Vol. 149 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 8, line 5, to delete "tenement" and substitute "multiple".
This gives effect to an amendment which I suggested to the Special Committee and which the Minister undertook to consider. It is really a matter of substituting one word for another. I dislike the expression "tenement factory" and prefer the expression "multiple factory". I feel the expression "tenement factory" conveys a meaning different from what is intended.
I think the Deputy will agree that at the Special Committee I was of much the same view as himself. We thought the expression "multiple factory" might meet the situation. I have looked into the matter since and the position is that the word "tenement" has been used in factory legislation for over 50 years and has a legal significance now in case law. In the circumstances, it might be better to leave the expression "tenement factory" there. It has acquired a tradition of usage over 50 years and has established its significance in case law. I have not much feeling one way or the other in the matter. Having regard, however, to what came to light following my efforts to arrange that the factory should be described as a "multiple factory", I think the best thing to do is to leave the expression "tenement factory" stand.
I do not propose to alter the definition in the slightest.
If we change the word "tenement" to "multiple" in this section we shall have to change it in quite a number of subsequent sections as well.
I will not press the amendment. I admit it is not important but I feel that, to the average man, the expression "tenement factory" means a factory in a tenement house. That is not the definition here. The Minister will visit a factory in his constituency which will come under the definition of "tenement factory" as set out here. I am sure the people there would resent that definition.
I will have another look at the matter. I am more attracted to "multiple" than to "tenement".
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 8, line 23, before "and" to insert "the construction of a new road for which mechanical apparatus is used".
I suggested this amendment to the Special Committee and I am putting it forward now so as to hear from the Minister the reason why road works, and particularly road works on which mechanical apparatus is used, are not included in the definition of "work of engineering construction".
I have looked into this matter but I should like to defer a final decision on the inclusion of such road works until I have examined the repercussions of adopting the amendment. The amendment purports to limit the application to the construction of a new road for which mechanical apparatus is used. It is difficult to conceive of any road being constructed without the use of mechanical apparatus.
I saw the difficulties of applying it to a minor road in the country, for instance. Where, however, a large scheme of constructional works is envisaged, with mechanical apparatus and so forth, it seems to me to be precisely the same as the construction of a bridge, viaduct and so on.
In the definition, we already have power to include "such other works as may be prescribed." I prefer to move along the power in the definition section rather than commit myself at this stage to the lines suggested by the Deputy. Perhaps the Deputy would agree that that is the more prudent course at the present time?
Amendment No. 3 was submitted in error.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 13, line 15, to delete "passing" and substitute "commencement."
The Special Committee reduced from five years to three years the time which may be allowed to occupiers of existing factories to bring their premises up to the new standard of 400 cubic feet air space per person. The committee recommended that the "date of passing" be changed to the "date of commencement." This amendment gives effect to that wish of the committee.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 14, to delete lines 32 to 36. This matter, also, was discussed at the Special Committee. The intention of sub-section (3) of Section 14 was to prevent the Minister from giving, in effect, a monopoly for one type of illuminant. The Special Committee rather disliked this sub-section and it was agreed that it could be deleted. This amendment gives effect to that wish of the committee.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 14, to insert before Section 16 the following new section:—
16.—Where any process is carried on which renders the floor liable to cause persons employed to slip, effective means shall be provided and maintained for protecting the persons employed from slipping.
This is another matter which was dealt with by the Special Committee. An amendment was tabled at the committee by Deputy Larkin to amend Section 15 by providing that, where the wet could not be drained off, suitable false floors or other means be provided and also that effective means be taken to overcome the hazards of a floor rendered slippery through the leakage of oil or grease on to the floor. The committee agreed that Section 15 should stand unamended and I undertook to add to the Bill a provision about the dangers of slippery floors. This has been done in the amendment which I have tabled.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 14, to delete lines 47 to 54 and substitute as follows:—
(1) Sufficient and suitable sanitary convenience for the persons employed in a factory shall be provided, maintained and kept clean and—
(a) where a piped water supply is in the factory, all sanitary conveniences shall be individually flushed water closets, except urinals which shall have suitable flushing arrangements,
(b) sanitary conveniences shall not communicate with any workroom except through the open air or through an intervening ventilated space,
(c) effective provision shall be made for lighting the sanitary conveniences, and
(d) where persons of both sexes are or are intended to be employed (except in the case of factories where the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there), the sanitary conveniences shall afford separate accommodation for persons of each sex.
The Special Committee, having considered an amendment tabled by Deputy Larkin, agreed that there should be written into the section a requirement that, where a piped water supply is in a factory, all sanitary conviences would be individually flushed water-closets and a provision that sanitary conveniences shall not communicate directly with the workplace. That is done in the amendment which I have tabled to sub-section (1) of Section 16. (a) and (b) of the amendment are the additional pieces which it was agreed by the committee should be inserted. (c) and (d) of the amendment are repeated from the existing sub-section (1).
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 15, line 32, to insert "and after notifying the sanitary authority" after "by authorisation in writing".
At the Special Committee, Deputy Lemass suggested that, before proceeding to take over the powers of a defaulting sanitary authority, the Minister should notify the sanitary authority what he was going to do. I accepted the Deputy's suggestion and this amendment gives effect to it.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 16, line 12, to delete "young".
