Factories Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

Apart from the date appearing in the Title, the text of this Bill is identical with the text of the Bill which was introduced in 1953 by my predecessor in office and which had received a Second Reading before the Dáil was dissolved.

I have also allowed the Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated with the 1953 Bill to stand in its original form.

A word of explanation may be expected as to why I decided to proceed in this way. I did so because I think it is the best way of making progress towards the speedy enactment of the Bill. Deputies who were members of the last Dáil had studied the earlier text; they had made themselves familiar with its various provisions and were ready to air their views on the merits and shortcomings of the Bill as it then stood. There are obvious advantages to all concerned in taking, as our starting point in this Dáil, the point at which the discussion on the 1953 Bill was abandoned in the last Dáil. These advantages extend also to those organisations of workers and employers which have made themselves familiar with the 1953 proposals and know where and in what respects the proposals fall short of their wishes.

I do not wish anything that I have said to give the impression that I agree unreservedly with all the provisions of the 1953 text. I agree that, in general, it provides a satisfactory remedy for the more serious defects in the existing factory code, and that no fundamental change in the general structure of the Bill is necessary. I have some amendments in mind and I had contemplated giving an indication of these when circulating the Explanatory Memorandum with the Bill but I think it best to reserve judgment on these amendments until I have had the benefit of whatever discussion we may have on this Second Stage of the Bill.

An Explanatory Memorandum has been circulated with the Bill but I think that it would be helpful to our discussion if I were to devote a little time to giving a general explanation of the purposes and aims of the Bill.

Among the enactments taken over by the Irish Government from the English administration was a large body of legislation dealing with the health, safety and welfare of industrial workers. This body of legislation is known commonly by the general name, "The Factories Acts".

Ideas of what are healthy and comfortable working conditions are gradually changing and, as a consequence, different portions of the Factories Acts have become out of date. The Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, repealed and re-enacted with extensive modifications those parts of the Factories Acts which settled the hours for which workers might be employed. It left undisturbed those provisions which dealt with working conditions in factories. These latter provisions are those which will be amended by this Bill.

The main enactment dealing with working conditions in factories at present is the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. That Act has been amended and extended by a number of Acts, which are listed in the First Schedule of the Bill. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to consolidate in one measure all that the law has to say on the subject of working conditions in factories.

An adequate summary of the law, as it now stands, is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

I think the best way of giving a picture of how the law would stand after the passage of the Bill is for me to take the Bill part by part and highlight the changes which the Bill introduces.

Part I contains the normal sections relating to commencement, definitions, expenses, etc. "Factory" is defined in Section 3. Existing law makes a distinction between textile factory, non-textile factory, workshop and men's workshop. This distinction had a certain relevance to the control of working hours of women and young persons (a control now transferred to the Conditions of Employment Act) and also led to different treatment for the different classes of workplaces. That distinction is gone in the Bill.

It is to be noted that the definition of "factory" in Section 3 is not relied upon in applying the law to such places as docks, building works, etc. These places are given separate treatment in Part VIII. I will come to them later.

Part II contains the precautions to be taken as standard at all factories for safeguarding the health of workers. Extra precautions for certain places are prescribed elsewhere in the Bill. As compared with existing law the provisions as to cleanliness are made more precise and are written in greater detail, the space requirement for each worker is increased from 250 to 400 cubic feet, a figure for temperature of work-rooms is mentioned and an obligation to provide proper lighting is added. Special mention may be made of the new provision in Section 19 giving power to the Minister to require the medical supervision of a factory.

It is to be noted in relation to this part that one effect of the Bill will be to transfer from the local authority to the Minister the duty of enforcing the health provisions in workshops.

Part III of the Bill deals with the safety of machinery and premises. The earlier sections in this part relate to the important subject of the fencing of machinery. Here the law will be tightened up and extended somewhat. For instance, not only must the dangerous parts of a machine be fenced but articles being processed on a machine must also be fenced if their motion constitutes a danger to the worker.

In this part of the Bill in particular will be noted considerable extensions of existing law. Some of the provisions are completely new as, for example, the sections requiring the proper training and supervision of young persons working dangerous machines, requiring precautions to be taken against explosive atmospheres, requiring for air and steam receivers safeguards comparable to those required for steam boilers and requiring the institution of special safety arrangements in factories where the accident history is bad. Other sections in this part have the effect of extending to factories generally provisions at present applying only (under regulations) to limited classes of factories. In this category would be Sections 33 and 34 dealing with lifting apparatus of all kinds. Yet other sections in this part cover the same ground as existing law but incorporate extensions of one kind or another. The sections dealing with fire precautions are applied to factories with fewer workers than before.

The main effect of Part IV of the Bill is to make universal the duty of providing drinking water, washing facilities, etc. At present this duty rests only on the occupiers of certain types of factories mentioned in regulations.

Part V treats of special additional precautions to be taken in factories of certain kinds. Many of the sections are taken from existing law, including the power to make special regulations requiring occupiers of premises where trades are carried on which are particularly dangerous to the health or safety of the workers to take such additional precautions for their safety and welfare as may be prescribed. The sections about protection against injury to eyes, about lifting weights and about taking samples are new. New also is the control which can be exercised over underground or basement factories. Underground bakehouses have been tolerated for a long time, but they must go within three years of the start of the new law.

There is no great change made by Part VI, which relates to the notification and investigation of accidents and occurrences of industrial diseases. The existing title of "certifying surgeon" becomes "certifying doctor".

Part VII introduces a noteworthy change in the protection of youth in industry. After the Bill becomes law no person under 18 years can take up industrial employment unless he has been certified fit for his employment by the official doctor. After his entry he must be re-examined by a doctor each year until he reaches 18 years. At present only those under 16 need be examined on entry and there is no provision about annual re-examination.

The provisions contained in Part VIII appear to be very elaborate but they deal with two very difficult subjects, namely, (a) premises where there is more than one factory or premises where only part is used as a factory and (b) places where industrial activity is carried on but which not being factories in the ordinary sense and not having defined and limited premises cannot be expected to conform to all the rules applicable to factories proper. Sections 79 and 80 deal with the first subject, by setting out which of the Bill's obligations fall to be discharged by the occupier of the factory premises and which by the owner of the building in which the factory is located. In remaining sections is set out the extent to which the various provisions of the Bill will apply to electrical stations, institutions, docks, wharves, quays, warehouses, ships in dock, building operations and works of engineering construction. The application of any factory law to works of engineering construction is entirely new. The application to the other activities represents a considerable extension on the present scope of application, particularly in the case of building activity.

Part IX repeats with some slight modifications the existing controls on outwork. An existing ban on giving out work to places where there is infectious disease is not repeated in the Bill, as it is no longer necessary here in view of other provisions in modern public health law.

