HL Deb 14 November 1991 vol 532 cc666-77

4.6 p.m.

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is fairly non-controversial. We on this side of the House support the Bill but I should like to make some comments on it.

We all know that getting oil from the seabed is a very dangerous business. That, as the Minister said, was brought home to all of us as a result of the horrendous Piper Alpha disaster. But the workings in the North Sea have been taking a toll in human lives and injuries ever since they started. Only on Saturday, the press carried a report of what is the longest hearing in Scottish legal history—the inquiry into the accident and fire on an oil rig operated by Arco British and owned by Odeco which resulted in the death of an employee. The report indicated that this could have been prevented had those in charge of the rig exercised proper control. The principal witnesses did not show up at all, thus occasioning sharp criticism from the Sheriff Principal. That accident took place three months after the Piper Alpha tragedy when everyone should have been very sharply aware of the hazards. It is not surprising that the union involved should be calling for the owners and operators to be prosecuted.

It is as well to remind ourselves when considering a Bill of this kind just how horrific the Piper Alpha tragedy was. On the evening of 6th July 1988, the lives of 165 people out of a total of 226 on board were lost. Two more lives were lost in a rescue attempt. Some bodies were never recovered. It was a total disaster for the families and the communities from which those men came. In so far as we can through legislation we have to try to ensure that nothing like it can happen again, although it is of course true that the operations are themselves inherently hazardous.

As the Minister said, following the Piper Alpha disaster the Government set up an inquiry under the Honourable Lord Cullen. Some of the recommendations of his report are carried through in the Bill. Lord Cullen recommended that there should he a single regulatory body and, on balance, favoured transfer-ring responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive. That, as the Minister explained, has now been done. Clause 1 extends the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to cover safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations or engaged on associated pipeline work. It would appear that inspectors will in future be able to institute proceedings for offences committed outside Great Britain. There are increased penalties for breach of the regulations. There are, however, some aspects of Lord Cullen's report which are not addressed in the Bill.

One of the most important sections of the report is that dealing with the need to establish a "safety culture". Paragraph 18.45 states: Companies with a good safety record arc dedicated to the proposition that safety starts with the unfailing commitment of the most senior management, and that of the chief executive officer in particular". In paragraph 18.46 we find: It is essential to create a corporate atmosphere or culture in which safety is understood to be, and is accepted as, the number one priority". Paragraph 18.47 says: Safety objectives have to he built into both short and long term plans, and achievements against those defined objectives have to be part of personnel performance assessment". From this, according to Lord Cullen (at paragraph 18.48) it follows that: It is essential that the whole workforce is committed to and involved in safe operations". I should like to emphasise the latter. Yet, the inquiry received evidence from the unions representing employees that this was not done. Employees who identified safety hazards were often afraid or unwilling to come forward with the information because of fear of victimisation—the fear that their contracts might not be renewed. Many of the companies concerned strongly opposed the recognition of the unions to which their employees belonged, even though it was acknowledged in the report that unions play a key and constructive role in training safety representatives elected by the workforce. Indeed, at Piper Alpha, the safety representatives do not appear to have been elected at all; they were the supervisors themselves.

The unions drew attention to the Norwegian practice, where union recognition is automatic and safety representatives play a key role in evolving health and safety policies. Lord Cullen, although saying that his remit did not extend to industrial relations—and this, of course, was understood—was clearly impressed by the evidence given by the unions. One of his recommendations specifies that safety representatives should be protected by legislation against victimisation. He also endorses the idea of a review of the 1989 regulations on safety representatives and safety committees.

Lord Cullen was also very critical of the inspections which preceded the disaster. He described them as "superficial" and clearly felt that there was a need for more thorough inspection. However, I note that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says that there will be no increase in expenditure or manpower as a result of this legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister said in his opening speech that resources had been made available to ensure that there would be increases in the inspectorate. But I understand that the Health and Safety Commission may have difficulty in attracting the right number of properly qualified people, because private industry can offer salaries which are so much higher. It is essential that resources are made available to ensure that the intentions of the Bill are carried out.

Of course I understand and support the need for the clause relating to security. However, I should like to see some wording inserted in the Bill indicating that health and safety considerations are paramount and will take precedence over other concerns, including that of security. We may, perhaps, follow up this issue in Committee.

So far as concerns penalties, I welcome the proposals that these should be increased. I also accept the Minister's assurance that these are indications that the Government take the whole health and safety issue very seriously. However, £20,000 is not a great deal of money for a multi-million concern and the two-year prison sentence—which may or may not be imposed—may not be all that much of a deterrent. It has always seemed to me to be somewhat anomalous that a director can be disqualified for a fiduciary misdemeanour, but that this sanction is not applied if the company of which he is a director is responsible for death or injury to employees or members of the public. I believe that the possible loss of office would concentrate the mind more effectively and would, perhaps, help to bring about the creation of the kind of "safety culture" so strongly urged by Lord Cullen.