Deputy Lemass suggested at the Special Committee that paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 should be made general by deleting the word "young". I accepted that view and this amendment was tabled to give effect to it.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 17, to insert the following paragraph before paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23:—
"(a) gives warning of the starting of a machine,"
At the Special Committee Deputy Lemass suggested that the Minister should have power to require the provision of a device which would give workers prior warning of the starting up of machinery and I took the view that that was a desirable precaution to take. It seems to me the most convenient way of doing this is by an amendment to Section 23 and this amendment is being tabled to do that.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 19, lines 8 and 12, to delete "woman or young".
Again, this is a question of the desirability of making generally applicable safeguards which the Bill proposes should extend only to women and young persons. Section 30, as the Minister is aware, prohibits the employment of a woman or young person cleaning any part of a prime mover or any part of transmission machinery while in motion or cleaning any part of a machine if by doing so they are exposed to risk of injury. Again, it seems to me that that is the type of provision that should be generally applicable, that the safeguards suggested here for women and young persons should be in fact extended to all workers.
As the Deputy will recollect, we had a pretty long discussion on this matter on the Special Committee. There are certain classes of machinery which have certain functions and which, in fact, can only be cleaned effectively when in motion and it is quite the practice to clean them while in motion and even to test them while in motion. I think that is the general practice, as those who have visited factories from time to time will have observed. The section here seeks to ensure that probably the most vulnerable class of workers, that is, the woman or young person, should not, however, be permitted to undertake cleaning when the machinery is in motion.
It is one thing to say to an experienced craftsman or technician that he, with his familiarity with the machine, may run it at a certain momentum and clean it while it is running, as being the only way, probably, to get at some parts. That is done every day in the week and nothing very much comes from it. It might be more risky, of course, to permit a young person or a woman to undertake the same operation. The Bill seeks to protect the more vulnerable type of worker, namely, the woman or young person, while it does not prohibit the seasoned male worker, who has a long familiarity with machinery, from undertaking the cleaning of the machinery while in motion. I think the difficulty about accepting Deputy Lemass's view is that in fact it would not be possible to ensure compliance with it, human nature being what it is.
There are two parts in this section. The first part prohibits a woman or young person being allowed to clean a prime mover or any transmission machinery while in motion. The second part prohibits a woman or young person from cleaning any machinery if when doing so there is a danger of injury. Even if it is true that it is necessary for a trained competent worker to clean a prime mover or transmission machinery when in motion, the second part of the section could be made generally applicable, that is, the prohibition upon cleaning any machinery while in motion if by doing so there is a risk of personal injury. The next section, of course, imposes a prohibition upon the employment of anybody in connection with a machine who has not been fully instructed in its use and that would apply, presumably, to women and young persons as well as to male workers.
I think the Minister might consider— he does not have to do it now— between this and the Bill going to the Seanad, the division of the section into two parts, the prohibition on women and young persons cleaning prime movers or transmission machinery while in motion and then the prohibition on any person cleaning any machinery in motion if by doing so there is risk of injury. I mean serious risk of injury.
If the Deputy agrees, I will look at it between now and the Bill going to the Seanad.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 20, to insert the following sub-section before sub-section (10) of Section 32:—
(10) In the case of a hoist or lift which does not comply with the requirements specified in sub-section (7) of this section (not being a continuous hoist or lift or a hoist or lift not connected with mechanical power), there shall be marked conspicuously on the hoist or lift a notification that it is not to be used for carrying persons.
The Special Committee considered an amendment which was tabled by Deputy Larkin and which would make it an offence to permit a person to be carried in a hoist or lift which was not intended for carrying passengers. As the section stands, there would be such an offence in effect because any lift which is used for carrying passengers, whether together with goods or not, must comply with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 32 and to carry persons in a lift which did not comply with that sub-section would amount to an offence. However, to emphasise the point that was made, I agreed to table an amendment providing that any lift which is not for carrying passengers must be marked conspicuously to that effect and this amendment is tabled to give effect to that undertaking.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 30, to insert the following sub-section before sub-section (2) of Section 44:—
(2) In any premises which is used partly as a private dwelling, the owner thereof shall provide such reasonable safeguards in case of fire for the persons dwelling therein as may be prescribed by the Minister in regulations under this Act.
The Minister will remember that I raised this point at the Special Committee also. There is ample provision in the Bill for ensuring that factories will be equipped with means of escape in case of fire for persons employed in the factory but there are premises which are used partly as factories and partly as dwelling-houses and, in fact, since the Special Committee met, there were two cases reported in Dublin in which families had a narrow escape from death from fire which broke out in factories in the premises in which they were also dwelling. There is no obligation upon the factory owner as the Bill stands to make provision for escape in the case of fire for persons who are not employed in the factory but who are nevertheless dwelling on the factory premises. I think it is desirable that there should be on the owner of the factory premises an obligation to ensure that means of escape in case of fire are available for persons who are dwelling in the premises; and the two instances reported in Dublin since the Special Committee met point, I think, to the need for some provision of this kind.