Part X contains the necessary provisions about the appointment and powers of inspectors and of certifying surgeons, and the powers and expenses of officers of the sanitary authority. In relation to the sanitary authority I should mention that it will have the direct duty of enforcing the provisions in the Bill relating to sanitary conveniences and fire precautions, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce can step in to ensure enforcement should the sanitary authority fail to discharge its obligations. The same duty of enforcement rests on the sanitary authority at present, but a duty which they had in relation to the cleanliness, etc., of workshops will be taken over by the Minister. I have mentioned already that basement bakehouses must cease to exist after three years. At present they can carry on with the approval of the local authority.

I do not think that Part XI calls for comment beyond mentioning that prosecutions will be taken at the suit of the Minister. Under existing law they can be taken at the suit of an inspector, but it is more in keeping with Irish practice to have all these things done in the name of a Minister of State rather than in the name of an official. In any event, it represents no change from current administrative practice.

Part XII confirms that the Factories Acts will apply to factories belonging to the State as well as to factories in private ownership.

The last part—Part XIII—repeats from existing law the obligation which rests on factory occupiers, of giving notice of their occupation of premises, of posting up an extract of the law, etc. Section 122 is interesting in that it imposes on employed persons a legal duty of using and not abusing the safety and health arrangements which their employers are compelled to make for them. The Factory Acts will no longer have any application to quarries. A separate measure is being prepared to provide for the safety, health and welfare of quarry workers, but in case there should be any hitch in enacting such law power is taken in Section 125 of applying to quarries the protective measures of existing Mining Acts.

In preparing the Bill a close examination has been made of relevant conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Office and of recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission on Youth Unemployment. I am hopeful that the passage of the Bill will enable Ireland to make a still better showing in the international field, by enabling her to show compliance with some further chapters of the international code of regulations promulgated by the International Labour Office. With regard to the Commission on Youth Unemployment, I find that with the enactment of the Bill we will have gone a long way towards adopting the recommendations made by that commission on such matters relating to working conditions as are relevant to a Bill of this kind.

It only remains for me to say that when the 1953 Bill was before the House a number of amendments had been tabled for consideration at the Committee Stage. As you know, the Committee Stage had not been reached before the Dáil was dissolved. Deputies can rest assured, however, that amendments then tabled, together with other amendments which had been suggested in representations made to my Department, will all be very carefully examined. Interested organisations and individual industrialists who had already suggested amendments to the 1953 Bill can also be assured that it is not necessary to repeat their suggestions and that I will have regard to them all in preparing for the Committee Stage of this Bill.

It might, however, be desirable for me at this point to refer in a general way to those amendments which were designed to extend the scope of the measure to include office workers. I know that many Deputies feel that something should be done to give protection to office workers in the matter of the cleanliness, temperature, lighting and general safety of the places where they work, and it has been urged that this protection could be given them by a simple extension of the Factories Bill to office premises. I have gone into that matter very thoroughly and I am satisfied that this Bill is not the place for legislating for office workers. I am, however, convinced that the time for remedial action in this respect is long overdue and I have directed that a speedy examination be made as to the type of protection which should be afforded to office workers and as to the statutory provisions which would be necessary to give effect to that protection. I shall, of course, welcome and undertake to consider carefully any suggestions under this heading which Deputies or other interested parties may wish to submit to my Department. I would suggest, therefore, that our present discussion might be limited to matters affecting the welfare and protection of factory workers and I am satisfied that this is the best way of making solid progress towards a rapid solution of both problems.

Mr. Lemass

As the Minister said, this Bill is identical with that which was introduced here last year on my motion. It is identical even to the drafting errors and misprints, which is somewhat surprising.

Mr. Norton

I carried on yours.

Mr. Lemass

After the Bill got its Second Reading last year, a number of amendments were circulated—some in my name as Minister on the suggestion of the parliamentary draftsman, others consequent on the discussion we had on the Second Reading. When the Dáil was dissolved and it was clear that the Bill would have to be reintroduced, I gave directions in the Department that the new text was to be prepared incorporating all the official amendments which had been circulated before the dissolution. Presumably the Minister decided to cancel that order and to direct that the Bill should come in unchanged. I can understand that he might have had a certain amount of embarrassment in incorporating the amendments circulated in my name and not incorporating the amendments circulated in his own. That may be the real reason, but it does not make a great deal of difference.

I would like the Minister to tell us what he has in mind regarding the Committee Stage. Obviously, the drafting amendments which had originally appeared in my name will have to be circulated again and if there are any other amendments of substance I think the Dáil should see them soon and that there should be a reasonable interval between their circulation and the taking of the Committee Stage. It was my original intention that there should be a substantial interval between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, to give the trade organisations representing employers and workers ample time to make their representations regarding the Bill. There probably is not the same need for a protracted interval now, since everyone knew the Bill was coming and most of the trade associations have already given it consideration and have suggested the amendments they thought necessary. I said here last year that we should not try to rush this Bill, that it is 50 years since we have had factories legislation applying throughout the country and it may be another 50 years before we have any extension to this Bill and, therefore, that we should take our time and make sure we make a good job of it. That is one reason why I think the Minister should facilitate us by circulating his proposed amendments early, thereby giving us an opportunity of considering them in relation to the text of the Bill and in relation to any representations which may be made to us by individuals who have fault to find with its provisions.

The only amendment which was not more than a matter of detail or drafting which was circulated in the previous Dáil was that dealing with the establishment of a consultative committee. One amendment related to a consultative committee and stood in my name and another amendment was put down by a number of Deputies including the present Minister. I accepted the case made on the Second Reading debate last year by Deputy Larkin in favour of establishing a committee of that kind—a committee representing both parties in industry— which would be in contact with the departmental administration of the Factories Act and available for consultation in regard to the making of regulations under it and which could bring to the attention of the officers concerned in the Department any defects in the enforcement arrangements.

I did not favour the type of amendment which appeared in the name of some members of the Labour Party, in which the functions of the committee were specified, because in my view any detailed definition of functions tends to have a limiting effect. I felt it was wiser, in the establishment of such a committee, to give it general functions in relation to the administration of the Act and consultation with the Minister thereon. Whatever the Minister may have in mind in regard to the establishment of a consultative committee—and I presume he intends to adopt that suggestion—I should like him to circulate the amendment early.

I think the Minister took the right decision that the extension of the Factories Act to cover office workers is undesirable. Some aspects of the problem affecting office workers are similar to those affecting factory workers but, on the whole, there is a different problem there. When this matter was under discussion before, I indicated that I was somewhat apprehensive of the possible effects of hasty legislation upon the employment of office workers. I think I am correct in saying that the International Labour Office had the question of legislation affecting the conditions of employment of office workers under review and was preparing a report in anticipation of a discussion at an international conference on the drafting of a convention. I do not know if that report has been completed or if any documents have been circulated by the International Labour Office in that regard. If such documents were circulated it would be desirable to have a very full regard to them and to keep whatever legislative proposals we may consider in regard to office workers in accord with the International Labour Office recommendations. They bring to the consideration of these matters a great deal of experience and knowledge and, by following their guidance, we can avoid mistakes which might have serious repercussions upon that class of worker here.

