I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The Bill now before the Dáil is designed to complete the revision of the law which was begun when the Conditions of Employment Act was introduced here almost 20 years ago. In fact, I might reveal now that at that time it was my intention to have one law dealing with the hours of work of industrial workers and the working conditions under which they were employed.
As I worked upon the preparation of that one comprehensive Bill it became obvious to me that giving effect to that intention involved very considerable delay and, therefore, I decided then to divide the task into two parts. One part was completed when the Conditions of Employment Act came into operation in February, 1936, and we are only completing the second part now. The long delay which has taken place in the introduction of proposals for legislation to amend the Factories Acts was, in part, attributable to the complicated nature of the task and the pressure of other business at the time and, in part, to the intervention of a war period. It was considered impracticable to enact new legislation of this kind at a timewhen scarcity of supplies and other difficulties might make it impossible for a factory owner to comply with its provisions. I took up the matter of preparing this legislation again when I resumed office in 1951 and the Bill, a very long and intricate Bill as Deputies will have noticed, is now before the House.
The existing Factories Acts in operation here were inherited from the British administration and they have worked on the whole reasonably well. This Bill introduces no radical change in principle. I think it is well to state that straightway. It is not intended to introduce any radical change in principle.
The existing Factories Acts, as they stand, give to workers employed in industry a very high degree of protection against risks of accidents and of disease. However, it has been recognised for many years that the revision of these Acts is necessary to bring them into line with modern ideas. But when we got down to work it out, we found that the revisions which were necessary and practicable were not as far-reaching as has sometimes been suggested as necessary. The enactment of this Bill will, however, have one very beneficial result in that it will bring into one statute all the obligations of factory owners. The existing law is scattered round a number of enactments and regulations made under statutory authority. This Bill not merely sets out to revise and improve the Factories Acts, but also to codify them. It will, also, extend the protection of the law to types of employment to which the Factories Acts do not now apply.
An explanatory memorandum was circulated to Deputies with the text of the Bill. That memorandum sets out the provisions of the existing law and the respects in which that law will be changed if this Bill is enacted. Deputies who are interested in this legislation will, no doubt, have read that memorandum and I assume, therefore that a detailed explanation of these matters is not necessary at this stage. I may say, however, that in framing the provisions of this Bill Ihad regard, first of all, to the requirements of various International Labour Office Conventions and recommendations which this country has not yet been able to ratify because of the conflict between the provisions of our legislation and the terms of these conventions and recommendations; secondly, to the Report of the Commission on Youth Unemployment which was published early in 1951 and which made various comments and recommendations on matters concerning the health and welfare of workers; and, thirdly, I had regard to the law in Britain which was amended in 1948. Up to recently, as I stated, both countries have been operating the same law. The same standards and the same practices have, therefore, tended to develop and become established in both countries and amendments of the law deemed to be desirable in Britain are worthy of our consideration when we are amending the law here, notwithstanding the differences in the degree of industrial development in both countries.
The principal changes which will be made in the Factories Acts under this Bill can be summarised under five main headings: First, health; second, safety; third, welfare; fourth, application; and fifth, administration. The main changes which are proposed include a more precisely defined obligation on factory owners to keep factory premises clean and increase in the air space required per person employed from 250 to 400 cubic feet. The Bill makes provisions for the delayed application of that new provision in relation to existing factories. It gives the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to prescribe the standards of temperature to be maintained and it requires that there shall be sufficient and suitable light in all places where people are engaged upon industrial work. The existing law makes no provision with regard to lighting at all. It is proposed that medical supervision may be required in a factory where there have been outbreaks of disease recorded or where the processes which are operated may be in any circumstances dangerous to the health of the workers engaged in them. The requireter'ment of the existing law in regard to the medical examination of young people before entering industry, to establish their physical fitness for industrial employment, will be extended. The present law requires pre-entry medical examination before 16 years of age. The new requirement will be pre-entry examination before 18 years of age and annual examination between 16 and 18 years of age.
In respect to safety provisions, the Bill before the House makes much more precise the requirement of the existing law regarding the fencing of machinery and of moving parts of machinery.
It gives power to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to prescribe the compulsory use of approved safety devices. It makes better provision for ensuring precautions against explosions, for structural stability of factory premises, and for the safety of hoists and lifting tackle generally.
