Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Mar 1955

Vol. 149 No. 8

Committee of Public Accounts. - Factories Bill, 1954—Report Stage (Resumed) and Fifth Stage.

Debate resumed on first amendment to amendment No. 17:—
In line 2 of the amendment to insert ", with the approval of the occupier" before "from".—(Deputies M. E. Dockrell and Belton.)

I was speaking on the Adjournment last night and I think I have covered the main objections to the series of amendments which were moved by Deputy Dockrell and the only thing necessary to do now is to underline the fact that the safety committee is a piece of mechanism which commended itself to the Special Committee. In my view, it is a reasonable piece of mechanism that properly worked should operate to the advantage of not only the factory owners but also to the advantage of the staffs employed in factories and which will tend to create health and safety consciousness to the benefit of the factory owner. If it is possible, as I think it is, to inculcate into the safety committee a feeling that their main task is to work for the well-being and the health and safety of the staffs a very useful medium will be created which must in the course of time redound to the benefit of the production activities of a particular factory.

I do not know if any other Deputy wishes to speak but Deputy Dockrell is entitled to conclude.

Are we going to discuss the amendments — all of them?

The Deputy moved No. 1 and made his case for all of them on No. 1. Is not that so?

I was really discussing the ministerial amendment.

But the Deputy formally moved No. 1 in order to get himself in order and I understood he moved his own amendment formally and that he made a case for the series. I do not want to limit the Deputy and I want him to understand that clearly.

I appreciate that and I do not want to hold up the procedure of the House or hold up the Minister unnecessarily on this.

The Deputy may proceed now to make his case.

If nobody else wishes to speak on the matter, I would like to say that I appreciate the attitude of the Minister and the spirit in which this amendment is put forward and undoubtedly, if this new provision is worked by all parties in the spirit in which the Minister hopes it will be, well then it will help to contribute to the safety of workers in a factory. But what I am nervous about and what caused Deputy Belton and myself to put down these amendments which are really only tentative is that we feel that the occupier has a great deal to do with the safety. He has to provide the safety devices, and he has to bear a large share of the burden if an accident occurs.

Of course, a man or woman working a machine has to bear the physical burden of an accident, but on the other side the occupier has to bear the financial burden, and the responsibility for that. It seems to us that this committee is very lopsided in that way, and that there could be more cooperation put into this section so that it would be to the ultimate benefit and the smoother running of a factory, and to the safety and health of those concerned with it.

Take, for instance, under sub-section (g), where in the ministerial amendment it says:—

"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."

I would like to be certain that it does not prevent, in any way, the occupier or his representative being present when such a tour takes place, because it would certainly lead to a great deal of circumlocution if recommendations made during such tour only reached the occupier from the committee. I think it would be better if all three parties, namely, the occupier, the safety delegate and the inspector, went round together.

I need not give, in this Bill, an employer the right to go round with the inspector; he already has that right. It is his factory and he can go round it. He can go with the safety delegate and the inspector if he so wishes. I would have to introduce a Bill to prevent the employer from doing so.

I am satisfied as long as there is no idea that he should not be represented on it, because that would only lead to a very foolish situation. I would like the Minister to look into this further, and perhaps recommit the section in the light of the amendment. The effect of one of the amendments we have moved is that the safety committee or safety delegate should inform the occupier and the inspector of any failure of which they become aware. I think the Minister thought that it might look as if it were turning the committee into something which would be telling on their fellow workers. That is not the idea.

Would the Deputy look at sub-section (a) in my amendment?

In other words, it is the job of the safety committee to endeavour to secure compliance, by the occupier and by the workers, with the provisions of the Act, and of the Orders and regulations made under the Act. This particular section is the exact point of principle on which we compromised with the Special Committee. That puts the responsibility for compliance on the employer and the workers, and no less on the one than on the other.