I hope that if the Minister has seriously contemplated the introduction of legislation regarding office workers, as he has stated, he will be able at a fairly early date to make known the general form that legislation may take. It is always undesirable that there should be any element of uncertainty in a matter of that kind. The drafting of the legislation may take some time. I have no desire to rush it because of the possible mistakes that might result. I hope the Minister will take an early opportunity of giving a general indication of the type and scope of that legislation so that nobody would be hesitate about engaging in any business enterprise for fear he might run himself into unanticipated expenditure.

I do not think the Dáil need delay the Minister in getting the Second Reading of this Bill. It is not often that we get an opportunity of discussing a Bill which was drafted by a member of a former Government, now in opposition, and resubmitted to the Dáil by his successor.

Mr. J. Larkin

It is not very easy to make a fresh speech on the second occasion on which a Bill has been submitted for Second Reading. However, there are one or two comments that might be made. The first is in regard to the desirability of ensuring that we have no further delay in the passage of the Bill to the Statute Book. It is correct, as the Minister has said, that we have had this present legislation with us now for over 50 years with very little change—and, in the meantime, the world moves on. It is time we adapted our legislation in regard to the welfare and safety of workers to modern standards. From that aspect, we can appreciate the Minister's point of view that it would help to avoid delay by resubmitting the original Bill —as, in the main, the Bill is not very controversial—and, in the course of debate in the House, getting a Bill satisfactory to all Parties.

This is the first piece of Irish legislation which seeks to deal in a comprehensive way with the welfare and safety of workers in factories. Almost word for word, the Bill is a replica of the British Act. We have the further peculiarity now, as has been pointed out, that the present Bill is a replica of a Bill which was introduced by the Minister's predecessor. I hope we will break the sequence of this similarity so that it will not go on indefinitely.

One point of similarity that we should prefer to see emphasised is a closer adherence to the recommendations of the International Labour Office. It is much more desirable that we should, as Deputy Lemass indicated, follow the advice and guidance of a very experienced and expert body rather than follow in a very close manner the part already taken by our sister House across the water, desirable though that may be.

One of the points which will require very close consideration during the Committee Stage is the question of the desirability of having some advisory committee provided for in the new Bill. This is one of the matters on which most definite advice and guidance is given by the International Labour Office not merely in regard to the form of a general provision for an advisory body but also in regard to very specific indications of the powers and responsibilities of such a body.

It is important to bear in mind that when we speak of an advisory committee its function is not merely to advise the Minister in respect of his powers under the Act or the regulations he is called upon to make nor is it even in respect of the inspectorial branch of his Department: there is a wider aspect of the matter, that is, the undertaking of the enlightenment and education not only of workers but also of employers and the public generally in modern standards of industrial safety and the welfare of the working people. That requires not alone the activities of a Government Department. It requires the activities of the Minister and his departmental advisers, the representatives of the workers and of the employers and in addition, in many cases, of the local authorities, together with the utilisation of all the modern methods that are adopted for educational purposes whether by way of lectures, the radio, films, exhibitions, and so forth. Quite clearly, an advisory committee of that kind can do very effective work.

Furthermore, we propose to lay very strong stress on the need for close co-operation between the inspectorial branch of the Minister's Department and not merely the workers' organisation but also the employers' organisation in so far as they represent what is best in the minds of employers from the point of view of the safety of the workers. The good employer has just as strong an objection to the bad employer as the trade union has and we feel it would make for more effective inspection and would be of considerable assistance to the inspectors, if it were possible to associate at top level such an advisory council with the chief inspector and his assistant, and then, moving down the various rungs of the ladder, in turn associate at the level of industry or the individual enterprise a representative of the workers and the employers in the actual carrying out of the regulations which may be made by this House.

It is quite clear that there is a need to encourage and assist the workers themselves in taking full advantage of any protection that may be afforded to them by this House whether it is by way of regulation or equipment and the very fact that in the Bill itself we recognise that workers on occasion may even harm or destroy equipment specially provided for their welfare and that we have to make provision against that, does show that there is that factor lacking. One way of getting that done is to establish the direct interest and concern of the workers in the application and the enforcement of those regulations and to encourage in them a sense of responsibility towards seeing that the regulations are carried out in their own particular workplace by the employer. The co-operation of the workers should be sought, and whatever special equipment is made available should be regarded not so much as the employer's property but property put there by the legislature for the protection of the workers. All that can be done through the medium of the advisory council working through committees or delegations, depending on the size of the enterprise, right down to the industry.

That is why I would stress that if we are thinking in terms of this Bill having been pictured to some extent against the background of recent British legislation and if we have regard to the stature and standing of the International Labour Office, we should follow the guidance of the International Labour Office in its broadest aspect and where it can be of most benefit in making this legislation effective.

There are one or two other points on which I would like to touch briefly. While the Minister indicated that he is up against difficulty with regard to extending this Bill to deal with officers in commercial employment, I am still not fully satisfied in the matter. I recognise that there are different features to deal with which may require special legislation, but I do think that even within the compass of the present Bill there are certain features particularly relating to health and welfare which might well have been introduced in a preliminary manner by way of regulation if it was only merely to test the ground and gain experience for the drafting of fuller legislation.

We are aware that however anxious the Minister may be—whether it be the present Minister or his predecessor —to deal with this question of the welfare and health of office employees, he does find difficulty in squeezing Bills of this character into the legislative schedule. The very fact that, as we know, the present Bill has been more or less under consideration since before the war, and that it has been mainly in draft as far back as 1947, shows that it is not too easy to gain the necessary attention from the Oireachtas to secure the passing of this legislation. I personally have a feeling that no matter how anxious the responsible Minister may be, whoever he is, there will be considerable delay before we see legislation designed to deal with the question of the welfare, health and safety of commercial employees coming before this House.

Rather than have that delay take place, I think we might have ventured a little bit in the present instance and at least tried to apply some provisions of the present Bill to office employees. It could quite easily have been done without giving rise to many problems. In many ways there is almost a greater urgency in respect of certain office employees as regards welfare and health than there is in respect of workers engaged in ordinary factories and workshops. Some of the conditions are abominable and the very fact that this type of employee has a lower standard of trade union organisation, and, therefore, trade union protection, than is enjoyed by industrial workers, means there is all the greater need to have them given the protection of legislation through appropriate measures being passed.

There has been reference before in regard to the question of penalties, whether it is desirable to provide for heavy penalties under the Act, knowing that the courts will not have regard to the maximum, but, on the other hand, realising that if we increase the maximum there will be reluctance to find the prosecution proved. However, I do think we should have regard to the fact that if we are taking factory legislation seriously we do to some extent undermine our own approach to the matter when workers read, as they read in our newspapers every day, where employers are brought up for serious contravention of the regulations, contraventions which in certain cases have resulted in accidents or in other cases might have led to very serious accidents, that purely nominal fines of 5/-, 10/-or 15/- are imposed.