The fire-escape provisions are stated in much greater detail than in the existing law and are extended to cover smaller factories than are within the provisions of the existing law. The use of unsuitable underground premises can be prohibited altogether.
The welfare provisions of the Bill include the extension of requirements, which at present operate only in respect of certain factories, regarding drinking-water, washing facilities, accommodation for clothing, the provision of seats and first-aid equipment, to factories generally. As regards the extension of the application of the Factories Acts, there is a number of changes: first, these Acts will in future apply to building operations generally; secondly, to works of engineering construction; thirdly, to the construction and repair of ships in wet dock, and, fourthly, will also protect young persons employed as messengers or porters about a factory and not directly engaged on industrial work. In respect to administration, the changes are, in some respects, of a detailed nature which may, perhaps, be more conveniently discussed in Committee.
I might draw attention to thischange, however, that while under the existing law specified duties are given to designated officials, such as the chief inspector of factories or factory inspectors, these powers in this Bill are being transferred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That proposal is in accord with recent practice here. Contrary to the British procedure, our practice is to give statutory obligations and powers to a Minister rather than to designated officials of the Minister, and, from the point of view of the Minister's responsibility to the Dáil, I think our procedure is the better.
At present, local authorities are responsible for enforcing the provisions in the Factories Acts as regards the sanitary conditions in workshops. Under the present law, there is a difference between a workshop and a factory. A workshop is a premises in which no mechanical power is used. The enforcement of sanitary regulations in workshops was the responsibility of the local authority. This Bill proposes to abolish the distinction between a factory and a workshop, and, consequently, transfers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the functions in regard to workshops previously discharged by local authorities. Local authorities will, however, continue to exercise certain responsibility regarding sanitary conveniences and fire precautions.
I said that, in preparing this Bill, I had in mind, first of all, the provisions of the International Labour Office Organisation Conventions, and, secondly, the report of the Commission of Youth Unemployment. A very large number of International Labour Office Conventions have been ratified by the Irish Government because the existing law was in conformity with them, and ratification was possible. Ratification is only possible where legal arrangements have been made in conformity with the requirements of the conventions; but there were some conventions which we were unable to ratify without making legislative changes here. The first is the convention dealing with safety provisions in respect to building. It was known asthe Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, and proposed a code of safety for building operations. The existing law is only of very limited application to building construction, but under this Bill the whole factory code has been extended to building undertaken by way of trade or business or for an industrial or commercial undertaking; and, after the enactment of this measure, the ratification of the International Labour Office Convention will be practicable.
There is another International Labour Convention dealing with the medical examination of young persons —the Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention. In fact, that convention goes somewhat further than providing for the medical examination of young persons employed in industry. It has always been a weakness in the International Labour Office practice to complicate their conventions by introducing some extraneous provisions which have deterred various States from ratifying them, because they found it impracticable or undesirable to bring their law into conformity with them. So far as the International Labour Office Convention, to which I have referred, requires the medical examination of young persons employed in industry, this Bill will bring our law into complete conformity with the provisions of the convention.
That convention also contains, however, provisions relating to the vocational guidance and the physical and vocational training of young persons who are regarded as unfit for employment in industry. These are matters which are outside the scope of this Bill. Whether the provisions in other enactments, for which other Ministers are responsible, are such as to permit of our ratifying that convention, following the enactment of this Bill, I cannot say at the moment.
There was an International Labour Office recommendation concerning the health of workers in their places of employment. So far as factory workers are concerned, the requirements of the recommendation are met in full by the provisions of this Bill. There is another convention which Imight mention, although it is not very important nowadays, and that is the White Lead (Painting) Convention. That is the convention which prohibits the use of white lead in the internal painting of any building other than a railway station or an industrial establishment. Our legislation does not deal with railway stations, and applies only to industrial premises. Consequently, it is still unlikely that we can ratify that convention, but, in fact, paints containing white lead or sulphate of lead are now rarely used for internal painting in this country.
There is another convention to which I might refer, although its relevancy is equally doubtful, and that is the one dealing with maternity protection. It seems to me that such a convention has not got much relevance to conditions in Ireland or to factory legislation either. It is concerned more with the scope of social insurance or with public welfare schemes. The existing law makes it an offence for an employer to employ a woman within four weeks of her confinement. Under the Social Welfare Act, an insured woman worker becomes entitled to maternity benefit for a maximum period of 12 weeks but there is a condition in the Social Welfare Act that while in receipt of that maternity benefit she must not be gainfully employed.
