It is some time since the Minister made his Second Reading speech on this Bill. As well as I can remember, one of the things which he said was that it was largely a Committee Bill. With that statement, of course, we would all agree. So far as the principle of the Bill before us on the Second Reading is concerned, it is the principle whether we consider the legislation governing factories should or should not be revised. I think we would all agree, without any question, that that legislation should be revised. The original code goes back to 1901. The 1901 Act, as well as I can remember, was extremely complex and it is quite obvious that, after 50 years, many of its provisions require substantial amendment. The Act was previously amended, I think, on three occasions before 1922 and, of course, part of what was previously contained in the Factories Act was dealt with by us in the Conditions of Employment Act. We would all, therefore, agree that it is time that a Bill of this nature should be brought before the House to deal with modern requirements in respect of the health, welfare and safety of those working in factories. As I say, the earlier part of the old Factories Act of 1901, which dealt with the limitation of hours and so forth, has been already covered in the Conditions of Employment Act and therefore does not arise now.
The most striking thing I felt about the speech of the Minister on the last occasion, a matter which I verified since, was the fact that the Minister brought this Bill to the House without having any consultation with any of the people who would be primarily interested because they will have to work it and carry it out. I think it is extraordinary that the Minister should bring a Bill of this type to the House without first having had some consultation with the representatives, on the one hand, of the employers—say the Federated Union of Employers or the Chambers of Commerce—and, on the other hand, with the two Trade Union Congresses. There seems to be a sort of feeling somewhere amongst members of the present Government that the fact of having consultation with interested parties before measures are brought to this House means something subservient. It does not mean anything of the sort. It does not necessarily mean that one will slavishly adopt and accept everything that is put up to the Government. Surely, when the efficacy of a Bill such as this depends on the goodwill of those who have to work it on both sides—the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other—it is not too much to expect that there would be consultation on general lines before the Bill is introduced.
I know in advance the attitude the Minister is going to adopt but I disagree with his view. His view is that it is better to introduce a Bill, put it through the House to the public, and then leave it to interested parties to examine its provisions between Second Reading and Committee Stage. I disagree totally with that idea. We know that it is far more difficult to deal with a matter in that way than if there were some consultation before the Bill came to the House. I understood the Minister on the last night to say that he had no such consultation and all my inquiries rather led to the same view. I did hope also that the Minister, when he was introducing the Second Reading, would have given us some indication of the record and pattern of accidents, so that we could evaluate the requirements of legislation by reference to that record. But the Minister did not do so, nor give us any indication of trends in that respect at all and I am quite positive there must be very substantial records and very substantial analyses in his office.
So far as details of this Bill are concerned I think it is a good thing that it goes some distance towards trying to solve the problem of when is a factory not a factory, in respect of the travelling crane for example which is the old case. It goes some way in that direction and also towards dealing with engineering construction works.
The Minister to, I think, has had—in fact I know he has had—representations made to him about a provision that is in the Bill which requires a very substantial amendment in wording and detail in order to meet the desire that we all have in respect of basement bakehouses. The section as phrased dealing with basement bakehouses takes no account whatever of the situation which will arise where there is a town built on the side of a hill. You may have a premises built on the side of a hill—the effect there is to give very substantial head room and very large light and airy bakehouses but, nevertheless, because of the wording of this Bill—that the measurement must be taken from the nearest point of ground—such premises would be put out of commission under the terms of the section as it stands. Of course, I appreciate that that is a question of drafting and that it is not with advertence to that that the section as such was drafted. The idea that the Minister had and the idea that is in the Bill was to ensure that there would not be what I might call more clearly "dungeon bakehouses". There are certain ones which require to be very substantially modified in that respect, but where you have a bakehouse which has a very large, high ceiling, a very large number of cubic feet per worker employed, it should be by reference to that that the adequacy or otherwise of the premises should be considered and not to an entirely extraneous position of where the level of the nearest point of ground is to be taken.
I know one premises where in the front the premises are exactly level with the street and the bakehouses are far and away higher than any normal allowances that are made for the personnel that are employed. The first floor of that premises is actually under ground level at the back, and as I read the section because the premises are built on the side of a hill you must consider ground level at the back and not the ground level at the front because you go through a door in one section of the premises and it is a cutoff room. That is a matter which will require to be considered during the passage of the Bill in Committee Stage. There are, no doubt, many other similar things which will require to be considered but as the Minister said, it is a Committee Bill and it is not proper to discuss them now. I merely mention that because I think it is the type of thing that could have been avoided if there had been consultation before rather than consultation during the passage of the Bill itself through the Oireachtas.