It may well be that the newspaper report does not carry the full details of the proceedings, or the evidence on either side, but if we believe that it is essential, for example, adequately to protect dangerous machinery, how can we induce workers to believe that we are taking that matter seriously when the employer is prosecuted for failing to comply with regulations and, as so often is the case, a purely nominal fine of a few shillings is imposed on the employer? The worker reads that report—maybe he is employed in that undertaking and he sees what has happened to his employer for a gross breach of the Act; perhaps he goes out of his workplace, rides home on his bicycle without any light and finds he has to pay as big a fine as his employer for not having a lamp on his bicycle.

It is not really a question of the penalty on the employer concerned because in my opinion any penalty we would think of putting into legislation in this House would still be so relatively small in relation to the normal financial resources of employers that it would not make very much difference. It seems to me the publicity and the recording of a conviction are the more important factors. Nevertheless it does have the effect on the workers of lowering the whole status of factory legislation when a case comes before the court in respect of a breach of the regulations and it is dealt with in the same way as a case of a boy or girl summoned for not having a lamp on a bicycle. That is one aspect of the matter we should look at.

Following the last reading I noticed one particular aspect in which the Minister should go further and that is with regard to Section 83 dealing with the position of dockers. The section provides that certain parts of the Act will apply but I notice with regard to Part IV that only the section of Part IV dealing with welfare will apply in the case of dockers. In Part IV there are other factors such as the provision of first aid, supplies of drinking water, washing facilities, accommodation for clothing, etc. At the moment I am not quite clear whether the intention of the Bill, as it now stands, is to limit the application of Section 83 only to that part of Part IV which deals with welfare or that somewhere else in the Bill it is possible to extend to dockers such measures as the supply of drinking water, washing facilities, accommodation for clothing and so on which are being provided for other types of worker. I do not see any reason why these facilities should not be extended to dockers who need these facilities just the same as other workers if not more so. It may be argued that because of the situation of the docks and quays this is more a matter for the local authorities. These facilities which are set down in Part IV should be extended to cover the dockers.

Finally, in his introductory speech the Minister touched upon the question of the initiation of prosecutions. As I understand it, previously the power to initiate a prosecution did, in fact, lie with the inspectors. The present Bill provides it will lie with the Minister. While that may be bringing the Bill into line with the general legislative proposals in other Acts, I think we should examine the matter a little closer because to some extent the position has been that, under existing legislation, inspectors have been given a certain amount of autonomy and freedom from the overriding control of the Department under which they work.

It can well be that an inspector may find that there have been breaches of the Act in his opinion and he may desire to prosecute, but if the decision to initiate the prosecution has got to be, as it is, determined by the Department or the officials, there will be an intolerable delay. Various factors will start to impinge upon that decision and the matter may possibly end up with a decision not to prosecute or there may be so much delay that the inspector becomes disheartened.

At the moment I think we should not make a change but work as we did before, leaving the power to initiate prosecutions with the inspectors subject to the other provisions I mentioned of a closer association of the workers and employers and trade organisations with the inspectorial branch in an advisory capacity.

I mentioned earlier the difficulty of trying to submit complaints to the inspectorial branch and being unable to follow them up to see what was the result. To-day, I had to ask for the services of an inspector within ten miles of the city in a new concern which was started up and where, according to the reports I have, the workers have been working a 12 hour day without any toilet accommodation or drinking water and in a very badly dust-laden atmosphere. There is no trade union organisation there. What may happen now after I have submitted the complaint I do not know. I have no doubt that the inspectors will do their job and, possibly, investigate the matter, but if there is no prosecution it is difficult to explain to the workers concerned what was the outcome. I think this matter was raised before. There should be some provision whereby a responsible trade organisation, whether a trade union or an organisation of workers and employers, when they submit a report and request an investigation, should be able to obtain further information to learn whether or not their complaint was well founded and whether adequate and satisfactory steps were being taken.

Mr. Traynor

I think this Bill will be welcomed not only by the employees of the various factories concerned but also by the employers. There is nothing more distressing to the employees and the employers of a factory than an accident of any kind—especially a fatal accident. Therefore, I have no doubt that the employers will be quite prepared to meet their commitments as far as the protection of the workers is concerned.

However, Deputy Larkin referred to the question of the employers providing all the necessary safeguards for the workers and where they failed to do so the enforcement of the penalties contained in the Bill but I have, perhaps, had a different experience to Deputy Larkin. I have had the experience of the workers themselves removing the safeguards which were placed there by their employers for their safety. You are facing a very difficult task when you are talking about enforcing the penalties on the employer for not providing safeguards but what are you going to do with the employee who removes these safeguards where they are provided? I think that is a matter that should be looked into. It is a very serious matter where an employee is injured by reason of the negligence of his employer but I think it is a much more serious case when an employee is injured as a result of the removal of the safety devices provided as a safeguard for his protection.

I do not think that we need worry too much about the fact that this Bill is in some respects a copy of Acts which have operated across the water. I think we should be quite prepared to copy and accept the very best that is contained in the legislation of any country if it provides for up-to-date safeguards for a worker. Therefore, I do not think that we should hang our heads because we happen to follow an example of a nation that has, I suppose, anything up to 200 years of industrial experience behind it. I am sure if the Bill was examined very carefully you would find sections therein which could be traced to countries other than the country mentioned. From that point of view, I think we need not worry too much about the similarity of this legislation to English legislation.

However, there is one point which occurs to me and that is the question of the inspection of the factory. I hope that when the Bill does operate that the hordes of inspectors that used to haunt the minds of Deputy Morrissey and the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, in the past will not begin to operate in these factories. I know—I can speak from experience —of cases where you had perhaps two inspectors—and I have known an occasion when at least three inspectors —entered a factory. That type of inspection is not very helpful; it is inclined to interfere with the work of an established concern. I am all in favour of seeing that all the safeguards and protection that should be afforded to workers are afforded and if there are any industrial concerns that are not meeting the requirements of the Bill or of the Act when it will become an Act—then, by all means let the inspectors do their work. But it ought to be easy to arrange some system whereby the question of a number of inspectors entering the factory on the one day will be obviated. I do not think it would be very difficult to ensure that a particular inspector in respect of a particular type of factory would be the only inspector who would go in there on a particular day.

I would like the Minister to take notice of the reference which I have made to the removal of the safeguards for workers by the workers because I think it is a serious aspect of factory protection and it is a desirable thing if an employer installs this type of equipment that it should be left there; and if an accident is brought about by the removal in any circumstances of a piece of safety equipment by a worker, the Bill should be capable of providing for action against such a person.

Mr. Coburn

Having been and industrial worker myself for a number of years before entering public life, I feel it incumbent on me to participate for a brief moment in this debate.