The Commission on Youth Unemployment, while it was mainly concerned with the specific problem on which it was asked to report, made some general comments, observations and suggestions on factory legislation to which we have given attention. They recommended that the law should be changed so as to raise from 14 to 16 the minimum age of entry into industry and quite clearly that recommendation was bound up with the recommendation that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16. The present school-leaving age is 14, and that has not been changed. The minimum age of entry into employment is 14 under a whole variety of statutes in force here. I think it will be agreed that nothing can be done in the matter of altering the age of entry into industrial employment in advance of raising the school-leaving age.
The commission made a number ofrecommendations concerning accommodation for clothing, facilities for drying clothes, the lighting of work places, and the supply of drinking water, all of which are covered by provisions in this Bill.
They made recommendations concerning rest-rooms for female workers which can be met under Section 56 of the Bill which permits regulations to be made requiring the provision of rest-rooms.
The commission also recommended the change which we are now proposing to make in regard to the medical examination of young persons entering industry. But they went further and recommended that advice and treatment should be given to young persons who on examination were found to be in need of advice or treatment. That is not a matter for factory legislation but for the Minister for Health.
In other respects the recommendations they made for the medical supervision of young persons are being fully met. I should, perhaps, emphasise— because I am sure the fact will be raised on the debate—that this Bill is confined to factory workers. The Commission on Youth Unemployment referred to what they regarded as the need for similar legislation applying to office workers, and similar representations have been received from trade unions catering for office workers. The view is that office workers should also be given statutory protection in respect of such matters as overcrowding, ventilation, temperature, cleanliness and suitability of premises. I do not think the Factories Act is the appropriate place to deal with office workers, and personally I would hesitate to propose such legislation until its possible consequences had been fully examined—its consequences upon employment as well as other things. I would be apprehensive about the effect of such legislation until the whole position had been more fully investigated.
One member of the Commission on Youth Unemployment—by himself and without the support of the other members—recommended that factory premises should be inspected and certifiedas suitable before being occupied and before any industrial work is allowed to be carried on in them. I gave very careful consideration to the practicability of doing that, and I decided against it. I dislike the prospect of some industrial enterprise being delayed by the necessity of getting a prior certificate of suitability from a factory inspector or from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It is almost certain allegations of undue delay would be made in any event. It seems to me also that such a provision is of no great value, because in practice it would be almost impossible to proceed against an employer on the ground that he had commenced industrial operations in some suitable place that had not been certified and who was giving employment in accordance with the Act to some workers.
The danger that employers would start operations in premises or under conditions which would not conform to the requirements of this Bill is not very great. They must notify the Minister for Industry and Commerce within a month that operations have begun. They know that they will then be subject to inspection and can be forced to comply with the requirements of the Act. It is true that the recent British Act provides for the giving of notice of occupation in advance of the commencement of operations, but whatever considerations led the British Government to adopt that course, I, having given the matter consideration, decided that here at least the weight of argument is against it.
Deputies will, of course, appreciate that this Bill is primarily one for Commitee Stage discussion. The principle of the Bill, which is to codify and improve the provisions of the existing Factory Acts, will not be contested by any Deputy in the House. I propose to ask the Dáil to give the Bill a Second Reading now and postpone the Committee Stage discussion until after the Christmas recess. That will give ample opportunity to all Deputies and to all interested organisations to study the provisions of the Bill very carefully and put forward proposals for its amendment. I hope all organisations of factory owners and of workers employedin factories will give it very careful attention and send in their recommendations for the extension, improvement or amendment of the Bill. When considering their recommendations they must bear in mind that there are two possible points of view regarding legislation of this kind. The first viewpoint will be that of those who desire that everything practical should be done to secure the safety and health of the workers employed in industrial operations, and the second will be that of those who desire to minimise the burdens placed by law on the operations of industry and who wish that reasonable liberty should be allowed to factory owners to run their own businesses.
Both points of view have something to commend them and both will have to be taken into account here when the terms of the new legislation are being settled. We have to keep in mind that the main Factories Act now in force has operated for a period of practically 50 years. I think it is quite possible that whatever Act emerges from the Oireachtas as a result of our deliberations now may last another 50 years. On that account I think we should take our time over it and ensure that we produce a measure that is both workable and reasonable.