I looked into this matter in the light of views expressed by the Deputy in the Special Committee. The position is that the local fire authority will have to inspect the factory in the dwelling-house and issue a certificate of safety. The precautions and arrangements which the local authority will specify in the certificate will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Oh, no. The certificate must merely indicate that there is a means of escape in the factory for the persons employed therein. The certificate is limited to the safety of persons employed in the factory.
That may be so, but I have no doubt that the arrangements and precautions will take note of the fact that there are persons dwelling in the same premises as are occupied as a factory. In any event should it be found in the future that the local authority is negligent or not careful enough there is power under Section 45 for the Minister to make regulations as to the means of escape in case of fire to be provided in factories, or any class or description of factories, and it should be the duty of the responsible authority to enforce such regulations.
I do not know that Section 45 gives the Minister power to require the owner of a factory to make provision for the safety of persons not employed by him but using some part of the premises as a dwelling-house.
In giving a certificate and making arrangements to ensure that the necessary precautions are taken, I am quite satisfied that the local authority will have regard to the fact that the place is not merely being used as a factory but that there are actually people dwelling there as well.
I am not so sure about that. The Minister will look up the two cases reported in the Press during the last month, both of them in Dublin, where families were endangered because of fire breaking out in factories in the same premises in which they were dwelling; and it does not seem to me there is any obligation on anybody to protect families in that situation. My suggestion is that we should put upon the man who elects to establish a factory in such premises an obligation to look after the safety of everybody living in these premises, as well as those employed by him.
I will examine the matter further.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 37, to insert the following sub-section before sub-section (5) of Section 55:—
(5) The contents of each first-aid box or cupboard shall be inspected at least once in every week, and if necessary replenished after each occasion of use. Every first-aid box or cupboard shall contain simple and readily understandable instructions to be followed in emergencies and such instructions shall be kept legible and clear.
The purpose of this amendment is to amplify to some extent the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 55. The amendment seeks to ensure that not only will there be a first-aid box in such factories but that the contents of such boxes will be examined at regular intervals, and the interval stipulated is each week. The sole purpose of this proposal is to ensure that first-aid materials will be available in case of accident. Sub-section (1) of Section 55 does not appear to me to provide sufficient safeguards and the amendment seeks to ensure that not only shall the contents be inspected and replenished but also that there shall be simple instructions for those who may require to use the first-aid box for the treatment of injured workers.
This matter was discussed at length with the Special Committee and the main point then was that it should be somebody's job to inspect the first-aid box each week and see that the prescribed requisites were there. At that time I resisted the amendment on the ground that I thought the present section of the Bill better than the amendment. The section provides that "There shall be provided and maintained so as to be readily accessible a first-aid box or cupboard of such standard as, after consultation by the Minister with the Minister for Health, may be prescribed". To stipulate that the first-aid box shall be provided and maintained is to ensure that at all times, every second of every day, the necessary requisites are there.
There is nothing tighter that I could prescribe than his phrase "provided and maintained". It is a continuous process. The amendment weakens the section of the Bill inasmuch as it prescribes that the box must be inspected every week to see if there is anything missing. The section is better because it places an obligation on those responsible to maintain continuously the requisites in the first-aid box. I consulted the Parliamentary Draftsman in this matter and the advice I got is that there is nothing stronger from the point of view of ensuring that the box has equipment provided in it continuously than the Bill as it now stands.
Is there any definition of the standard of maintenance?
That will be prescribed by regulation.
I agree with the Minister that the wording of the Bill is preferable to the wording of the amendment. We are all agreed, I think, that if the law requires a first-aid box we mean a first-aid box containing the requisites for first-aid. It is merely a question then of which is the surest method of achieving that result.
The second part of the amendment raises a different point. I think the Minister was impressed by the case made for the need for having posted on the cover of the box or cupboard, or placed within the box, some simple instructions governing the use of the appliances or apparatus provided for rendering first-aid where necessary in cases where the person in charge of the first-aid box or trained in first-aid work might be absent when an accident occurred. I think everybody knows of such instances where accidents have had serious consequences which could have been avoided if the proper treatment had been prescribed at the very beginning. It may be that the Minister has power to prescribe under the section as it stands for the keeping of instructions in the box but, if not, I think it should be expressly stated.
Sub-section (4) prescribes that each first-aid box or cupboard shall be placed in charge of a responsible person who will be trained in first aid and always readily available.
I appreciate that fully.
Part of the contents of the first-aid box could be a list of understandable instructions to be carried out in the event of it being necessary to resort to the contents of the box under certain circumstances. One does not need to amend the Bill in order to ensure that these instructions will be there because there is power to prescribe the instructions just as there is power to prescribe that there shall be bandages.
I think that is probably right.
If I may say so, I see here that where you have 50 persons employed, you must have one first-aid——
The section is not being discussed. This is not the Committee Stage. This is the Report Stage and we are discussing the amendment.
Very well. I shall raise the point later.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 37, before Section 56, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In all factories a room, where meals may be taken, shall be provided which shall be adequate for that purpose. Such room shall be completely separate from the workroom and reserved exclusively for the purpose of taking meals.
(2) Covered receptacles shall be provided for disposing of waste food and refuse, and such receptacles shall be emptied at least once each day.
