g) the maximum penalties for an offence under section 101 of the Principal Act shall be a fine of £100 and a further fine (not exceeding £600 in all) of £10 for each day on which the offence continues, and, accordingly, that section shall be construed and have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph,
(h) the maximum penalty for an offence under section 102 of the Principal Act shall be a fine (not exceeding £600 in all) of £15 for each day on which non-compliance with the relevant order under that section continues, and, accordingly, the said section 102 shall be construed and have effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph,".
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 35, lines 17 to 31, to delete subsection (2).
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 35, lines 32 to 49, to delete subsections (3) and (4).
Amendment No. 97, and amendment No. 99 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 35, after line 60, to insert the following new paragraph:
"3. In section 11 (7) `4.27 metres (14 feet)' is hereby substituted for `fourteen feet'.".
The purpose of these amendments is to include in the Schedule two additional metric equivalents for certain imperial measurements contained in the Factories Act, 1955. This should raise no problems.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 36, paragraph 11, line 19, after both "seventy-two and a half" and "eighty" to insert "degrees".
This is merely a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to insert the word "degrees" in the two places where it is missing in the paragraph as drafted at present.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 36, paragraph 12, line 22, to delete "is hereby substituted for `sixty degrees"' and insert "and`. 11 grams of oxygen per litre (half a gram of oxygen per gallon)' are hereby substituted for `sixty degrees' and `half a gram of oxygen per gallon', respectively".