Finally, I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We shall seek to explore some of these issues in Committee, but in the meantime, we support the Bill.

4.14 p.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for explaining the Bill so clearly. I should say at once that our general attitude to it is one of support, in so far as it follows the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. As has been said, the Bill's main provision is that responsibility for offshore safety should now be transferred from the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive. The reasons why Lord Cullen recommended that change are set out in his report. I need say no more than that we are in full agreement with them.

However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I should like to highlight two or three of the recommendations in the report. They are not included on the face of the Bill, but in my view it is important that they should be faithfully implemented by the new regulatory body. First, as the noble Viscount said, the report recommended that the principal regulations in regard to offshore safety should take the form of requiring that stated objectives were to be met—they were referred to as "goal setting regulations"—rather than prescribing that detailed measures were to be taken.

In the foreword to the last available annual report of the Health and Safety Commission, the chairman noted that, the European Community has now to be regarded as the principal engine of health and safety law affecting the UK", and that directions concerning occupational safety may now be introduced on the basis of qualified majority voting. I was glad that he went on to say: We have made clear to our European friends some of the difficulties we see in an over-hasty provision of new law, particularly without assurance that it can be enforced with equal determination in all Member States. We have also sought to insist that Member States should make their own arrangements for subsidiary detail, subject to European agreement on general principles". In my view, the Health and Safety Commission here struck just the right note, for, committed Europeans though we on these Benches are, there is the danger that in this matter the European Commission could overstep the mark.

Next, there is reference in both the summary and recommendations of Lord Cullen to the importance of training. Indeed, management was severely criticised in the summary for its failure to ensure that training for emergencies was in practice provided as was intended. I had so much to say on the subject of training yesterday during the debate on unemployment that I shall spare your Lordships any further comment. However, it is of literally vital importance that the report's recommendations on that matter are actually implemented.

That brings me to the subject of employee involvement. I believe that the noble Baroness has already quoted from paragraph 18.48 which, if I may paraphrase it, says how essential it is for the whole workforce to be committed to, and involved in, safe operations. It continues to say that the first line supervisors are a key link in achieving that aim, as each is personally responsible for ensuring that all employees not only know how to perform their jobs safely but are convinced that they have a responsibility to do so.

As has been said, Lord Cullen went on to stress the value of a safety committee system as a means of providing for new ideas and solutions to safety problems to be brought forward and for passing verbatim and uncensored safety comments up the management line. He also said that the system helps to reinforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own safety and that of his fellow workers. I agree with the conclusion of Lord Cullen that the employee representatives on these committees need not be drawn from trade unions. The essential point is to ensure that all employees are involved in the promotion of safety at work. I should have liked to see some reference to that issue in the Bill. It is possible that we shall return to the matter in Committee.

Indeed, the question arises as to whether there is more that the Government should be doing to improve employee involvement more generally.

On a number of occasions in the past I have argued that the time has come to make it a statutory requirement that in every organisation employing a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. In that connection—I hope that I do not digress too far from the Bill—I was interested to receive from the Institute of Personnel Management last week a consultative document in which, while reiterating its preference for a voluntary approach to that matter, it nevertheless says that in view of the relatively slow progress made during the past decade action should now be taken: to place the employer under a statutory duty to disseminate to all employees certain types of information which relate to matters affecting their security and well being, and which is not commercially confidential". It is only fair to add that the institute does not consider that the current situation warrants an extension of that duty to include an obligation to consult, believing that the requirement that the employer should regularly provide information to employees is likely to prove a sufficient stimulus in that respect. Nevertheless, the fact that the IPM has now decided to advocate the introduction of limited legislation on employee involvement is most significant. I realise that the subject is a broad one, but if the Minister can—I fear at very short notice—say anything positively encouraging about that matter I should be glad to hear it.

I now turn briefly to a consideration of one or two of the Bill's features. Clauses 1 to 3 have, I hope, been covered adequately by what I said at the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I welcome the provisions of Clause 4 which increase substantially penalties for offences relating to contraventions of the regulations.

The next comment I wish to make about the Bill relates to its financial and manpower effects as set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. There it is stated: There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill. That surprises me because it raises the whole question of whether the resources, including staff, needed to enforce the Bill's provisions will be adequate for that purpose.