(3) Where required, suitable and adequate facilities for preparing or heating meals, including the heating of water, shall be provided in such room or convenient to it.
The amendment is in the name of Deputy James Larkin. It was put in in order to ensure that in all factories a separate room is provided where workers can take their meals. In many factories where big numbers of workers are employed there are no proper canteen facilities at the moment. At the present time workers have to take their meals in parts of factories where work goes on. They feel that is objectionable. I submit that the room in which meals are taken should be separate from the work-rooms and should be reserved for the purpose of taking such meals. I think the Minister has discussed this matter with the committee but nevertheless I feel that the Minister should have made some provision in this regard before the Bill came back to the House and I accordingly move the amendment.
In the second part of the amendment the House will probably agree that surely it is essential that where there is a question of disposing of waste food or other such refuse the factory owner should be asked to provide covered receptacles and should be required to see that these receptacles are emptied when necessary. The third part of the amendment deals with the question of the provision of facilities for heating meals, including the provision of hot water. In present-day circumstances an increasing number of workers are compelled, because of the distance of their homes from their places of work, to take some form of meal during the day at their place of employment.
I think it is only proper that these workers should be provided with proper facilities for warm meals. There have been complaints in many cases that factory workers have to make do with sandwiches because of the lack of any proper place in which to consume warm meals or in which to make even a cup of tea. The Bill before the House at the moment has been brought in for the purpose of improving the conditions under which workers are asked to perform their normal duties and I think one of the necessities is to provide facilities for proper provision of meals for workers. I would ask the Minister in all sincerity to consider the amendment with the view of incorporating it in the Bill.
I am afraid this amendment has been tabled with an eye on the situation in large cities like Dublin so that sufficient cognisance has not been taken of the effect of the amendment as it would apply to factories elsewhere. I think we can get the same effect in another and more efficient way. This amendment requires that the occupiers of every factory, irrespective of the number of workers employed there and irrespective of the wishes of the workers in that particular factory, must provide a room separate from all work-rooms, equipped for the preparation and the taking of meals. That is a pretty wide obligation to write into this Bill, particularly when it is not related to the number of workers employed in the factory and when it is not related to the location of the factories.
Deputy Larkin has proceeded on the assumption that a very large number of workers must take their meals away from home. That reveals the Dublin approach to the problem but if the factories were in Athlone, or in Thurles, or in Dundalk, or in any of the smaller provincial towns, I think you would have objections to the provisions of the amendment. I think you would have objections from the workers if the employers sought to compel them to have their meals on the premises and accordingly sought to reduce the period of the meal intervals because they provided facilities for the meals, and because they made provision for cooking the meals.
I think in such a case the employer would be inclined to impose such compulsion having regard to the fact that he provided the room in the first place and secondly, that he equipped the room. I think this amendment has been tabled without having regard to the provisions of Section 56 of the Bill. I would prefer to see this matter dealt with by the trade unions and the managements of the factories and there is no reason why the trade unions who have members in factories should not deal with a matter of this kind through negotiations with the management of the factories concerned.
If workers want canteen facilities I think their unions are quite capable, by negotiation, of getting agreement and in 1955 I think the employers would not insist for a minute on depriving workers of facilities for cooking on their premises. The enlightened employer would realise that if his workers could not go home for meals it would be good business to see that they got a meal which would sustain them for their operational activities afterwards and therefore I think that it would be far better if the unions whose workers were concerned would negotiate with the separate employers.
If that is not successful—I would venture to say it would be a complete success in the large centres of population where these facilities are necessary—then there is provision in Section 56 to meet the case. I think it will be agreed that such provision is not necessary in the smaller places where workers prefer to go home for their meals, firstly because they get better meals in that way, and secondly, because they get more variety. But there is provision in Section 56 which enables proper facilities to be provided in certain industries and all the power necessary to ensure that the provision of the facilities Deputy Larkin asks is written into Section 56, so that between Section 56 and the work that the trade union, by negotiation, will be able to do, you have a better and more efficient way of getting these facilities than through the amendment.
The Minister says that the amendment was applicable to large cities. Possibly, therefore, the Minister may or may not agree that even in small towns the workers have to travel considerable distances to their work. In such cases, the provision of canteens is very necessary. It simply asks that they will be required to provide a place where the workers will take a meal. The meal may very well vary; it may very well mean a question of eating the lunch they bring with them under some ordinary decent conditions, not either out in a yard or some outhouse or in some part of the factory proper, but in a room. The Minister referred to a small factory. Very obviously if there is only a small number of persons employed in a factory no one is suggesting you would require a room 20 feet long by 20 feet wide. All the amendment provides is that there should be reasonable facilities.
I would draw the Minister's attention to part (3) of the amendment which refers to the heating of water. The heating of water in many cases means purely facilities for workers to make a cup of tea to take with their lunch when they cannot get home. I think it is true to say that many good employers will, in negotiation with the appropriate trade union, agree to provide the facilities, but the Minister is aware that even with good employers it frequently takes many long months of negotiation and persuasion to get the good employer to realise the ordinary necessity and justice of providing a separate place for the worker to have a meal.
You have now, Deputy, what you never had before. You have Section 56, which is not in our existing legislation, and under that section the Minister can make these welfare regulations. The Minister will prescribe these things where the need for them is established and presumably the trade unions will let him know where the need exists.