As intimated in the explanatory note accompanying the text of this Bill, the purpose of it is to provide for the welfare and safety of industrial workers and to ensure that they will enjoy reasonable comfort when engaged in their different occupations. I welcome this Bill very much and I think the people who will be affected by it will also welcome it. We all realise that it is one of the functions of a Government to legislate for the different sections of the community with regard to social welfare and health especially, but I consider that this Bill will go a long way towards removing many of the obstacles which have been placed in the way of the comfort of the workers in general and that it will make them more productive and co-operative as a result. When people are reasonably comfortable in their work they are able to give a better return to their employers and that is one reason why I think the employers themselves will welcome this Bill because even though they are bound in common justice and decency to provide proper facilities for their employees they themselves will benefit ultimately when they consider that they are getting a better return from the people they employ.

There is an important section in Part IV to which I would like to refer. It is Section 53, sub-section (1) and it says:—

"There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons adequate and suitable accommodation for clothing not worn during working hours and such arrangements as are reasonably practicable, or where a standard is prescribed, such arrangements as are specified in the relevant regulations, shall be made for drying such clothing."

Wet clothes are a constant source of danger to the health of the people— we all realise that, and I compliment the Minister on making this very necessary provision in this Bill. I can assure him it will be very welcome among the workers.

Section 13, sub-section (2) deals with ventilation. It says:—

"The Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Health, may, by regulations, prescribe a standard of adequate ventilation for factories or for any class or description of factory or parts thereof."

Ventilation is good in its proper place but in some industrial premises there is far too much ventilation when we consider bad roofs, bad windows, defective walls and draughty doors. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that these dangers in premises are very detrimental to people's health and stringent steps should be taken to enforce existing and proposed legislation concerning the elimination of these dangers.

It is a very exhaustive Bill and I do not intend to say much more about it. I suppose more comment will be made during the Committee Stage. I repeat that I welcome it as a step forward towards the ideal environment in which a worker may give of his best.

I suppose some employers may quibble or protest against all these measures when they consider the extra expense it may entail, but I am sure the Minister will give them ample time to put their premises in order. They will co-operate wholeheartedly, I think, when they realise that good working conditions begets contentment and that contentment begets good workmanship which in turn begets increased production.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill and its introduction shows that he has the interests of the people and especially the workers at heart.

Mr. Kyne

The attitude of the Labour Party on this Bill is very much similar to what it was when Deputy Lemass introduced his Factories Bill last year. We do not agree with all that is in the Bill, in so far as we do not accept it as going far enough in some particular sections and we intend to improve the measure by suitable amendments at the Committee Stage.

It is difficult to talk at all on a Bill such as this on the Second Reading beyond generally indicating the line we intend to follow when it comes to Committee Stage. Whether this is the Bill of the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Bill of the present Minister does not make any difference in so far as we welcome it because it certainly is an improvement, as the last Bill was, on the old Act. It needed improving; it was out of date and as Deputy Larkin says, this is the first Irish legislation, and in view of our experience since the industrial revival, let us hope it will be comprehensive, full, and as far as possible in the interests of both workers and managements themselves in promoting good working conditions and I would say good relations between the workers and employers. I would like to take advantage of the Second Reading to draw the Minister's attention to what we feel—certainly in the small rural towns that have become industrialised—that there are, as we are aware, as the Minister is aware, and as the former Minister is aware, certain out-dated buildings which were turned into factories. The managements have, to the best of their ability, endeavoured to comply with the regulations but in some instances no effort at all has been made to improve the conditions that were primitive at the start, and over the years—quite a number of years now—no following-up improvement has taken place such as could have taken place by using the reserves that these companies built up.

The trade union people who are interested find a great deal of difficulty in contacting the inspectorial staff of the Minister's Department. How they visit, how frequently or when they are going to visit factories, we have no knowledge. We read of, or hear from our workers that an inspector visited such a factory on such a date. Other industries that needed a visit or needed inspection in the same areas appear to be ignored.

I would welcome a much more frequent inspection and above all things I would welcome some co-operation between the workers' organisations and the inspectorial staff when they do visit an area. I believe we could indicate to these inspectors the things that we think worthy of investigation. It is not an attempt to tell them what they should do but an effort to co-operate with them in drawing attention to what we believe are dangers or sources of danger to the people employed there.

I know of a particular case of one industrial town where a certain machine has been worked for the past six or seven years. That firm has been inspected many times—how many times I could not say—but it was not until two or three months ago when the machine had torn the right arm off a boy that certain elementary precautions in the way of safeguards were enforced on the firm by taking them into the law courts. Had we been consulted by the inspector prior to that, we could have told him of near misses where our workers just escaped injury but we had to wait until somebody was mutilated for life before the inspectorial staff carried out a duty that they should have very well carried out long before. No matter how we work on this Bill, no matter what regulations we put in, unless they are enforced, it is going to be a waste of time when it becomes an Act.

Deputy Larkin spoke of the Labour Party's desire to have consultative councils set up not only at the top but in each individual factory, representing both the management and the workers. With co-operation between these and the inspectorial staff of the Department of Industry and Commerce, we could indicate to the Minister perhaps special regulations that could not necessarily be put in a Bill such as this but which would apply to particular or localised industries, and which would be necessary for the good management and the working of the factory.

We will at the appropriate stage, I hope, endeavour to put the points we have in mind in print, in the form of amendments, and, with the help of the Opposition—because I think this Bill is non-controversial as far as the political side is concerned—endeavour to get the utmost out of this legislation.

Mr. S. Collins

It is inevitable that legislation of this nature must have its most fruitful period in the Dáil on Committee Stage. I find myself in accord with Deputy Kyne. This Bill is undoubtedly a substantial step in the right direction, but there are many facets which appear to me as being rather limited in their scope and not sufficiently wide in their effect.

We are initiating here for the first time a measure that might be described as a comprehensive effort to co-ordinate and codify a certain type of factory legislation that has been in being—for the most part, taken-over legislation and regulations that may in the main have been culled from some other source. It is an attempt—and, in fairness, let it be said, a praiseworthy attempt—to initiate an Irish code in relation to factories. Maybe I have an insatiable desire that something which has the characteristic Irish stamp should carry it on the possible highest level. I would rather see this Bill err on the side of providing ideal conditions for the workers with regard to building and spacing than to see it fall short.

There are many facets of factory legislation that this Bill is not going to touch. One of the things that I find from experience of dealing with many industrial concerns—and I have inspected hundreds of factories in this country—is the tremendous element of noise and disorder that is occasioned by outmoded buildings or by wrong suspensions, or wrong spacing of machinery that it could be and should be an effective part of our legislation to eliminate.

I feel that once we are making a step in that direction at all, we should try to arrive at a minimum standard which would tend in the ultimate analysis to make for the optimum standard. There is no doubt that very large and serious changes are necessary to improve the lot of the industrial worker. It may well be said that to some of the industries in this country this Bill means nothing because the standards which they have already set themselves are infinitely higher than the standard which this Bill creates. Unfortunately, that is not true of many industries that have been created in hasty circumstances, or in unsuitable buildings in a situation of urgency. I feel that the legislation itself is going to serve no purpose if the Minister cannot give it some assurance that there is going to be constant, effective and rational supervision in relation to the terms of the Bill.