The Minister will be aware that in the debate on health and safety at work initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, last January, several noble Lords questioned whether the number of HSE inspectors was adequate for the duties that they were required to fulfil. Specifically, and I hope that I am not stealing his thunder, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, claimed that judging from the figures contained in the previous year's HSE report, inspectors were in a position to make, on average, only one visit per day, and that in the previous 10 years the number of inspectors had fallen from 759 to 554. At the time, the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, was unable to refute that allegation. In his conclusions, Lord Cullen stated that the need for adequate resources to meet the changes involved in transferring responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Executive was obvious.

I appreciate that some, at least, of the people now employed by the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy may be transferred to the executive, but if before the assumption of the heavy additional burden there is doubt as to the adequacy of resources available to the HSE to carry out inspections, how much more justifiable may those doubts now be. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government are doing to satisfy themselves that the manpower available to the HSE will be sufficient to enable it to discharge its new responsibility in such a way as to enhance the safety of all those who work at risk offshore. We may also wish to pursue that matter in Committee.

In conclusion, I merely repeat that my noble friends and I are happy to support the Bill, subject to the reservations that I have described.

4.24 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for so clearly explaining the purposes of the Bill, which I welcome. The Bill carries out many of the recommendations of the inquiry undertaken by the learned judge, Lord Cullen, following the Piper Alpha disaster. It was clear at the time that his inquiry would take many months. When the Statement was made in your Lordships' House I said that we could not expect to have the recommendations in less than a year, or more probably two years. I am glad that no time has been lost by the Government and that they have introduced the Bill in what has to be a shorter than usual Session.

I must declare an interest. As some noble Lords will be aware, I have been with an international oil company in a non-executive capacity since 1975. I am glad to say that it is one that has a good safety record. It is only a week since the Bill was published. My impression is that the oil industry as a whole is glad to see it. It is generally accepted that the Health and Safety Executive should in future take over responsibility for safety from the Department of Energy. In any case, the Department of Energy is losing many functions because of gas and electricity having departed, and it may well lose its separate identity after the next election. The way in which the present Permanent Secretary's appointment was announced encourages that speculation.

Piper Alpha was a platform permanently in place over the oilfield. In addition to that disaster, there was also a bad accident on a mobile drilling rig. The inquiry into that rig blow-out was published a few days ago only. It was the Ocean Odyssey to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. There was one death in that incident. It could have been very much worse.

I was probably the member of the Cabinet at the time most concerned when North Sea oil was discovered in 1970–71, and then on to 1974, because no Department of Energy existed in those days. I have been anxious about safety ever since. In the early days it was the divers who suffered most casualties. They were voluntarily taking too many risks. That position has been much improved since. It was a new industry which has brought many benefits to Britain, but it is undertaken in hostile and harsh conditions. The offshore structures and the diving, pipeline and supply boat operations require safety, and that is best maintained if every individual involved is encouraged to participate.

The best practice includes inviting from everyone involved suggestions for alerting people to dangers and for making improvements. Everyone working on a platform or a rig should feel authorised to speak up and to share in promoting optimum arrangements for safety. Such team work should combine well with the framework now being created through the HSE which I am glad to know will be expanded for the purpose. It is important that the new members of the HSE will be well-trained people, qualified to carry out those functions. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say some more about that matter when he replies.

I should like to add a few words about a recently formed body—the Oil Industry Liaison Committee—which has been much in the news. It is based in Aberdeen and has been issuing statements about safety. Its status is still obscure as it does not appear to have been recognised by the trade union movement, although it purports to represent those working on offshore installations.

What has not been made clear in press reports—and I make no criticism because the oil industry is one which the press still find difficult to understand—is that the the Oil Industry Liaison Committee does not represent the employees of the oil industry. It is trying to speak for the employees of the contractors, the firms working on platforms. These men very often carry out maintenance work on the platforms for a period of weeks during the summer. Others—for example, plumbers or welders—employed by construction firms based onshore, are doing particular jobs on platforms under contracts. They are working for their own employers who are not the oil companies.

It is important that these itinerant members of a platform's complement, like the crew of a ship, should be well versed in safety along with the oil companies' own employees. In the press, they have been referred to as "oilmen". That is an easy description, but it is misleading because the impression is given that they work directly for the oil companies. They do not.

Of course, it is also important that the employees working for contractors should feel confidence in the safety measures applying to the installations on which they are working. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, the companies have been taking action in various fields while Lord Cullen's inquiry has been going on. For example, my own company has been installing new sub-sea valves and making other investments in failsafe measures.

The discovery of North Sea oil 20 years ago led to a new British industry being created with considerable benefits to this country. However, it is a fairly recent industry in the world as a whole. We must adapt quickly to the exigencies and phenomena which accompany that industry. The Bill is one important step in the right direction.