Is the Minister satisfied that under that section he has power to make regulations?
Yes. He has power to see that such facilities are provided.
I will accept the Minister's assurance on that point.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 38, to insert the following paragraph before paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 56:—
(d) arrangements for protection of persons employed where they are exposed to unduly high or unduly low temperatures.
When the Special Committee dealt with the Bill it was mentioned that, while it was desirable to protect workers who work in places where the temperatures were unduly high, there were other cases of workers who were employed in ice plants where the temperature was unduly low. It was decided at the committee that steps should be taken to meet the situation in that regard, that is, to provide for the protection of persons employed where there were unduly high or low temperatures. This amendment gives effect to the suggestion made at the committee and, I think, covers the point.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 45, to insert before Section 72 (but in Part V) a new section as follows:—
(1) Where the persons employed in a factory have selected from among themselves a committee (in this subsection referred to as the safety committee) for the purpose of promoting the better safety, health and welfare of the persons employed, the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) It shall be a function of the safety committee to assist in securing compliance by the occupier of the factory and by the persons employed therein with the provisions of this Act and of the Orders and regulations made under this Act,
(b) upon the request of the safety committee, the occupier shall make an entry in the general register noting—
(i) the establishment of the safety committee, and
(ii) if the safety committee has nominated one of its members to be the safety delegate for the purposes of this section, the name of the safety delegate,
(c) the occupier shall be entitled to be represented, by at least one person nominated by him, at each meeting of the safety committee,
(d) the occupier shall consider any representations made to him by the safety committee on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed,
(e) the safety committee shall consider any representations made to it by the occupier on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed,
(f) an inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate and, for this purpose, may inspect any records of the proceedings of the safety committee,
(g) an inspector shall be entitled, should he so wish, to have the safety delegate accompany him on his tour of inspection of the factory or any part of such tour.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied that there exists in the factory a committee or other body which is not a committee such as is referred to in sub-section (1) of this section but which is so constituted as to be capable of discharging the functions of such a committee, he may, on application being made by the committee or other body and with the consent of the occupier of the factory, issue a certificate recognising the committee or other body as a safety committee for the purpose of this section and, while such certificate is in force, the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to the committee or other body.
There is a number of amendments to amendment No. 17 and I think they might all be discussed on amendment No. 17. Then if it is necessary we can put the amendments to the amendment and deal with the amendment as it emerges from the discussion.
So far as my amendment is concerned I think the only thing I need do is to explain that the committee considered alternative proposals for the establishment of a safety committee which were tabled by myself and tabled by Deputy Larkin. Some sub-amendments were tabled by Deputy Lemass on the establishment of the safety committee in factories. That matter was discussed at considerable length at the committee and having regard to the views on the subject which were distilled in the course of the discussion, I circulated revised proposals for the setting up of a safety committee and the appointment of a safety delegate, and prescribed the functions of the safety committee. The revised proposals which I submitted to the committee were accepted in principle and the amendment which I have tabled here gives effect to the amendment as it was examined by the committee. I think it represents the viewpoint of the different Parties who participated in the examination of this matter at the Special Committee.
With regard to this ministerial amendment, unfortunately I was not in the country when the meeting of the Special Committee took place. I have, of course, read very carefully the findings of that committee but I think when we look into this proposed amendment we will see that, whilst the views of the Special Committee have a great deal behind them, nevertheless there are dangers which become apparent when this amendment is studied, dangers which were not present to the minds of the committee. I say that in the light of those discussions and of the general way in which those discussions took place.
This amendment does introduce a very novel element into our legislation in this country. It is setting up a safety committee in, if necessary, every factory in the country and giving that committee very special powers. Now I think everybody would quite agree that any committee or indeed any body of persons in a factory or workshop who can help the workers to safeguard themselves from the point of view of general safety and can help the occupier of the factory to ensure that these safety regulations are carried out, has the good wishes of every man of goodwill in this country. I wish to say quite clearly before I go any further that I think the idea of safety in a factory is one which we in this House want to see carried out to the fullest possible extent and which I think every good employer would want to see done as well.
When we look into this proposal for the safety committee, it has certain provisions which, as I said, are unique and which will not necessarily lead to the most harmonious way of bringing about the greatest degree of safety.
The first thing that strikes me in connection with this amendment is that there is no question of the approval or the goodwill or the consent of the occupier. There is no word at all about him. Surely it would be advisable that the occupier of the factory should know something about the setting-up of the committee. To go further, some of us have put down an amendment to the effect that it should be the duty of the safety committee to assist the occupier of the factory in so far as compliance with the provisions and Orders and regulations made under this Act is concerned. That is intended to give the safety committee a duty towards the occupier of the factory, because, broadly speaking, as it is proposed here in the ministerial amendment, it starts off by proposing to set up the committee, as I said, without any mention of the person or firm in whose premises the committee is going to work.
It then says, in the next part of the section, that it shall be a function of that committee to assist in securing compliance by the occupier of the factory. It goes on and then says that the occupier shall make an entry in a general register. Then it says the occupier shall be entitled to be represented by at least one person nominated by him at the meetings of the safety committee. It then goes on to say that the occupier shall consider any representations made by the committee on matters affecting the safety and health of persons employed.
