I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I think that this will be in every sense non-controversial. I do not see the opportunity of a controversy arising on it.
Committee on Finance. - Offices (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1957—Second Stage.
Hard luck on the Minister.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for office workers the protection similar in character to that provided for industrial workers by the Factories Acts in regard to such matters, cleanliness, temperature, lighting and general safety of the places where they work. The introduction of legislation for that purpose was recommended by the Commission on Youth Unemployment which reported in 1951.
The problem about this Bill is that while many people have in the past urged the need for it very few have expressed a view as to the form it should take. The Commission on Youth Unemployment, while recommending the introduction of legislation to protect office workers in regard to several aspects of their employment, did not give any suggestions as to the form which the legislation should take. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no similar legislation in any other country. There is no I.L.O. Convention on the subject and, in regard to legislation of this kind, one would naturally turn to the I.L.O. records for guidance. I understand that the I.L.O. are undertaking an inquiry which might lead to the formulation of a convention but the outcome of that inquiry is not yet known. There is therefore a problem for the Dáil in relation to this Bill.
When we were framing the factories Act we could draw upon our own experience for fifty years of the operation of legislation relating to factories. We could, if necessary and in fact did, to a great extent, turn for guidance to the legislation of other countries and approach the whole task of framing that Bill in the realisation that we could make a fairly good job of it and that we were not likely to leave anything out, because the legislation of other countries and our own experience would tell us what to put in. The preparation of legislation for office workers is on a different basis. There is no legislation elsewhere which we can turn to. There is no advice available even from the Commission which recommended that such legislation should be introduced. There is no I.L.O. Convention on the subject.
The text of this Bill is similar to that which was circulated in February last by the previous Government. I do not want that to be taken as meaning that I am in full agreement with that text. I felt however that it was wise to start off by putting that text back again before the Dáil and telling the Dáil that the form and scope of it will be considered and inviting all Deputies to examine it and to submit their amendments to it. I decided upon the course of circulating the Bill which had previously been before the Dáil unchanged because, amongst other reasons, I felt it would help to secure proper consideration of the problems and also because the text of that Bill had been circulated to a number of organisations all of whom had been invited to submit their views. Very few of them did so. Indeed, the absence of comment from a number of trade organisations that often complain they are not consulted about legislation of this kind should be noted.
That always happens.
Perhaps my observation on the matter now will produce some comment which will be valuable. With the text of the Bill an explanatory memorandum was circulated. I presume, therefore, it is not necessary for me to refer in detail to its provisions. The general scheme of the Bill is to place upon the occupiers of office premises an obligation to provide for their workers clean and safe surroundings, properly lighted, heated and ventilated.
Then it gives the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to go beyond that general obligation by making regulations which will prescribe in a detailed way the standards to be met in particular instances.
While that is the general scheme of the Bill, the detailed provisions of which have been explained in the explanatory memorandum so that it is not necessary for me to go into them again, there are one or two points on which I should like to make a comment. The Bill applies only to premises in which five or more persons are employed on clerical work. While making it quite clear that every section of the Bill is open to debate and amendment by the Dáil and that it is not in any sense a Party measure from any point of view, I would urge the Dáil not to press to extend that provision further in order to apply the provisions of this initial Offices Bill to premises in which a lesser number of clerical workers are employed. Indeed, I think quite a strong argument could be made to confine this initial attempt at legislation to larger concerns employing clerical workers in fairly substantial numbers. The obligations imposed by the Bill may involve some expenditure in many cases and, while that expenditure will perhaps press fairly lightly on the larger and more solvent concerns there is a danger in relation to smaller concerns that the placing upon them of the obligation to incur this expenditure and the prospect of being subject to inspection to ensure that the requirements of the Bill are met may lead to a decision to disemploy one or two clerical workers rather than face these obligations. Therefore I think we should approach with considerable care the question of the size of the concern to which the measure should apply.
The second point which I think requires some mention is the proposal that the enforcement of the measure should be entrusted to the sanitary authority. It is not proposed to set up for the purpose of this Bill a new and separate inspectorate for its enforcement. The Factories Act is enforced by an inspectorate service employed by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is intended, and, indeed, it would obviously be the most convenient arrangement to have these factory inspectors to do any inspection that arises under this Bill in connection with offices associated with factories. However, in relation to all other places where clerical work is carried out, it is proposed to give responsibility for its enforcement to the sanitary authority. On the whole I think it is probably the better arrangement.
