 I'll be speaking about the Occupational Safety and Health Code. This is a code that actually brings together 13 different major legislations related to safety, health, and welfare provisioning at the work site. Strangely, it actually brings together legislations that are meant for very different work sectors, very disparate sets of workers dealing with very different issues and putting them all into one code, such as the Building and Other Construction Workers Act or the Factories Act, which actually looks at hazardous work processes and unsafe work conditions to imagine legally what a safe factory or a safe construction site would be. And things like the Interstate Migrant Workmen's Act, which regulates the work conditions of migrant workers moving from one state to the other, or the Contract Labor Act, which deals with workers who are employed through labor contractors and deals with issues arising from long chains of intermediaries in employment relations. One of the major issues that has been pointed out with the code is that it does not even give the pretense of universality that the wage code does. It has a threshold limit of applying only to establishments of units that have 10 or more workers. What has been pointed out is that establishments with 10 or more workers, a very few number, this only applies to a very small section then of the workforce. More than 80% of workers are working in very small units, which don't have even 10 employees. And these are usually then registered under the Shops and Establishments Act, which has no regulation of any sort. And such a threshold also incentivizes employers to keep units small. Ajivika Bureau has actually experienced this in many work sectors, such as in Surat with the power loom industry, where all the units are very small. These are all registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, but reporting a high number of accidents because of very old and outdated machines, crush injuries, fatal accidents almost every other day. But again, these are units which have less than 10 workers, or they are units which are kind of, the production is split into smaller units with a lesser number of workers, or that the same worker is made to work on more than eight or 10 machines at the same time in order to be able to keep the unit size small and employ lesser people. With other provisions as well, there's been this threshold limit, for instance, with the Constitution of a safety committee at the level of the establishment. So this is applied only to establishments with more than 500 workers. Those are only very, if you look at the construction sector, that would be only with a very big construction companies. And even then, workers are actually split across different construction sites, such as in the example of maybe road construction. And so this wouldn't apply there as well. Then with welfare provisioning as well, there are greater thresholds. So for different facilities available at the workforce, at the work site, it would require a different number of workers, which actually seems to be no logical sense to this. Another issue is with the kind of damaging provisions that it actually has, which allows employers to, in fact, extract more from workers. For instance, with regulating working hours, it has completely left it to the discretion of actually the state government to decide through its rules and rules what the conditions for overtime work would be. So the eight-hour workday is effectively completely removed, which means workers could actually be working much longer than eight hours in a day. And what we've realized in the sectors that we work is that accidents, specifically, and long-term kind of health implications for workers result from double shifts that workers perform, working more than 12 hours, sometimes up to 18 hours in industries which are extremely hazardous. Workers have to navigate through hazardous terrain. A loss of focus often leads to a large number of accidents in such cases. Also with the welfare provisioning in construction sites and in factories, what a code recommends is that there be onsite housing for workers. We've also observed that this actually is very damaging for workers because, one, it exposes them to 24-7 to occupational hazards at the work site. Second, it makes them completely dependent on contractors and employers, which means that they would probably not be able to say no to extended workers. And what happens is also that they're completely left out then from the purview of the local administration in the cities that they're working or in the areas that they're working. And also that these sites would, there is no kind of mention of how these living spaces inside work sites would be regulated, what their conditions would be. And it appears to be that workers would be completely isolated then in these work sites. Another issue is with occupational safety is not really the lack of legislation, but actually with how to implement it and regulate it. And this on a large extent depends on how empowered workers are to be able to collectively monitor shop flow processes, relationships, practices, but with the kind of industrial relations code that we've seen which completely disempowers workers unions, which disempowers the workers, say in the process with relation to employment relations, it becomes extremely difficult then to implement any kind of regulation at the shop flow. Rather regulation has actually been completely left up to again how the safety and health provisions will be taken up in separate states has actually been left to the discretion of individual state governments. And it's completely up to inspectors who've now been renamed facilitators. And the role of these facilitators has been defined as being able to ease compliance to labor legislations to increase economic growth and employment. It completely kind of leaves out the inspection aspect of labor regulation. It follows this web-based kind of arbitrary randomized system where inspectors would randomly go into work sites to inspect them, rather than based on information that they've gathered. And there's no system of accountability for these inspectors and the reports that they're bringing out from the work site. There's no top-down accountability in terms of these reports being how these inspectors would be held accountable for the reporting they've done and also no kind of involvement of either workers unions or civil society in the inspection system. And there's no mention again of, I mean a huge issue with inspections has been with the resourcing of labor departments of factory and boiler department to be able to actually conduct these inspections. But there's also been no talk of that. And all of this is left to the discretion of the state government. Another thing that kind of takes away the very kind of heart of the idea of occupational safety and health is principal employer liability to provide safe working conditions and compensation to workers in the case of accidents or occupational diseases. But clause has lost all its value because principal employer has now been defined very broadly and to include even labor contractors as well as anyone who's managing the factory. So no longer can accountability be placed on the principal employer even if there are long chains of subcontracting, wrong chains of intermediaries. Which means that then who is responsible for safety also is not clear anymore. And legally also workers will not be able to demand safe work conditions or prosecute the principal employer for unsafe conditions. Even penalties for employers have completely shifted from criminal liability and is restricted to fines and just fining and that to very low fines. And even this is up to the facilitators to decide whether they want to impose penalties on the employer or not. And another aspect that we have to think about is that given how the other codes are deepening casualization of work, kind of legitimizing poverty wages through the wage code and legitimizing very toxic payment practice, wage practices like a peace rate. This also has an effect on workers who are just trying to earn more and probably have more flexible work hours, lesser work hours. So what happens is that even they stop complying to safety norms. For instance, this is an example from Rajasthan where we work in Pindwala. Workers actually take a peace rate work because they can earn more if they work more. And also they can work whenever they want. So it is not similar to like a full working day every day. But it increases their exposure to silica dust which gives them a fatal disease called silicosis. So workers themselves take up these practices because they need to earn more to be able to sustain their families. So these are some of the issues with how the occupational health and safety code actually falls hollow because of its relationship to the other codes as well. And it actually appears to do nothing at all. Another thing is the discretion of state governments to actually set out all the rules and regulations regarding how this act would be implemented. For instance, with the safety committee which used to be a mandatory requirement for hazardous factories in the factories act, it's now up to the state government to have this set up with workers and employee representation in different establishments and which before was the right of workers to be able to have these safety committees set up in their establishments and also bring forth their complaints to the safety committee. But now even that has been left to the discretion of the state government. I think a larger question here is rather than just the provisions of the act, looking at the kind of growth model that we have in India today which is based on consistent production, quick production, cheap production, where work is being subcontracted to smaller units, where responsibility for safety is also then being put on these smaller units, where the majority of the workforce is to home-based workers who take the work back into their homes. So very small workshops which also operate like small units which is what we see everywhere. How can the responsibility for safety be held at this, held at such a lower level when we're not able to fix accountability higher up in the value chains where most of the profits are accumulated? So thinking about such a growth model is also important. I think to even begin talking about occupational safety and health. Thank you.