4.32 p.m.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I thank the Minister for the clarity and conciseness with which he explained clauses in the Bill. I also wish to congratulate the Department of Energy on appointing Lord Cullen to conduct this inquiry. I do not believe that that has been done sufficiently at least on this side of the House. It was a quite outstanding way of conducting an inquiry; I have never read the report of an inquiry which was done in such an outstanding way. It moves magisterially from proximate causes to underlying causes. It shows that this is not an isolated mistake, that it is the result of unsafe practices, unobserved procedures and inadequate and underfunded inspection. It lays the blame where it should lie and then with great mercy it does not name those who have direct, immediate blame. That is a civilised thing to do.

The report ends with comprehensive recommendations—wide-ranging but nevertheless relevant to Lord Cullen's remit. It is a quite outstanding piece of work. Anyone wishing to know how to write a report of an inquiry on such a subject should read this one from start to finish.

I do not believe it has been mentioned in the debate so far that the report also stresses that not all the recommendations are for the Government. In many ways most of them are not: they are partly for the authority that is to be established to run the safety concerns, the HSE, as it is to be. Many recommendations are directed at the authority and many more are directed at employers and relate to the practices that they should introduce. Some recommendations have significant implications for the workers in the industry and for the unions that represent them. It is a magnificent report.

Which then are the areas where we disagree or have reservations which we hope we can take up when the Bill comes into Committee? Many have been mentioned by previous speakers. I believe the Minister will discover that there is a fair degree of unanimity on this side of the House about how the Bill needs to be improved. One area which has not been mentioned on which I hope the Minister can give guidance and clarity refers to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Clause 1 of the present Bill adds something to Section 1 of the 1974 Act. It says that the Act now covers the health, safety and welfare of persons on offshore installations. That is to be added to Section 1 of the 1974 Act.

Many of us believe, however, that one of the most important aspects of the 1974 Act is Section 2 which states: It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare … of all his employees". I wish to ask the Minister this. Are we to take the view that, although this is not mentioned on the face of the Bill, Section 2 of the 1974 Act, which puts a general obligation on employers to promote health, welfare and safety, applies just as much to the offshore areas as to the existing ones? Even if it does, why should it not be on the face of the Bill? Why should not that important clause be put into the Bill?

Further, to repeat something which has been said before but bears repeating, I wish to deal with the duties of the inspectorate. I could burden the House—but I will not—with long quotations from the Cullen Report which perhaps we should discuss in Committee. Lord Cullen goes through what happened: the inspector; what the inspector did; how the inspector did not have enough time; how the inspector was not given enough information; how the inspector was well known, and how it was known by the employers that he was coming because that is the way offshore inspection works; how in general inspectors are insufficiently trained. Most important of all, there was a shortfall: repeated inquiries had been made through the Health and Safety Executive to the Department of Energy asking whether it would increase the members of the inspectorate; and how that was not possible, partly for reasons of money and partly for reasons that are not clear.

When we examine what Lord Cullen says about the way in which the inspectorate should operate in future, and the fact that there should be a senior inspector who should have access to the management board or be a member of it responsible to the director general; when we examine the job to be done, the implementation of all the safety case legislation, surely there must be more staff for the HSE? Surely, we cannot accept a situation—despite the encouraging words of the Minister in his opening speech—where on the face of the Bill we are again told that there is to be no increase in expenditure. That cannot be right.

If we are to take what Lord Cullen says seriously—and the Minister told us that the Government accept every recommendation in this report—it cannot be done without further expenditure. Can we be told that the Government accept that? Can we be given some idea of how much it will involve?

Finally, I wish to say something about the safety committees and safety representatives. Again, there is provision in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for statutory regulations enforcing upon employers some form of safety committee at the place of work. The Cullen Report is quite clear that the workers on the rig knew that the rig was unsafe. They had made representations to make it more safe. They required an effective consultative system with the protection of their representatives, in order to make their position clear. Although that matter is, in precise and specific terms, outside his terms of reference, Lord Cullen goes a long way to suggest that there should be some improvement in the present inadequate forms of safety representation. Surely that is a matter on which the Government could give us some undertaking tonight. However, with all those reservations, we welcome the Bill. We wish it God speed and we think it will do good.