Objections could be based upon the fact that experience may show that local authorities may not be very active or very enthusiastic in its enforcement or that some local authorities will be more effective in its enforcement than others or on the ground that enforcement by sanitary authorities will mean that there cannot be any report on enforcement giving a picture of the problems that arise and the effect of the measure such as is available under the Factories Act, or because the local sanitary authority will not have any contact— cannot have any contact—with the Advisory Committee which is to be established under the Bill. I have considered these objections, but nevertheless I think there is not any more suitable arrangement for the enforcement of the measure than using the sanitary authorities.
In the main, the enforcement of the Bill will turn upon the provision of proper sanitary arrangements—toilet arrangements and arrangements for drinking-water facilities—cleanliness, fire safety and other matters which are the normal concern of local authorities. The Department's factory inspectors will look after the offices attached to factories. They will also be responsible for the enforcement of the measure in other Government Departments. That is not a task I am looking forward to with any enthusiasm but that is what is in the Bill and, presumably, somebody had to do it. Outside these two spheres, the sanitary authorities will operate. Perhaps I should make it quite clear at this stage, because it will certainly be clear to all Deputies next week, that I am not prepared to consider any proposals which will involve additional administrative costs in the Department.
I mentioned that all organisations that are concerned with, or are likely to be concerned with the present Bill, organisations representing traders or other business interests which employ clerical workers, have been asked to submit their views. I think in regard to a measure of this kind the aim should be to secure the greatest measure of agreement possible. I therefore propose to leave quite a substantial interval between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee Stage to enable all these organisations to consider the Bill as carefully as they like and to permit of consideration of any suggestions or proposals they wish to send in, and also to permit Deputies to consider amendments.
I should like to urge on both, the organisations who may be considering it and the Deputies contemplating amending it, that they should approach this first piece of legislation— and I emphasise it is the first because no other country has pioneered in this field of legislation dealing with the conditions of office workers—with the aim of producing a practicable, workable and reasonable measure rather than that we should strive towards some theoretical ideal which may be unattainable in practice, or rather than seek to set out to draft a code to regulate in every detail the working conditions of office staffs.
I think if we can secure an effective measure which will deal with the things I have mentioned, lighting, cleaning, heating, ventilation, toilets and so forth, we will have done all that is practicable in the present circumstances and it is in the expectation that the Bill can emerge from the Oireachtas in a form which can achieve these results that I recommend it to the House.
This Bill is one which would be much better discussed on the Committee Stage than on the Second Reading. I hope that when the Minister fixes the date for the Committee Stage at the conclusion of this debate, he will fix a date a considerable time ahead, so as to enable the members of the House to consider the Bill in detail before the Committee Stage and also in the hope that outside organisations may be reminded that this is a Bill which may quite seriously affect them and, therefore, one which they should consider and one in respect of which their advice and views would, I know, be welcomed by all sides of the House.
Personally, in regard to the two points mentioned by the Minister, I should like to say that I entirely agree with him. I think it would be bad policy for the House to restrict still further the low number, that is, five, employees in the establishments that will be affected by this Bill. So far as the other point he mentioned is concerned, I think it would be very undesirable and highly objectionable that there should be any new body of inspectors. The arrangement by virtue of which the sanitary officer can make the inspection is an arrangement which in the country, at any rate, will mean that there will be no necessity for additional inspectors on the one hand, and on the other, that the local sanitary inspector who is more likely to be attuned to, and acquainted with, the circumstances of the rural town in which an office may be situated than an inspector operating from the Department in Dublin would be, will do the work.
There is a danger that might arise if the Factory Acts inspector were to go outside the limits of the offices attached to the factory to make the type of inspection that is envisaged in this Bill, in rural areas particularly. While some type of legislation on these lines is desirable, there is undoubtedly a very great danger that in endeavouring to put clerical workers into too much cotton wool, we will reduce the number of clerical workers who will be employed, and the House should approach the Bill in this spirit.
About 18 months ago, when I came to consider with the officials of my Department the question of drafting a Bill which would give to office workers protection and facilities with due amenities, similar to those given to factory workers, those who discussed the matter were all conscious of the fact that in the field of legislation we had nobody's brains to pick. We, therefore, had to set out to try to devise a Bill of this kind dealing with the conditions of office workers, having to rely all the time on our own resources, our own experience and our own ingenuity to deal with the problem.
The Bill, as originally drafted, was wider and perhaps more rigid than the Bill now before the House, but by subjecting the draft Bill to the tests of reality and by attempting to import into it the maximum measure of flexibility, we were ultimately able to get this Bill. I think the officers of the Department who have been associated with the drafting of this Bill have done a first-class job, especially when one remembers that it is a pioneering piece of legislation not only so far as this country is concerned but so far as many countries of the world are concerned.