I can see the Minister's point. That is where there is compliance with an existing regulation, but the idea underlying the amendment in the names of Deputy Belton and myself is to make sure that a new regulation in the factory will be made. The Minister is securing compliance, and that seems to lead one to think that it is securing compliance with an existing regulation. The other is where, in the opinion of the safety committee and the delegate, they will press forward with ideas for safety and health, and will inform the occupier at the same time. Is the Minister prepared to accept——

It seems to me that they all run counter to this amendment which I have introduced as a result of detailed discussions at the Special Committee. If the Deputy looks at the amendment he will see clearly that it is aimed at making the safety committee nothing more than a body for ascertaining the transgressions of the workers, and reporting these to the occupier or the inspector. I think it is all conceived in a one-sided way. My amendment has balance; it gives the safety committee functions to ensure compliance by the workers and by the employer. As I say, sub-section (a) of my amendment, which, by the way, the Deputy wants to delete, sets out precisely that balance. I think it is a basically different approach. Either you take the approach in the final amendment here or, by putting these whole series of amendments which give this safety committee quite a different line of functions, approach the whole problem from an angle which I think is rather one-sided.

I appreciate the Minister's explanation. Some people have felt that the exact opposite might be sought in the ministerial amendments. I think it does depend entirely on the spirit in which this committee works. If it is found out in practice that the committee has a tendency to become concerned with petty details which are not really of sufficient importance to warrant the time and trouble of the people concerned, I would ask the Minister to look into the matter with a view to amending such committee, and constitute it so that it would work to the benefit of the employees concerned, and to the benefit of the occupier of the factory in the smooth running of the safety regulations, which would be really maintained and used to the fullest extent by the occupier and employees.

If the committee turns out to be a nagging, knocking committee, if I may so describe it, and more a source of irritation than of the promotion of better health and safety, the employer need not participate in its functions.

But he would have to carry out its recommendations.

No, he would not, unless the law——

Has the Minister any objection to Deputy Dockrell's suggestions with regard to paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f)? I do not see that they interfere with the principle of the committee.

So far as the employer is concerned, he can put man for man on the committee with the workers, if he wants to do it. I explained last night that I do not think it desirable to have this thing contested on the basis of a football match, with one man marking another. I think it better that there should be the impact of reason on reason. Nothing would be decided here by heads. The whole success of this depends on the spirit behind it. If the committee is a nagging committee, the employer need not participate, and in that case the committee will still function, but no more than if it were a branch of a trade union which, when the inspector called, would complain to the inspector. A committee of that kind, if it turns out to be such a committee, is worthless from the point of view I have in mind. I want a committee which will be a co-operative committee.

I would like to see the committee one which would run on co-operative lines and really do its work in ensuring safety regulations because everyone wants to see these carried out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendments to amendment No. 17 not moved.
Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 55, to insert the following paragraph before paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 84:—

(b) the provisions of Part II with respect to sanitary conveniences, to such extent as may be specified, and subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made, by regulations of the Minister.

The effect of this amendment is to give power to provide by regulations for the application to docks of the sanitary conveniences provision of Section 16. I undertook in the Special Committee to provide for such power. As I explained to the Special Committee, it is not possible to make a straight application of this to docks because of the many different interests concerned in the operation of facilities at docks. For example, there is the port authority, the local authority and there are also the ship owners concerned, and that is why in framing the amendment reference has been made to applying Section 16 with such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary in order to make the arrangement work.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 55, line 57, to delete "and sale" and "new".

This merely corrects a wrong reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 56, to add the following sub-section to Section 85:—

(4) Such of the provisions of this Act as require general registers to be kept and copies of the prescribed abstract of this Act and of special regulations or the prescribed extract of such regulations to be kept posted up on the premises shall be deemed to be complied with as respects work carried out in a harbour or wet dock, to which this section applies, if the general register is kept at an office of the person undertaking the work and copies of the abstract of this Act and of the regulations or abstract thereof are kept posted up at each office yard or shop of the person undertaking the work at which persons employed by him on the work attend and in a position where they can easily be read by such persons.

I am not quite clear why a provision of this kind was not considered necessary in Section 85 which deals with the repairing of ships in harbours or wet docks. The following sections which deal with building operations provide that the posting of the abstract of the Act and regulations may be done at the office of the builder, or in some place normally frequented by the workers, instead of on the actual building operations, and it would seem to me to be necessary to have some similar provision in relation to the type of work contemplated in Section 85. Surely it would be more convenient to have the abstract posted in the office of the employer, or in some place normally frequented by the workers, than on the ship itself, as the Bill appears to require at present.