We know perfectly well—if we are prepared to take our tongues out of our cheeks and talk honestly—that there are many factories in this country that have never been inspected and that there are many industries where, in general, conditions may be satisfactory but where complaints in regard to petty things have never been investigated or eliminated. In the case of the industrial worker class, the things which agitate their minds very actively are the primary comforts to which they are entitled— adequate accommodation in relation to drinking water, toilets, rest space or cloakrooms or adequate protection for garments they may have to leave aside during working hours.

There is also the question of the provision for adequate custody of the bicycles, which they have to utilise in coming or going to work. These little things are matters which are usually neglected but, if proper attention were paid to them, they would make for a better approach by the worker towards his employer.

Will this Bill be just another milestone in the volume of legislation or will it be, in fact, effectively enforced to ensure at least a minimum standard for all factories throughout the length and breadth of the land? I hope it will be effectively enforced and in that belief I say to the Minister in an earnest way: "Good luck and God speed to this measure." It is a measure which I think calls for substantial amendment, not in the sense of amendment of principle but amendment of detail, and broadening of the technique of control. There is no doubt that there are certain facets of this Bill which must commend themselves in general to everybody in this House. I am very glad to see provision for more stringent enforcement of regulations governing ventilation and dust-extractor equipment, in relation to factories. I am glad to see that somebody has at least conceded the necessity for a greater cubic space per head for industrial workers than was previously conceded. There is nothing, I think, more conducive to trouble than overcrowding of industrial workers in small spaces, particularly where the type of work involves of necessity large dust content or large gaseous displacements.

We have got to face realities and I think that this Bill is a reasonable contribution and a worthwhile step towards the necessity of ensuring that our industrial workers are employed in conditions that are at least comparable, if not better, than those afforded industrial workers in any of the neighbouring countries whose conditions we know. It is difficult on the Second Reading Stage to get down to the problem of a Factories Bill, but we can say that, in common with all sides of the House, we look upon this Bill as an advance in the right direction. I do not feel that any worthwhile employer or industrialist will have any objection at all to this measure because the measure will be a platform on which substantial goodwill can be established between the executive of any industry and its employees. It is inevitable that where you have a drive towards re-industrialising the country, the State should lay down minimum conditions.

I think it was always the ambition of the former Minister for Industry and Commerce that we would arrive at a situation where there could be at least a minimum standard laid down in relation to factories. His successor, as a very experienced and substantial trade unionist himself, as a man with very wide industrial contacts, should be able even to enlarge on the conception that was heretofore in the Factories Bill. Let us do the job as well as we can; I would rather err on the side of the worker than fall short of the standards we should set. I believe myself that it is in the ultimate interests of the industrialist to ensure adequate and reasonable protective precautions in relation to all dangerous machinery because we know full well that the impact of heavy rates of insurance, heavy protection against accident, is a very considerable overhead in industry. It is in the interests of the industrialist to ensure that the first cost will not be the least cost and if he takes the precaution of adequately protecting his machinery, he is at least minimising to his own benefit the consequences of carelessness in this respect.

I am very much inclined to the view expressed by Deputy Larkin that in the ultimate punishment, there is not a sufficiently serious view of infringements of the code as it now exists, in relation to the adequate protection of machinery. There is not a sufficiently serious view taken by the courts. I do feel that we should aim at a basic minimum in relation to factory standards, breaches of which could lead to consequences as serious for the employer as other types of breaches might lead to for the employees. We face in this Bill, I would say, a fairly solidly united House in which there will be a spontaneous desire to try to get the best possible type of Bill out of the Committee Stage. In that spirit I would say to the Minister, with his experience in relation to industrial workers and in relation to the problems of industrial workers generally, to give the House in amendments which he will submit, the benefit of the known ambitions and aims of reasonable groups of industrial workers in relation to the standards necessary for their factories. I feel in relation to this Bill that if we can arrive at a proper basis of legislation we will get a spontaneity of goodwill as between the employer and employee that will make for a peaceful co-operative expansive policy within industry in this State, and that our factories will ultimately tend to become places in which the worker is happy to work and the employer is anxious to and desirous of keeping the factory in such a condition in relation to its physical appearance, the protection of its machinery, the problems of dust eradication, proper ventilation and adequate accommodation that he will be prepared to keep it at the very highest level in the knowledge that what is good for his factory and good for his employees will ultimately mean good business for himself.

Mr. Casey

I think the Minister was well advised in introducing this Bill in the same order and condition in which he got it from his predecessor, if only for the reason that that should speed its passage to the Statute Book. The Minister has indicated that he proposes to introduce some amendments on the Committee Stage. In that connection, I join with Deputy Lemass in appealing to him to let us have an early indication, if possible, of what those amendments will be. Many of us here and many organisations of employers and employees believe there are certain things in this Bill which might usefully be taken out of it while, at the same time, there are certain things missing from the Bill that might usefully be incorporated in it.

I regard the Bill as an advance. It is a step forward so far as workers and employers in industry are concerned. I am, however, disappointed that there is no provision made in relation to staffs working in offices. The Minister has indicated, and it has been confirmed by Deputy Lemass, that he has been advised that this is not a measure which might usefully be utilised to legislate in relation to conditions of work for office workers. I am not altogether convinced of that and I would ask the Minister to have another look at the Bill and to consider going so far as providing in this measure something in the nature of minimum standards of hygiene in relation to offices. Those of us who have been close to this aspect of industry generally are only too well aware of the conditions that exist in offices. There is overcrowding; there is bad ventilation and bad lighting. I think statistics, certainly those of some of the medical officers of health attached to local authorities, indicate that the prevalence of tuberculosis is higher amongst office workers than it is in relation to any other type of worker. I am prepared, however, to accept the assurance of the Minister and Deputy Lemass that this is not the best Bill under which to legislate in that regard, but I appeal to the Minister to have another look at it and, if possible, to incorporate some provisions which will lay down at least minimum standards in relation to offices. Later it should be possible to present more comprehensive legislation in order to deal with this problem.

The most pungent criticism levelled against the Factory Acts is in relation to the carrying out of inspections. Deputy Traynor had some complaint to make in that direction also, though his complaint is somewhat opposed to mine; he complained of too many inspectors visiting the factories on the one day. No doubt that complaint is well founded, but it is our experience that the workers feel they are not getting adequate protection even within the limited scope of the existing Acts because they believe inspections are not made frequently enough. As another speaker said here, there is a feeling in some cases that factories are never inspected at all. Workers come along and complain to their organisations that when the factory inspector does visit he is taken on a more or less managerial conducted tour of the factory; they feel—I think quite rightly so—that they should be given an opportunity of assisting the inspector in the discharge of his duties.