I never intended the Bill to represent the last word so far as legislation affecting office workers is concerned. At best, I hoped at the outset that it would be not merely a protective measure in certain respects, but that in the main it should constitute itself as a signpost to the conditions which ought to be provided for office workers. The scheme as envisaged in the Bill, as the Minister said, enables the inspection of offices associated with factories to be done by the visiting factory inspector who, when he is on the factory premises can quite easily see that the offices associated therewith comply with the requirements of this Bill.
The Bill provides that so far as offices generally are concerned the inspection should be done by the local sanitary authority because it is felt that a local inspection of that kind is not only much cheaper than a centralised inspection but is much more convenient in every way. The local inspector will know the local people and there will be an element of understanding in the inspection that would not be there if the inspector comes down from a centralised bureau to tell a local office owner what he should do in his own office.
I think, therefore, that inspection by the local authority will not only mean a saving in the matter of administration, but will make for the smoother and probably more understanding type of inspection which I think is necessary to ensure the success of a Bill of this kind.
Contrary to the view expressed by the Minister and, I think by Deputy Sweetman—I have some misgivings— and always had misgivings—about one section of the Bill. I let it go, however, in its final form, not with any enthusiasm but rather to test the feelings of the Dáil on the subject. It may be felt that I am ahead of my profession in this field, but I personally dislike the provisions of Section 3, which provide that the Bill does not apply to an office in which the number of persons employed on clerical work does not exceed five. So far as the larger offices are concerned, it does not matter whether this Bill is passed or not. The good employer who has a social conscience and who is a good businessman realises that if he is to get good work from his staff and give the impression of a well-run business he must have good offices where conditions are good and where everybody appears to be working under ideal conditions. So far as that type of office is concerned, this Bill has not the slightest effect.
This Bill is intended for places which are really garrets and not offices, places where workers are almost warehoused and where the conditions are very far from attaining a satisfactory standard. It is in the small office that the worst offences are committed from the point of view of overcrowding, cleanliness, sanitary conveniences, washing facilities and seating. It is in the small office where the exploitation of the unprotesting boy or girl takes place. The big offices look after themselves. They present no problem. They are all run in a first-class manner. It is the person employing one, two or three, who does not pay them, who often looks for a fee to engage them, who expects them to tolerate the worst of conditions that I should like to see this Bill dealing with, and dealing with effectively.
Although I allowed five to stand in the section, I was going to say to the Dáil that, as far as I am concerned, I would welcome an amendment to that section. I certainly would not oppose an amendment of the section designed to apply the Bill to offices employing less than five. It is at that point that the possibility of flouting the reasonable provisions set out here is most serious and it is at that point that those who work in offices of that kind need the maximum measure of protection. There may be cases where a single person is employed in an office associated perhaps with another business who is not all the time engaged in the office but is rambling through the building in the course of his or her duties. It may be undesirable to cater for a case of that kind in a Bill such as this but the main considerations remain, that it is in the case of the small office where the conditions are not good that it is desirable to have some power to deal with the problem and to lift them up to a standard to which many of them do not at present conform.
I share the present Minister's view that the Bill represents an effort to get together a code of offices legislation which would do things in a reasonable and a flexible way. In that respect it is very largely an enabling Bill. Any Deputy who looks through the various sections will see that most of them give power to the Minister to make regulations, the advantage of that being that, if you can make a regulation, you can revoke it or amend it in the light of experience or make another one which better fits the situation. That is much better than having a rigid Bill prescribing something which cannot be amended except by subsequent legislation.
This Bill also has the merit that in Section 24 it sets up an advisory council which will be representative of people who have an interest in this whole problem, that is, those who would represent workers, those who would represent employers, those who would have an interest in social welfare activities, the idea there being that regulations would be submitted to this advisory council, that there could be an impact of reason on reason from the different sides of the advisory council and that, ultimately, whatever regulation came out of the council would have the benediction of the different groups who would be represented on the council. That was designed to ensure that the regulations would not be milled out by an impersonal department concerned only with ensuring that its ukases compelled respect. The idea of the advisory council and the submission thereto of the regulations was to ensure that you would get a human point of view beamed on the regulations, a practical point of view, which would enable the regulations to work.
All that was done, as I said, for the purpose of ensuring that this Bill when it became an Act would be administered in a way that would bring about improvements in the conditions of office workers without at the same time producing extensive irritations in its administration while at the same time providing basic rights for workers who earn their livelihood in offices.