This is a rather complicated arrangement, but the position, as I understand it, from having examined the provisions of the Bill, is that the amendment speaks of the place where the person operating ships in the harbour or wet dock should keep the register, the prescribed abstract of the Act or copies of the regulations or prescribed extract of such regulations. Section 85 does not prescribe any obligation, save in respect of the keeping of a general register. It does not require the other documents referred to to be kept. It refers only to the keeping of the general register. As the obligations imposed in paragraph (g) sub-section (1) of Section 85 relate only to the keeping of the general register, the amendment is really not necessary, because Section 120, which refers to the keeping of the general register, provides that the register may be kept at a place outside the factory with the approval of an inspector. Possibly the Deputy was not aware of that when drafting the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I see it now. There is no obligation to keep a statutory notice posted where the work is being done.

Only the general register.

Mr. Lemass

Very good.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 are cognate and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In page 57, to insert the following paragraph before paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 86:—

(g) the provisions of Part VII, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made by regulations of the Minister.

It was agreed in the Special Committee that Part VII of the Bill, which relates to the medical examination of young persons, should be applied to building operations and this amendment gives effect to the agreement then made. It provides that the obligation shall be subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made by regulations. It may be necessary in the regulations, for example, to make provision for giving continuing effect to a doctor's certificate in respect of a boy who may change frequently from one builder to another, instead of requiring him to be certificated every time he gets a fresh job with another builder. In factories proper, of course, a new certificate must be obtained at any time a young person changes his employment. This is something which was agreed on at the committee and the amendment gives effect to the agreement.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has said that "it may be necessary to make these regulations so as to obviate the necessity for a new medical certificate every time a young person changes his employer." I think the Minister should say that that is what the regulations will provide for and should say definitely that it will not under any circumstances be necessary for a boy to be medically examined every time he changes his employer within the year. The objection to this suggestion that Part VII should apply to young persons employed in building operations is the fact that the young person may change his employment frequently during the year, and, as the Bill stands, he would have to be medically examined and certificated every time he entered a new employment. The Minister said it may be necessary to make these regulations in such a way as to avoid that necessity. I think he should say definitely "will".

I do not think I said it may be necessary. It will be necessary.

Mr. Lemass

So long as the Minister says it will be done, I am satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 57, to add the following sub-section to Section 86:—

(4) Any persons undertaking any building operations to which this Act applies shall, not later than seven days after the beginning thereof, serve on the Minister a written notice stating the name and postal address of the person so undertaking the operations, the place and nature of the operations, and whether any mechanical power is or is to be used and, if so, its nature, but—

(a) this sub-section shall not apply to any operations which the person undertaking them has reasonable grounds for believing will be completed in a period of less than six weeks, and

(b) where a person undertakes any building operations in a place where such operations are in progress, he shall not be required to give such a notice as aforesaid if a notice was given in respect of the operations in progress.

This amendment deals with a matter which was the subject of some discussion in the Special Committee. It was agreed there that notice of the commencement of substantial building operations should be served. The amendment which I have tabled provides for notice to be given of any operation which takes longer than six weeks to complete. Considerable difficulties arise in trying to define what is a substantial building operation. I did consider suggesting that it might be in reference to the amount of equipment on the site but this is such a very variable factor during building operations that I did not think it would serve our purpose. Neither would a long-time factor because a relatively dangerous repair job might not take too long to complete but it is, nevertheless, the type of operation which the inspector would like to visit. I suggest that the six-week measure which is provided for in the amendment is probably the best compromise in all the circumstances.

Mr. Lemass

I move the following amendment to amendment No. 22:—

In line 4 of paragraph (a) before "and" to insert "or on which less than six workers are employed".

With regard to the suggestion at the end of the Minister's statement, I suppose it is necessary notwithstanding the practical difficulties involved in requiring notification in regard to the commencement of building operations. Now that the Factories Acts have been extended to building operations, we do not want to impose unnecessarily upon the public the obligation of filling in and posting to Government Departments statutory forms. There is a number of building operations of a small type never likely to be inspected by a factory inspector or to be subject of ministerial concern under this legislation. The Minister recognises that, by proposing that the obligation to notify the commencement of operations will not operate except the operations are themselves reasonably expected to continue for about six weeks, or rather that the operations will not be completed within a period of six weeks. There is another special phraseology which, perhaps, directs attention to the need for the further amendment I suggest.