Then it goes on to say that the safety committee shall consider any representation made to it by the occupier, and finally, that an inspector shall consider the representations made to him by the committee and that the inspector shall be entitled to have the safety delegate accompany him on a tour of inspection of the factory or on any part of such tour. But it does not say that the occupier of the factory should go round too. I think, again, to ensure smooth running and harmonious relations, not to mention common courtesy, that the occupier of the factory should take part in such a tour.
He does, in fact. He has that right at present, but the worker has not the right to go round.
Yes, but this would be a very special journey. It seems as if on this journey, as the amendment is, the occupier would not necessarily be with them on that tour of inspection. Furthermore, it is introducing a very new principle into our legislation and one to which I might say the Minister made reference a few minutes ago in arguing on Section 56.
In this Bill there are inspectors, whose duty it is to see that the safety regulations are all that they ought to be and to see that they are carried out and, further, to make representations to the Minister for any new regulations regarding the health and safety and welfare of the workers; but under this amendment it seems as if we do not trust our own inspectors to carry out these regulations or requirements and that the committee must report on these matters. Surely we have faith and trust in the regulations set out by the Minister and approved by this House? Surely we have faith in what our own inspectors have done in the past and will do in the future? I would feel that in the circumstances in which this amendment is made out it should be considered in the light of what I have said and a new section brought in instead of this section.
I am afraid, as it stands, I would be very much against it because I think it is not going to have the effect that the Minister and the Special Committee thought it would, and it would only lead to trouble and is, as I say, a type of legislation which we should be very chary of putting forward in this House. After all, if the inspectors are capable of dealing with general matters arising under Section 56, they should also be equally capable, and we should put the same trust in them, in dealing with matters which arise under Section 57 and in Part V of this Bill.
I would like to compliment the Minister on introducing this amendment to the Bill because, as I read it, the general purpose of the amendment appears to be to encourage workers in factories, and particularly where there are conditions which are dangerous to themselves or possibly harmful to health, to take an intelligent interest in the Acts which protect them against dangers to health and dangers of physical injury.
Deputy Dockrell seems to be worried about the position of the occupiers and as to whether or not the occupiers should give approval. The difficulty of the workers in this matter for a very long time has been that, in too many instances where the conditions were not satisfactory, if they left their place of employment to have a look at the provisions posted up in the factory or to go and look at a machine or to consider the conditions affecting their general state of health, they would be liable to discipline. In too many instances it became a question of workers possibly making a report to the trade union and then of the trade union representatives not being able to get access to the factory to examine the position and having to ask the Department to send an inspector down to examine the situation.
I am afraid that, from time to time, the workers have had to complain that the factory owners appear to know when an inspector is coming. I am not making any suggestion against factory inspectors but, from my own knowledge, the suggestion has been made on many occasions that where there were breaches of various Factory Acts and attempts were made to remedy the position then, by some peculiar set of circumstances, somebody in the factory seemed to know that an inspector was due on a particular day with the result that steps would be taken to remedy the situation for that particular day.
The important part of the amendment is that not only does it give the workers some powers to try and protect themselves but it encourages the workers to take an interest in the conditions in their factory. I do not believe any employer would be penalised by the setting up of such safety committees. I feel that many employers would welcome a committee in their factory formed from its workers—a committee of persons who would take an intelligent interest in the safety regulations and, as provided in the section, meet representatives of the employers and draw their attention wherever the provisions of the Acts were not being complied with and the workers were being exposed to danger.
I think, further, it must be admitted that there are times when workers will not take full advantage of the safeguards provided for them. In such circumstances, it would be particularly valuable to have a committee formed among the workers themselves who would impress upon their fellow workers the necessity of using the safeguards provided for them.
This amendment appears to me to seek to ensure that, within any factory or workshop covered by the Act, it would be possible for the employers and the workers concerned to operate the provisions of this Act by being intelligently interested in its provisions and by ensuring that all the safeguards which are considered necessary for the health and safety of the workers will be available to them. I do not think any reasonably good employer will feel in any way that the setting up of a safety committee, and the functioning of that committee as outlined in this amendment, will prejudice the enterprise, the management or the control of the workers employed there.
Surely—and there are many good employers—an employer would welcome a report by a representative of the workers whenever, for instance, a machine lacks a safety guard, as is provided for in the Act? Surely an employer would welcome efforts by the workers to ensure that where protective clothing, protective masks, and so forth, are called for in any operation, the workers themselves will utilise the protective apparatus and will realise that it is there for their benefit? Surely it is desirable, from the point of view of an employer, that a committee composed of representatives of his workers will draw his attention to the fact that he is committing some breach of the Acts governing the safeguarding of the health and welfare of his workers?
In my view, the provisions of the amendment are reasonably simple and can reasonably be carried out without interfering with the management in any serious way whatsoever. They are provisions which, if utilised by all concerned in industry, will tend, I feel sure, towards a better safeguarding of the workers employed in industry.
It is not very easy to consider the Minister's amendment without considering also the other amendments tabled——
May I suggest that we agree to assume that my amendment is passed? Otherwise, we cannot deal with the series of amendments by Deputy Dockrell.