Like the Minister, I had intended to allow the Dáil to exercise its skill and ingenuity on the Bill regarding the principle only as the desirability of protecting office workers but, as to the methods by which it should be done, leaving that to an open vote in the light of the merits associated either with the section as drafted or with any amendments which would be submitted. If the House approaches the Bill in that spirit I am sure that we can get through the House in respect of offices a Bill as satisfactory as the Bill we got through the House in respect of factories and which is now operating smoothly as an Act.
I simply desire to express a word of welcome for this legislation. There is an extremely big difference between the conditions of clerical workers and those of workers in factories. The conditions of factory workers have been won by progressive legislation in countries outside this country and in this country. They were brought to a very high stage of perfection in this country under the very recent Factories Act. It is heartening to see this first attempt at legislation for the clerical workers.
I venture to say that the conditions in many offices, in the small towns at least throughout this country, are scandalous. Many of these offices have no sanitary accommodation of any sort, no provision for washing and very little heating or lighting. The conditions in general are as described by Deputy Norton, plus bad pay conditions.
The two points in this Bill that lend themselves to amendment have been more or less taken from us by the Minister in his opening speech. I can see the force of his request that we must make haste slowly, that if we are to have this type of legislation, we must do it gradually and that the very first effort is not the time to make a Bill completely watertight. In my opinion the fact that offices employing less than five do not come within the provisions of the Bill means that the Bill will not apply to practically every small town in the country.
In my opinion, it practically wipes it out. It is in those small towns that the scandalous conditions exist. I would suggest to the Minister he should seriously consider leaving it to a free vote as to whether that number of five should be reduced. I am not particularly struck by the force of the argument that, because of the expense of providing better conditions, some firm will decide to do without one or more workers. I doubt if any employer is employing clerical workers under those conditions. The question of how much he would do to put his office into reasonably good conditions should not be largely based on wondering if he would dismiss somebody or not.
On the question of inspectors, it is not their efficiency that I worry about. Deputy Norton said that they will know the local people but I am more afraid that the local people will know them. I suggest that the Minister should consider widening the Bill to include a provision giving the right to inspectors, at the request of an organisation or trade union, to carry out an inspection of a particular office.
I think that would meet in some way the opposition I have to leaving this matter wholly to the local authority health inspectors.
Finally, I should like to express my appreciation of the work done by the Minister's Department and in particular of the interest taken in the promotion of this Bill by the previous Minister.
I accept the principles set out in this Bill that office workers should have decent conditions in which to work. I find myself in substantial agreement with the attitude adopted by the Minister in regard to this Bill, especially in so far as he expressed the view that, in formulating unprecedented legislation of this kind, it was very much better to creep rather than to walk. It is always possible to improve one's first effort but very often there is grave hardship if, through excessive zeal, one imposes unnecessary burdens on people who are trying to earn their living. I do not mind confessing to the House that I am more familiar with conditions in business places in rural Ireland than with business places in our cities. When I think of every rural business establishment in Ireland becoming subject to the impact of legislation of this kind, I begin to ask myself a question. Take a section like Section 22. It provides that in every office where five clerks or more are employed "there shall be provided and maintained so as to be readily accessible one or more first-aid boxes or cupboards suitably equipped". I cannot help asking myself what do we need first-aid boxes for in the average office? Is it to rescue a clerk who stabs himself with a pen?
He might find a first-aid bottle there.
I apprehend that a provision of that kind is really rather extravagant. It seems to be quite irrelevant to the conditions with which I am familiar in rural Ireland. I can see good grounds for making provision that there shall be cleanliness and no overcrowding, reasonable heating, lighting and ventilation; I am not so sure it is necessary to have a constant supply of drinking water in the offices, unless it be to dilute the bottle which the Minister seems to imagine may occupy the first-aid box. I could not imagine that it is an essential minimum requirement of decent offices. I do not think it is necessary to provide washing facilities in the office. Naturally, there should be adequate heating and sanitary arrangements annexed to the premises where the office is, fire safety and so on, but Deputy Norton feels that in having an office defined, for the purpose of this Bill, as a place where there are five or more employed is going farther than he would have thought prudent.