I think it is necessary to have the other provision also, that is, the number of workers employed. As it stands, it seems to me that if a farmer decides to employ men during the winter to do some work on his outbuildings, as opportunity offers, even though the work may take six weeks to complete he would still have to notify the commencement of building operations. Even a private householder employing a man to do spare-time work in the building of a garage or in the repairing of his house would have to notify the Department if the work was not expected to be completed within six weeks. The phraseology in the Minister's amendment is not that the building operations would reasonably take six weeks to complete. It is that it is not expected that they will be completed in six weeks.

My suggestion is—I do not think it is the perfect answer but it is part of the answer—that this obligation to notify the commencement of building operations should only apply if at least six workers are employed. We should exclude all types of work on farms and in parts of the country where the knowledge of the obligation to send in the statutory form will not exist and where people will be breaking the law every day. It is undesirable to have a law of that kind. It is not likely that these minor operations will ever be inspected.

I do not think that my amendment or Deputy Lemass's amendment are perfect to deal with a difficult problem such as this. If there is general agreement in the House, we will take Deputy Lemass's amendment and, perhaps, he would allow me to look into the matter in respect of his amendment.

Mr. Lemass

The draftsman will want to look into it. Perhaps six is not the best number, but I will be satisfied so long as there is some further limitation in respect of the number employed.

Six workers? Is that all the time?

Mr. Lemass

There is a definition somewhere in the Bill that the number of workers employed is the maximum employed at any time.

If the Deputy takes my amendment I will undertake to examine the Deputy's amendment.

Amendment to amendment No. 22, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 57, to insert the following paragraph before paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 87:—

(g) the provisions of Part VII, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be made by regulations of the Minister.

This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 21.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:—

In page 58, to add the following sub-section to Section 87:—

(4) Any person undertaking any works of engineering construction to which this Act applies shall, not later than seven days after the beginning thereof, serve on the Minister a written notice stating the name and postal address of the person so undertaking the works, the place and nature of the works, and whether any mechanical power is or is to be used, and, if so, its nature, but—

(a) this sub-section shall not apply to any works which the person undertaking them has reasonable grounds for believing will be completed in a period of less than six weeks, and

(b) if a person undertakes any works of engineering construction in a place where such works are in progress, he shall not be required to give such a notice as aforesaid if a notice was given in respect of the works in progress.

This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 22.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 59, to add the following sub-section to Section 91:—

(3) Such annual report of the proceedings of the inspectors as the Minister directs shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

I agreed in the Special Committee to provide in the Bill that an annual report would be published and this amendment gives effect to the promise I then made.

Mr. Lemass

Going back to the other point, whatever limitation there is in regard to the notification for workers it should be the same for construction workers.

That is in respect of the number of workers?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:—

In page 64, to add after "family" in line 6 ", but no such application shall operate to prevent the maintenance of any civil proceedings in relation to the death or injury."

In the Special Committee Deputy Lemass inquired whether it was clear that sub-section (2) would not have any adverse effect on the right of an injured person or the relatives of a deceased workman to take proceedings for the recovery of civil damages. I looked into the matter and had it examined legally. I am advised that, perhaps, there is some doubt on this point and to remove that doubt I have tabled an amendment which makes it clear that sub-section (2) will not interfere with anyone's right to take civil proceedings for damages.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:—

In page 70, to add the following sub-section to Section 125:—

(8) On the request of the advisory council and subject to the consent of the Minister, an inspector may attend a meeting of the advisory council for the purpose of giving any information which the advisory council may request for the purposes of discharging its functions.

In the Special Committee the point was made by Deputy James Larkin that an inspector might be tied into the work of the advisory committee largely for the purpose of assisting the committee by making information available and clarifying points on which the committee might be in doubt. I promised I would make an inspector available and this amendment gives effect to that promise.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:—

In page 70, to delete lines 46 and 47 and substitute "manufacturing process (other than a process ancillary to the getting of minerals, including the breaking, crushing, grinding, screening, washing or dressing of such minerals) is carried on."

This amendment is designed to remove a doubt that quarries belonging to local authorities from which material is obtained for their own use and not necessarily for sale would get the same treatment as quarries operated by commercial firms or private individuals.

Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share