The Minister has moved his amendment. I assume that Deputy Dockrell will move his amendments—one first and the others in their turn.
The suggestion I proposed to make was that if the Minister could give an indication of his reaction to the later amendments it might influence the approach of Deputies to the ministerial amendment. I feel a lot of sense has been spoken by Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Larkin. In my view, you cannot look at this novelty—because, to a great extent, it is a novelty which is being imported into this legislation—as being either all good or all bad. Deputy Larkin suggested, and I think it is probably true, that people who might be classed or described by him as reasonably good employers have nothing to fear, so to speak, from the activities of a safety committee. That is probably so. I think that what is in the Minister's mind and what was in the minds of the members of the Special Committee was how to deal with factory occupiers who do not measure up to the standard of being classified as good or reasonably good and whose own slackness in the control and general management of the factory leaves it open for employees to disregard the safety regulations. I agree that that is a point of view. However, I am not entirely satisfied that this amendment is necessary, even in those circumstances.
All the amendments will be taken together with the Minister's amendment. That is what I put to the House. I take it that the House agreed that all the amendments would be discussed with the Minister's amendment? Deputy Dockrell rose. I assumed Deputy Dockrell moved the first amendment to the amendment when he spoke.
We are discussing the lot together.
We are discussing the whole lot together.
What is the position about speeches? We are in Report Stage.
There is only one speech allowed, with the exception that the person moving the amendment can reply.
Is it one on each amendment?
The Deputy may speak on each amendment if he desires. I assumed he meant for all the amendments when he spoke. I am not limiting him by any means.
This is a new principle being introduced to the Bill and I suggest that it would be a proper case for recommittal in dealing with these amendments.
It was discussed at two sessions of the Special Committee and this amendment which I have submitted represents a compromise on the views expressed at the committee and was unanimously accepted by the committee and the committee was representative of all Parties.
That is so, but I think the Minister must accept the fact that irrespective of what Parties were represented on the Special Committee, there are bound to be other points of view expressed here.
I am only making the position of the Chair clear to the House.
I follow, and I am quite satisfied with it. I was making the case that, even in circumstances such as were outlined by Deputy Larkin, I am not entirely satisfied that legislation such as is contemplated in this section is necessary because I believe there exists already with any factory employee an absolute right to complain with regard to any infringement of safety regulations or Orders or with regard to any infringement of any law or anything having the effect of law. Deputy Larkin has indicated that there are some factories where, when an employee remonstrates with those in charge as to lack of safety precautions or to departure from safety regulations, that employee is incurring the risk of disciplinary action being taken against him. That seems to me to be an argument that has to be met and it might be said that this amendment meets it.
It is one way of meeting it but I would far prefer, talking personally, if that argument were met by putting into this Bill a section imposing extremely heavy penalties on any employer who would in any way endeavour to victimise an employee who made a complaint either to a factory inspector or to his trade union officials with regard to breaches of safety regulations or lack of safety precautions. It might well be more effective to legislate in that way.
There is something not very desirable, from one point of view, about a committee of this sort. I do not believe it will be popular with the employees, although their trade union leaders may feel that they require the assistance of a committee of this sort in order to enforce regulations. I cannot imagine it being popular with the general body of factory owners. A number of them will probably have no strong objections; others will welcome it but, by and large, I do not imagine they will show any great enthusiasm for it because it is a committee which, if not handled properly, might very well lead to discord and trouble inside the factory. It may get the name of being, for want of a better word, a kind of tell-tale committee, and if there is any stigma of that sort attached to the individual representatives on the committee or the committee as a whole, it will not do any good, particularly as the individual employees already have the right to make their complaints either through their trade union channels or direct to the Department and the Department inspectors.
Unless it is extremely well handled —and, of course, it may be well handled—I cannot see that a committee of this sort would make for harmony in the running of the factory or make for co-operation in the carrying out of safety regulations.
Deputy Larkin has mentioned another fact which I think is important and which is a valid argument in favour of this committee, namely, that very often the people who are the offenders are the employees themselves, that you do have cases, and probably quite a number of them, where the factory occupier gives strict instructions with regard to the carrying out of safety orders and regulations and where the employees find that the precautions they are required to take hamper them in their work and, in order to get ahead with the job, are inclined to disregard the precautions. It may be a question of fencing around machinery or something like that and the employee would prefer it to be out of the way.
I think it is true to say that if word gets around that there is an inspector or possibly the factory owner himself visiting the premises, the employees rush to get the fencing back in place, and so on. These are cases where the employees are at fault, where they are disregarding the safety regulations because they believe they are unnecessary and are slowing them up. I agree that, if you have a nominee of the employees whose task it is to see that the regulations are complied with, such a person would probably have influence with his colleagues in seeing that, whether the regulations hamper the worker or not, they will be carried out. I believe that is a valid argument in favour of a committee of this sort but, by and large, I cannot see the thing working well unless it is operated on the lines suggested by Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Belton in the later amendments and I would urge the Minister to give very careful consideration to the viewpoints expressed in those amendments.