When the Minister is considering the setting up of this advisory council to assist employers and employees he should also consider the setting up of local advisory committees, particularly in the more concentrated industrial areas, to function with the local inspector and assist him in the carrying out of his duties. I am sorry that offices are outside the scope of the Bill. I am sorry, too, that certain premises have been deliberately excluded in Section 3; the phraseology there seems to deliberately exclude such places as the locomotive sheds and garages of our national transport system. Specific reference is made to premises in which cleaning, washing and running repairs are carried out. I see no reason why such places as railway locomotive sheds and garages should be deliberately excluded from the scope of this Bill and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that particular exclusion.

Mr. Donegan

This Bill is a very necessary measure and it is one which, when enacted, will bring a very great measure of happiness and a certain feeling of security to many workers. Looking through the Bill I was struck by Section 74 of Part VI in which it is provided that the medical practitioner shall notify the Minister in relation to industrial diseases. I bethought myself of an experience I had with some employees who were considering the taking out of an insurance policy to enable them to reap certain benefits, if they were incapacitated through illness, which would bring their wages up to a reasonable figure taken in conjunction with National Health Insurance or social welfare benefits. I was handling the matter myself and I discovered that certain industrial diseases are excluded from most of these insurance policies and in order to cover certain industrial diseases it is necessary to take out a separate policy. Such a policy involves a considerable expenditure. Indeed, in the specific instance I have given the point was reached where it became questionable as to whether or not the management and workers would proceed with such insurance. The Minister would be well advised to consider the case of persons who are in danger of contracting diseases by virtue of the industry in which they are engaged. I know that in Section 56 provision is made whereby the Minister can insist on the employer providing special or additional benefits and that he can also make an Order whereby the workers or management may be required to make a contribution jointly or severally. This is a very good thing.

I would ask the Minister to consider expediting that matter because there are many industries in which there are dangers of industrial disease. For instance, in the milling industry there is a danger of various skin diseases. That is the industry to which I refer. The Minister should get his Department to investigate the whole matter and see that dangers of diseases are suitably insured against in the case of the workers who might contract them because social welfare benefits and health benefits will not leave the worker in a position to look after his family. If there is danger by virtue of his occupation the State should see that insurance is taken out against financial loss in respect of this danger.

Mr. Desmond

This is the third week of the present session in the Dáil. It is quite evident that this is the most important matter that the House has discussed. It is a pleasure to realise that we can discuss a very important matter affecting the lives of the workers in industry with full understanding that both sides of the House are discussing it with a view to getting the best possible system we can.

Like my colleague, Deputy Kyne, I would stress the importance of inspection. Section 17 says that an inspector can bring in a county medical officer of health or health inspector. Up to the present, conditions in some of the factories or workshops in some of the rural areas have been scandalous. I often wondered if the inspectors ever called there. Having been told on some occasions that they did, I often wondered what duties an inspector was supposed to perform. It is most disgraceful that such conditions as obtained in some factories could exist. Despite the protests of workers and of their unions no system of improvement had emanated from any quarter. I hope, please God, that by the introduction of this Bill we are entering into a new era when there will be better understanding in industry. As many speakers have mentioned, this legislation, as well as being important for the worker, is also important for the employer so that a spirit of co-operation may be developed in industry.

This is a good Bill. It is a Bill that we want and it is a Bill that we want in operation as soon as possible.

Mr. Norton

As the principle of factory and workshop legislation has long been accepted by the House, this Bill becomes very largely a Committee Stage Bill and many of the matters which have been raised here could probably have been raised more appropriately on the Committee Stage since they relate to the details of the measure now before the House and not to the general principles enshrined in our factory and workshop legislation. No doubt, many of the points which have been raised will reappear on the Committee Stage and some of the points which have been raised will probably be covered by amendments.

I gather from what has been said in the course of the debate that the House is anxious to see the ministerial amendments first so as to enable Deputies to know what matters are being covered by these amendments. If that is the wish of the House, I will make sure that the ministerial amendments are circulated in sufficient time to enable Deputies to move further amendments, if that is desired.

I took the course of reintroducing this Bill in its present form because I thought it was the sensible thing to do, because I thought it was the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter, because I felt it was easier for those who had taken a keen interest in the Bill to rediscuss a Bill with which they were familiar rather than that I should distort the pattern of the Bill by injecting amendments into it at this stage. We know the Bill up to the end of the Second Stage and if there is going to be a change in pattern let it be a change in pattern with which we will all be familiar and a change in pattern which, I hope, we will all help to make. It is because I felt—and experience has justified my view—that the reintroduction of this Bill in its old form would probably accelerate discussion here that I adopted that line of procedure.

Some matters have been raised on this Bill which are more appropriate to a Committee Stage discussion but there are some that have been raised which might be said to be somewhat larger issues. Even if some of them relate to a Committee Stage discussion, it may be well to try to clear these matters with the Deputies concerned. I am quite willing, if it is generally agreed, to leave the Committee Stage over for, say, three weeks. I will do my best to have the official amendments circulated within a fortnight's time and, if Deputies wish, they can put in amendments in the other week. If, at the end of that period, they feel they would like a longer period to deal with amendments, we can quite easily arrange that and defer the Committee Stage to a later date.

The question has been raised in the course of this discussion of the application of this Bill to office workers. I would like to have made the Bill applicable to office workers but to do so would first involve withdrawal of the Bill because the present title would not suit the Bill if it were made applicable to those who work in offices. In any case, even if I got to the stage of withdrawing the Bill and making it applicable to those who work in offices, I do not think in the long run we would have got very far because my inquiries in the Department convinced me that there was not any substantial amount of documentation there on the problems of office workers and that, if we were to get into the field of legislating for office workers, a goodly amount of research would have to be done in that field.

I then endeavoured to ascertain what the International Labour Office position was. I ascertained that there has been no report yet by the International Labour Office in respect of office workers. They have had this matter under consideration for nearly three years. That shows that it is not just an open and shut question; it is one that has taken a highly skilled technical organisation like the International Labour Office nearly three years to consider and, so far, we have not got a report from the International Labour Office. That is a factor which Deputies ought to bear in mind.

I agree with Deputy Lemass that if we are going to write into our legislative code a basic document like a Factories Bill and a basic document like a Bill protecting office workers we ought to get the best possible Bill we can. Here I do not travel the same road as Deputy Larkin as to the origin of this Bill. I think this Bill, frankly, is very largely patterned on what the British did in some fields. The British may have embodied in some of their legislation recommendations which came from the International Labour Office but, quite frankly, I approach the whole problem of a Factories Bill or, for that matter, any other Bill, from this angle, that I would like to pick the best brains in the world and find out the best possible way of doing a thing. We should not be parochial or excessively nationalistic in our legislation or in our solutions for problems, nor should we reject a widely accepted method if it is an intelligent one, in preference to some less efficient method which happens to have an author who lives or was born in Ireland.

In the field of postal, telegraph and telephonic communications, there are international methods and regulations; in the air field, there are international regulations for air transport; in shipping, there are international regulations accepted by very many countries; in the field of mining there are international regulations also. If we wish to find the best way to protect the interests of workers in, say, a textile factory and if we find that somewhere in the world there is a better way of doing so than has occurred to ourselves, quite frankly I would take the world solution—subject to the test that it is efficient and supplies a solution to the problem in our own country. Therefore, while this Bill may have been fashioned on the basis of legislation previously in operation, I do not find any fault with it on that score, nor would I find any fault if it were a sensible way devised in some Scandinavian country—subject all the time to the test that it suits the particular job we want to do.