4.40 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. Your Lordships have made a number of general points on the Bill. It is perhaps better to leave discussion of the more detailed technical points to Committee. However, your Lordships raised a number of more general health and safety issues which I shall attempt to deal with. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said initially that what is required is a safety culture. I entirely agree with her. It is intended that we should have safety culture. However, we cannot provide for that culture in legislation. The learned Lord Cullen strongly recommended that there should be separate provision for the introduction of the safety case. That will require an operator to demonstrate clearly and in great detail the adequacy of his management system and its ability to cope with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about safety representatives and safety committees. The provision for the appointment of safety representatives and committees is made by regulations under the mineral workings Act. Those regulations are the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations of 1989. A comprehensive review of their effectiveness is about to get under way. This fulfils the commitment by Ministers made in 1989—endorsed by Lord Cullen—to review the regulations after two years of operation. Therefore to a certain extent I feel constrained from saying anything further on that matter.

The noble Baroness drew to our attention the problem of victimisation of employees if they make comments on safety matters. She drew our attention to the fact that that matter was mentioned in the recommendations made by Lord Cullen. I repeat that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Cullen Report. We intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that any representative who has been dismissed or otherwise victimised for this reason can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. However, such legislation falls outside the scope of the Bill we are discussing. This Bill deals with safety matters rather than employment issues We shall deal with the matter of victimisation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself.

For the present, victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable to the Health and Safety Executive as it undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. If there is any evidence of intimidation, HSE will look into it. The name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed in every offshore installation and anonymity is guaranteed to those who raise safety issues if they request it.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed the introduction of the Bill—inquired about the availability of inspectors and about the problem of financial resources. The recruitment of specialists in the petroleum field is constrained by a limited and highly competitive market. In addition new recruits will require at least six months' training in specialist inspection techniques. Obviously there is a limit to the number of people who can be trained at any one time. HSE will aim to recruit new staff at the fastest possible speed commensurate with those constraints. The offshore safety division aims to increase specialist cadres by about 75 a year for the next three years. I believe those recruitment targets are ambitious. A review of pay and grading of offshore specialists has been put in hand with a view to achieving the targets and to ensure that realistic rewards can be offered.

The noble Baroness said she felt a fine of £20,000 was not much of a deterrent to a multinational company. Magistrates will of course still be free to commit cases to higher courts if they feel the penalty of £20,000 is inadequate in any particular case. In addition magistrates will be able to fine multiples of £20,000 in cases where more than one charge is laid against a company at any one time. In the meantime the Bill seeks to ensure that the rise in fines should be a signal to the industry. The Government welcome the higher fines as an indication of their intention in this area.

As regards the disqualification of directors, that is already possible under the disqualification Act where directors have been convicted of an indictable offence. Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act also allows prosecution of individual directors where an offence has been committed with their consent or connivance, or where the offence was attributable to neglect on a director's part. I believe the Bill takes care of a number of the concerns the noble Baroness mentioned. I have listened carefully to all the comments she made.

The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me whether Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies offshore. It already applies offshore by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act's application outside Great Britain under the order of 1989. I am afraid that many of the clauses I discussed today are not particularly intelligible to the layman as they extend other parts of Acts. However, I am certain I have dealt with that concern of the noble Lord. The Health and Safety at Work Act covers most of the operations offshore and in this goal setting formula, it is appropriate that this legislation is brought about for the review of the regulations.

The noble Lord paid tribute to the work of Lord Cullen. When the Cullen Report was published the Government also paid tribute to that report. Having read the recommendations and parts of the report, I consider it is an outstanding piece of work.

I have commented on the inspectors and their operations and the number of inspectors that we are recruiting. However, I am sure that we shall need to return to any detailed points in Committee. We shall also need to return to the matters that caused concern to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on the involvement of people in the operation of the Act.

I must re-emphasise the importance the Government place on improving offshore safety in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster. We have already seen considerable improvements in safety provision and attitudes to safety, not least in the acceptance of the fact that responsibility for safety is in the hands of everyone concerned: employers, operators and the workforce. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has long experience of this industry. He emphasised the important part that suppliers to the industry and those contracted to work in it can play in safety matters. We have a considerable task ahead of us to put in place the new legislation that will underpin safety offshore. This Bill, albeit a technical one, is an essential step forward. It needs to be enacted as soon as possible so there is no unnecessary delay in developing new safety standards offshore.

I look forward to further constructive debate in the next stages of the Bill's progress. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may ask him this question. How does he reconcile his very welcome statement that more inspectors are to be recruited and that they are to receive salaries commensurate with their responsibilities with the sentence in the paragraph setting out the financial and manpower effects of the Bill that: There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill"?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, it is my understanding that the duties of the HSE already include the duties of the inspectors offshore. That responsibility has already been transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of Employment. I indicated in my opening remarks that further resources will be made available in the future to the HSE in order to increase the number of inspectors. Therefore, the implication of this technical Bill, which is required to put everything in place, does not increase the financial burden.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.