I think that if we want to deal with offices as we have dealt with factories in a different code of legislation, we might well have begun with an office of ten persons and, later, if that was found to be inadequate to deal with any remaining abuses, reduce the figure. If one imposes statutory duties on a relatively small business, it may cripple that business. To steer an even course between imposing statutory obligations that the business cannot afford and tolerating a business carrying on at the expense of its employees is not an easy job. I think it would be better to try to regulate all offices and define them as being places where more than ten clerks are employed and then, if found practicable, to extend the definition to cover premises where seven are employed. The next stage, if necessary and practicable, would be to extend it to five. If we were to follow Deputy Norton's thought to confine the definition simply to an office where a clerk is employed, I begin to think of all the solicitors' offices where young men are starting out in life employing one clerk and living and working in the same conditions as that one clerk and glad to have that accommodation. They might find that accommodation, which they could not afford to better, might not comply with the minimum requirements of the Bill. What are they to do if that thought is extended to smaller businesses and shopkeepers in rural Ireland?
I think the Minister is well advised when he says that this is unprecedented legislation. It would be a great pity if in trying to do the right thing, we wrecked the effort by trying to do too much too soon. Let us vindicate the principles first; then let us gradually extend the definition of clerical establishment to cover as wide a field as may be desirable and practicable. I have no doubt that if the approach adumbrated by the Minister in submitting this Bill on Second Stage is maintained in the Committee and later stages, our joint wisdom should be able to produce a workable version of this Bill. Therefore, I agree with Deputy Sweetman that further detailed comment upon it would be better reserved for the Committee and later stages.
I should like to join with the other members in welcoming the introduction of this measure. As the Minister said in his opening statement, in this Bill we are adopting a principle. I think that in it the Minister and his predecessor have something to be proud of. When this Bill has been examined—sympathetically, I trust—by the members of the House and becomes law, I believe it will be a landmark in progressive legislation.
I have no experience whatever of the situation in rural Ireland, but I am afraid I cannot agree with the view expressed by Deputy Dillon when he said that the Minister might consider applying the principle of the Bill to those employed in clerical establishments with a staff of ten or more. Those of us who have some knowledge of the situation in the city are aware that, in organisations where a large number of clerical workers are employed, the problems this Bill is intended to deal with are to a large extent non-existent. Such organisations of employers or single employers employing large numbers of clerical workers realise it is good economy to provide reasonable working conditions for their employees and that it is false and unsound economy to crowd office workers into badly ventilated offices, lacking heat and light. The inevitable result of this type of action is a high degree of absenteeism, due to illness and the like.
The problem in our cities is the problem of those employing small numbers of clerical workers. They may be organisations employing clerical workers; they may be solicitors, as mentioned, or other professional people; they may be organisations engaged in trade. As far as the general public are concerned, when they enter these places of business, they may observe a very well appointed front office and a very well appointed front desk with somebody to receive them. However, the office workers who carry on the necessary clerical work may, and very often are, compelled to carry out their duties in the most unsuitable, uncomfortable and unhealthy conditions. I think it is true to say that in the City of Dublin, even in the more important shops, where to all intents and purposes the employees appear to enjoy reasonable conditions of employment, behind the facade of beautiful show-cases and counters, those who carry on the accounting work have to do so in very different and difficult circumstances.
I agree with the Minister when he says that this is the type of Bill that will require careful consideration. I have no doubt that his appeal to outside organisations to take an interest in this Bill, to submit their recommendations and observations on it, will now be responded to.
There is one other matter I should like to mention: the enforcement of the regulations, when they are made. Again it is a question of the varying conditions that exist between rural and urban areas. I would ask the Minister to examine again the regulation which requires the sanitary officer to be the inspecting and enforcing officer. I think the duties of the sanitary officers in the City of Dublin are more than adequate and would allow them little time to carry out this work. Furthermore, the type of work they carry out would not suit the purposes of this Bill. They are called upon to examine the sanitary defects of dwelling-houses, to examine rooms in tenement buildings and to certify whether there is sufficient ventilation for the number of people residing there. I do not think that from experience of their duties, they would have any training for dealing with the desirable level of heating, cleanliness or ventilation required in offices. As far as urban areas are concerned, these duties could be much more readily performed by experienced officers attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the possibility of making the Bill applicable, not only in cases where there are more than five persons employed, but even in cases where there are less than five persons employed.
In conclusion, I should again like to welcome the Bill and in particular compliment the Minister on introducing it so early in his period of office.
I do not think anything has been said which would call for much comment. We all agree that it was necessary to provide by legislation for the regulation of conditions of office workers. The only question now left is the form of details which might be enshrined in the Bill later. That is a matter with which the Dáil can most usefully deal in Committee. I suggest we fix the Committee Stage for June 5th, which, even allowing for all the work we have to do in the meantime, will give us sufficient time to give this measure the necessary consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th June, 1957.