Taken by and large, my own view is that this committee is unnecessary. Influenced by the recommendations made by the Special Committee that in their judgment such a committee is not only desirable but necessary, I am prepared to accept that recommendation, but I would urge that the matter should be further considered by the Minister along the lines indicated by Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Belton.
I am willing to compress anything I have to say on the amendments into one speech provided everybody else does the same. If everybody else wants to exercise his right to speak on each amendment I want to do likewise. It may help the House if I speak now on all these amendments, and it might perhaps provide the House with some useful information.
I would be quite pleased to accept that. Actually I have spoken on the general issue. I took it I would be moving each amendment.
This committee is very desirable. Its object is to make those who work in factories both health and safety conscious. If one can promote a spirit in a factory of inducing workers to take an interest in preserving their health whilst employed in the factory, and many of our factories are far from being drawingrooms, and inducing them to take an interest in protecting themselves against the risks of employment in such factories, then I think you are doing two very worthwhile things. The purpose of this committee is to enable workers to deal with all matters arising out of this Bill which are concerned with the health and safety of the workers. They are not concerned with managerial policy. They are not concerned with factory policy. They are not concerned with the direction of industry or the method of processing different commodities. They are concerned only with health and safety. I can see nothing wrong with that.
Is there anything wrong with selecting workers in a factory to come together and select a few of their members to sit down with representatives of the employers? Remember, the employer can have a number of representatives if he so desires. I would hate to see any matter coming before this committee decided by counting hands or heads. One representative of the employers and one representative of the workers might work quite well but, in order to avoid suspicion and possible difficulties, I think it is desirable to have a small team of workers and a small team of factory executives as well, if necessary, to represent the employer; and let them discuss the provisions of this legislation in so far as they operate in the factory.
Is there anything wrong in the workers' representatives saying to that committee: "We think a better device could be used for operating that machine and providing greater safety", or "We think that particular operation is a dangerous one and something will happen one of these days; it is desirable there should be better protection"; or "If you could manage to put in another window to ventilate this particular room it would be of considerable benefit to the health of the staff"? I think this is a very desirable committee. I see nothing wrong in it. I see nothing revolutionary in it. I do not understand the fears that have been expressed by Deputy Dockrell.
Many large and excellent industries here have what are known as working committees at which the employers and workers sit down once a month and discuss various problems affecting the factory and dealing with the whole gamut of production. Employers have in many cases testified publicly to the fact that these committees have proved very useful from the point of view of promoting an excellent spirit of co-operation and developing a sense of unity of purpose in industrial objectives to be achieved. They have brought home to the workers a kind of factory conscience which has redounded to the benefit of industry. A body of that kind can do the particular job I have in mind in this amendment. There is no need to set up a special safety committee. The existing works committees can take on these functions.
I met a deputation recently of a very responsible employers' organisation. They discussed this matter. When I explained the provisions all five or six—there was one exception— agreed that it was quite all right. To the managing director of one very important industry I said: "I understand your factory has a works committee, and I have read speeches of yours in which you pay tribute to the usefulness of that committee." He said: "Yes, it has been an excellent committee." I said: "That committee can discharge these functions. Why are you worrying about this amendment of mine?" He said: "I am not worrying in the slightest. The present committee will take on this function. In fact, it is doing that under existing legislation." I said: "Even if you do not provide for this committee this is the kind of job your works committee can do."
Why these fears? With regard to the other amendments, when I went to the Special Committee my proposition was a different one. But there was a useful and fruitful discussion there and, as a result of the views expressed, I came back with a draft amendment and asked if that would meet their point of view. The committee unanimously adopted the agreement and I put it to the House in accordance with the agreement reached at the committee. This amendment did not shock anybody on the committee. There was none of the fears that have been expressed here. There was a general recognition that in the long run this was the right and prudent approach to the problem.
Deputy Dockrell's amendment seems to give this committee a completely lopsided function. I hope he will not mind my saying that. It would convert the safety committee from a freely formed body working in friendly co-operation with the owner of the factory into a body whose sole function would be to keep a watch on the workers and report their misdemeanours. I accept immediately that it is the function of a safety committee to assist the owner by ensuring compliance with the factory laws, but that is only one function. They have been given that function under my amendment. I think it is reasonable to give them that function.
If provision is made that the employer must approve the committee before it is established a recalcitrant employer may refuse to consent to the setting up of such a committee. One can imagine the kind of employer who would adopt that attitude in 1955. A good employer would not adopt that attitude. One can imagine a certain type of employer, if the right of veto is there, who would willingly kill this committee. Broadminded employers who know the value of co-operation will have no objection to such a committee. The main objection to the second amendment is that it would limit the functions of the committee to those of acting as an agent for the owner in getting the workers to comply with the provisions of factory legislation. I would hope that on such a committee there would be an impact of reason on reason. If the proper spirit can be injected into the operatives and the management there should be a sufficient community of interests to put right any little deficiencies that may arise under this Bill. I cannot understand Deputy Dockrell saying we should have faith in factory inspectors. I would hope the factory inspector would find in all cases model factories. Faith in a man whose function is really that of a civil policeman under factory legislation is not the kind of objective I would aim at if I was an employer or a worker. I would prefer to create conditions which would render detailed inspection quite unnecessary because of the spirit of harmony and co-operation existing in the factory.
