Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the 1960s witnessed a fundamental shift in our economy, away from entrepot trade and related servicing activities to manufacturing. To attract foreign investment and to accelerate the pace of industrialisation, the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act of 1968 were enacted. Rapid industrialisation and economic growth ensued accompanied by a drastic fall in man-days lost through unnecessary work stoppages. Whereas in 1967 a total of 41,322 man-days were lost through industrial strife, in 1968 a loss of 11,447 man-days was recorded. In 1969, the figure fell to 8,512 and, in 1970, it fell further to 2,514. Unfortunately, the incidence of industrial accidents exhibited an opposite trend. Fatal accidents rose annually from 68 in 1967 to 159 in 1970, while permanent disablement cases rose persistently from 598 to 886 between 1967 and 1970. Over the same period, man-days lost through industrial accidents rose appreciably from 99,539 in 1967 to 302,800 in 1970, an increase of around 300 per cent. In our essentially materialistic society, some employers still think of industrial accidents only in terms of dollars and cents. I would remind these employers that there are economic costs to industrial accidents which would include loss of output of the victim, monetary compensation, cost of damaged equipment, bottle-necks in production and training expenditure dissipated through accidents. The most painful aspect of industrial accidents, however, is the human suffering, anguish and misery caused by loss of life and health. The loss of a father, a husband, a loved one can never be compensated. To think otherwise is to brutalise our conscience. The problem of industrial safety and health has to be tackled on many fronts. On the legislative front, the existing Factories Act enacted 14 years ago, when there was hardly any manufacturing industry of note, is increasingly adequate for our present changed circumstances. This Bill seeks to revise and improve upon the Factories Act. Some relevant provisions of more advanced industrialised countries, notably the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, have been adopted with Xuitab1e modifications to fit our local environment. Both the Singapore Employers' Federation and the National Trades Union Congress were consulted, and some of their suggestions have been incorporated in the Bill. Altogether, there are 42 amendments and additions to the Factories Act. Consequently, it is neater to present a new Bill rather than amending the present one. As there are extensive amendments and in view of the Bill's importance, it is proposed to commit the Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament so that views of all interested parties can be considered. The Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Factories Act (Cap. 123 of the 1970 Revised Edition) with a view to (a) improving the health and safety measures anti the welfare facilities of persons employed in factories; and (b) ensuring a more stringent observance of the safety provisions so as to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. The main provisions of this Bill are detailed in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to draw attention to some of the more important changes. Clause 94 of the Bill empowers the Minister to appoint an Advisory Council for Industrial Heath and Safety. Hitherto, there was no institutional arrangement through which advice could be sought on matters pertaining to industrial health and safety. The proposed Advisory Council will have representatives from management, trade unions and professional bodies and will, therefore, be in a position to collectively advise the Minister on matters affecting safety, health and welfare Another important innovation introduced by the Bill is the appointment of safety officers. Clause 64 of the Bill requires certain factories to appoint safety officers solely for the purpose of exercising general safety supervision and for promoting the safe conduct of work. With the rapid growth of the number of factories in Singapore, it would be physically impossible for the Factory Inspectorate to make regular and periodic inspections on all these factories. It would therefore be necessary to insist that management police their own factories and ensure that they are safe. In addition, factories employing 50 or more persons will be required to set up safety committees to promote health, safety and welfare in their establishments. The rationale behind this requirement, which is set out in clause 65 of the Bill, is that both management and labour which will be represented on the safety committee can jointly contribute and participate in the promotion of industrial safety. In keeping with the Government's anti-pollution programme, the occupier of a factory will be required to take special preventive measures against the emission of harmful substances in the atmosphere. He will also be asked to provide appropriate protection for employees engaged in hazardous processes. Clause 59 of the Bill will require the occupier to substitute, wherever possible, less harmful substances, processes or techniques for their more harmful counterparts. The Bill also pays greater attention to workers engaged in occupations involving special risks to health. Under clause 62 of the Bill, the Minister can make regulations to require medical supervision and examination of persons employed in work involving special risks which are set out in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. It has been established that nearly 65 per cent of the accidents have been caused by the negligence or refusal on the part of the worker to use safety appliances provided and observe the measures stipulated. Clause 73 of the Bill makes it mandatory for employed persons to use appliances provided and the safety measures instituted. In order, therefore, that this provision is strictly observed, it is necessary that the culprits are brought to book quickly and dealt with effectively. Clause 81 of the Bill, therefore, provides that any authorised police officer or Inspector of Factories may arrest without any warrant any employed person who has contravened clause 73 of the Bill and produce him before a Magistrate's Court. Alternatively, the police officer or Inspector can straightaway issue a notice requiring the offender to attend at the Magistrate Court to answer the charge. Finally, the Bill provides for an increase in the quantum of fines or term of imprisonment imposed for all infringements of the Bill. For instance, under the old Factories Act, the penalty for operating an unregistered factory was a fine not exceeding $1.000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. Under this Bill, both the fine and term of imprisonment have been increased to $5,000 and six months respectively. Similarly, under the Factories Act, the penalty for an employed person found infringing the provisions of the Act is a fine not exceeding $500 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. This Bill has now increased the fine payable to a sum not exceeding $2,000. Such stiffening of the penalties for infringements of the law is clearly needed if employers and workers are to be made to understand and appreciate that Government means business in its efforts to reduce the high rate of industrial accidents occurring today. Question proposed. 2.46 p.m.