Deputy Lemass referred to an advisory committee. On the Committee Stage of the Bill which was before the last Dáil, I submitted an amendment designed to secure the establishment of an advisory committee and Deputy Lemass, then Minister, also gave directions for such a committee to be established. I think we are in agreement on that principle. The only question at issue is whether we should catalogue the functions of the committee in detail or give them broad functions assigned to them by the Minister either permanently or from time to time and allow the committee to do its work in that field. On the Committee Stage I will certainly bring in an amendment to establish an advisory committee and I hope the proposal will be acceptable to the House.

Deputy Larkin referred to the inadequate fines imposed by the courts for offences against the Factories Acts. I agree with him that those fines are utterly inadequate and in no way mark the disapproval of a breach of the law but it is difficult to see what you can do by legislation. The temptation is to impose a minimum fine, but one wonders whether that will give the requisite result. Rather than impose the minimum fine, which offends against the tastes of district justices, they may allow a person scot-free and the second position would really be worse than the first. Where the legislature intends employers to conform to certain standards of health safeguards and where there are transgressions by the employer, I think district justices should take note of that and mark their disapproval by adequate fines in relation to the offence. Some of the fines imposed have been trifling ones, such as one would impose on a young boy or girl for cycling without a light ten minutes after lighting-up time. It must be borne in mind that what may be to-day just a breach of some protection clause in a Factories Act may to-morrow be an inquest. An offence in not providing adequate protection could, if the element of luck were absent, result in an inquest on the injured worker.

There is some force, however, in the contention that the method of dealing with offences through the courts is not the ideal one in the long run. Admittedly, it is one way of dealing with the problem of transgressions against the law. It has been the accepted pattern, but we ought to take the view that it is not the only method. By increasing our inspectorate staff, which I think is inadequate at the moment, and by gearing up that staff to ensure compliance with factory legislation, we might obviate the necessity for prosecutions. At all events, there is something to be said for the point of view that public opinion, by taking a serious view of these transgressions, would make it clear that they were not looked upon as simple offences but were regarded as neglect by the employer of his obvious duty to safeguard the interests and material well-being of those whom he employed. I do not think I can deal with this by raising the fines. So long as a minimum fine is not imposed, it might well be that by reliance on the fine method to some extent and by the dissemination of information and propaganda through the advisory committee, the protective standard may be raised in a way that the fine itself could not achieve.

Deputy Traynor asked about workers deliberately removing the safeguards provided. Apparently, he did not advert to Section 122, which provides that workers who deliberately abuse the safeguards or remove them or do not take cognisance of them are guilty of an offence; and Section 98 provides penalties in such cases.

Deputy Donegan raised the question of industrial diseases and asked that some provision be made for workers who contract diseases peculiar to the industry in which they are employed. Such provisions never had a place in a Factories and Workshops Bill. The Workmen's Compensation Act, which is administered by the Department of Social Welfare, is the Act which deals with industrial diseases. Provision is made there for scheduling them. Where a person suffers a disability as a result of contracting an industrial disease, there is provision for compensation under that Act. I must, therefore, suggest to the Deputy that he find his remedy through an amendment of that Act.

Deputies Kyne and Larkin raised the question of inspection of factories and the difficulty of ascertaining whether inspections, which trade unions had asked should be carried out, in fact had been carried out. In particular, Deputy Larkin asked that trade unions, being responsible bodies, should know the result of the inquiries which had been set on foot in the first instance by the trade union and which had been completed by the inspector who will function under this Bill. I do not think that can be legislated for suitably in a Bill of this kind. I agree that there is need for greater co-operation between trade unions, on the one hand, who are anxious to see the provisions of this Act applied in full and, on the other hand, the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce who are responsible for ensuring that the Act is complied with so far as their authorities go. I will consider, when the Bill is through both Houses of the Oireachtas, what can be done to devise some responsible method of co-ordination and some responsible and sensible liaison arrangement between trade unions and an inspectorate staff with a view to ensuring that that co-operation will be of a fruitful character and that it will produce perhaps a better and more sensible approach to our factory inspection arrangements.

Deputy Kyne raised the question of the inadequate protection afforded in some factories. Indeed, I could quite underwrite some of the things he said. There are some, not many, factories where the standard of protection is not adequate and where there is some considerable difficulty in getting the owners to comply even with the requirements of a factory Act introduced 53 years ago. I hope that this new Bill and the approbation which it has got in this House will bring home to these people, if not voluntarily at least through the powers of this Bill, how essential it is that adequate safeguards should be provided for workers in factories and that proper factories should, in fact, be erected or provided by reconstruction to ensure that those who are destined to spend the best part of their lives in factories will do so under the best possible conditions.

I thought, in connection with this Bill, that I would insert a clause providing either for the appointment of a safety committee in a factory which employed a certain number of workers or a kind of a safety delegate. It may be possible to do that on the Committee Stage of the Bill. In that way, you could tie in the work of the safety committee in a factory with the inspection by the officer of the Department.

If these two are regarded as having complementary functions, I think it would be possible to obviate the necessity for many prosecutions because the irregularities would be brought to the notice of the owners or management on the spot by the safety committee and presumably these defects would be attended to before the inspector arrived. If there were any contention on the matter, the safety delegate who would be looking after the workers would have an opportunity of telling the visiting inspector of the difficulties in the hope that they would be removed by the intervention of the inspector. However, that is something which I shall have examined between now and the Committee Stage.

I do not regard this Bill as a political Bill. It does not matter to me who puts this Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas. The most important thing, to my mind, is that it is put on the Statute Book and written into our code of legislation. It is long overdue. Tributes to its progressiveness have been paid by speakers from all sides of the House. I hope that, in the course of the debate on the Committee Stage, we shall get the same co-operation as has been manifested on this Second Reading debate and which was manifested also on the Second Reading debate which took place here prior to the dissolution of the last Dáil.

I believe this Bill will be welcomed by trade unions. Certainly, it has long been sought for by them. I hope also it will be welcomed by good employers who will see in it an effort to provide certain minimum and reasonable standards of protection for the physical well-being of the workers employed in their factories.

So far as the Committee Stage is concerned, I shall look at amendments in a reasonable and certainly in a non-Party way. If it should be the desire of the House, I would be quite willing to send this Bill to a Special Committee of the House to have it dealt with there. If that course is not acceptable then we can have the discussions here in the House. Perhaps Deputy Lemass would indicate which course he would favour?

Mr. Lemass

A lot depends on the Government's programme. If the time of the Dáil is likely to be fully occupied with other business, there is a case for the Minister's suggestion.

Mr. Norton

We shall have another look at it when we see the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st December, 1954.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Nov 1954