Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 14

Factories Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

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

On the Second Reading of this Bill in the Dáil I stated that the text of the Bill as introduced was identical with the text of the Bill which was introduced in 1953 by my predecessor in office and which had received a Second Reading before the Dáil was dissolved. I explained that I had kept to the same text as being the best way of making progress towards the speedy enactment of this Bill. Members of the last Oireachtas had studied the earlier text; they had made themselves familiar with its various provisions and they were ready to air their views on the merits and shortcomings of the Bill as it then stood. There were obvious advantages to all concerned in taking as the starting point for this Bill, the point at which the discussion of the 1953 Bill was abandoned. These advantages extended also to those organisations of workers and employers who had made themselves familiar with the 1953 proposals.

When circulating the text of the Bill I had certain amendments in mind and these I put before the Special Committee to which the Bill was referred by the Dáil. The Dáil approved the amendments proposed by the Special Committee. Some further amendments were made on the Report Stage.

I think that I should refer here to two of those amendments as they introduce something new to factory laws in these islands.

The first of these is the provision for the establishment of safety committees within factories. If Senators examine Section 73 of the text before them, they will see that there is little or no element of compulsion in what is provided. All the law is doing is to give that necessary bit of status to what will, I hope, be freely formed and smoothly functioning bodies. The other amendment to which I refer is the insertion in the Bill of Section 127 which provides for the establishment of an advisory council. In a sense this provision is the complement of the provision about safety committees. The safety committee gives the worker in the factory a certain voice in safety matters at factory level; the advisory council gives organisations of employers and workers a voice in the general administration of safety laws at national level.

I think that it would be helpful to our discussion if I were to devote a little time to giving a general explanation of the purposes and aims of the Bill. Among the enactments taken over by the Irish Government from the British administration was a large body of legislation dealing with the health, safety and welfare of industrial workers. This body of legislation is known commonly by the general name, "The Factories Acts".

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

The main enactment dealing with working conditions in factories at present is the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. That Act has been amended and extended by a number of Acts, which are listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to consolidate in one measure all that the law has to say on the subject of working conditions in factories. An adequate summary of the law, as it now stands, is contained in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill as introduced.

I think the best way of giving a picture of how the law would stand after the passage of the Bill is for me to take the Bill part by part and highlight the changes which the Bill introduces. Part I contains the normal sections relating to commencement, definitions, expenses, etc. "Factory" is defined in Section 3. Existing law makes a distinction between textile factory, non-textile factory, workshop and men's workshop. This distinction had a certain relevance to the control of working hours of women and young persons-a control now transferred to the Conditions of Employment Act— and also led to different treatment for different classes of workplaces. The distinction is gone in this Bill.

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

Part II contains the precautions to be taken as standard at all factories for safeguarding the health of workers. Extra precautions for certain places are prescribed elsewhere in the Bill. As compared with the existing law, the provisions as to cleanliness are made more precise and are written in greater detail; the space requirements for each worker is increased from 250 to 400 cubic feet; a figure for temperature of work-rooms is mentioned, and an obligation to provide proper lighting is added. Special mention may be made of the new provision in Section 20 giving power to the Minister to require the medical supervision of a factory.

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

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

In this Part of the Bill in particular will be noted considerable extensions of existing law. Some of the provisions are completely new, as, for example, the sections requiring the proper training and supervision of persons working dangerous machines, requiring precautions to be taken against explosive atmospheres, requiring for air and for steam receivers safeguards comparable with those required for steam boilers and requiring the institution of special safety arrangements in factories where the accident history is bad. Other sections in this Part have the effect of extending to factories generally provisions at present applying only, under regulations, to limited classes of factories. In this category would be Sections 34 and 35, dealing with lifting apparatus of all kinds. Yet other sections in this Part cover the same ground as existing law but incorporate extensions of one kind or another. The sections dealing with fire precautions are applied to factories with fewer workers than before.

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

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

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

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

The provisions contained in Part VIII appear to be very elaborate but they deal with two difficult subjects, viz: (a) premises where there is more than one factory, or premises where only part is used as a factory, and (b) places where industrial activity is carried on but which not being factories in the ordinary sense and not having defined and limited premises cannot be expected to conform to all the rules applicable to factories proper. Sections 81 and 82 deal with the first subject by setting out which of the Bill's obligations fall to be discharged by the occupier of the factory premises and which by the owner of the building in which the factory is located. In remaining sections is set out the extent to which the various provisions of the Bill will apply to electrical stations, institution docks, wharves, quays, warehouses, ships in dock, building operation and works of engineering construction. The application of any factory law to works of engineering construction is entirely new. The application to the other activities represents a considerable extension of the present scope of application, particularly in the case of the building industry.

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

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

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

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

The last Part—Part XIII—repeats from existing law the obligation which rests on factory occupiers of giving notice of their occupation of premises, of posting up an extract of the law, etc. Section 125 is interesting in that it imposes on employed persons a legal duty of using, and not abusing, the safety and health arrangements which their employers are compelled to make for them. The Factory Acts will no longer have any application to quarries. A separate measure is being prepared to provide for the safety, health and welfare of quarry workers, but in case there should be any hitch in enacting such law power is taken in Section 128 of applying to quarries the protective measures of existing mining Acts.

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

Senators will be aware that, after the Second Reading, the Dáil referred this Bill to a Special Committee representative of all Parties in the House. The Bill received a very close examination by the Special Committee, and during the course of their meetings the Committee considered a large number of amendments submitted by different members. The Bill which emerged from the Committee reflected the extent of the detailed study given to it and incorporated various amendments which had commended themselves to the Committee as a whole. During the discussions in the Committee many fresh viewpoints were put forward and following consideration of these I moved some further amendments on the Report Stage. All these amendments are incorporated in the Bill now before the Seanad.

I should perhaps mention that as a result of further points raised on the concluding Stages of the Bill in the Dáil I will have one or two further minor amendments to move on the Committee Stage in this House. The amendments which I propose to table relate to:—

(1) The precautions to be taken against fire hazards in a factory which is accommodated in premises which are used also as a dwelling-house;

(2) a revised provision regarding the type of building operation or work of engineering construction which must be notified to the Minister; and

(3) provision for prior consultation with the Minister for Health (because he administers the Food Hygiene Regulations) before a certificate is issued exempting a basement bakehouse from the provisions of Section 65 of the Bill.

I am hopeful that after the thorough examination to which the Bill has already been subjected, and the number of amendments already adopted, Senators may find that little or no further amendment will be necessary and that there will emerge from the Oireachtas an Act which will go a long way towards satisfying all interests.

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

Is féidir liom a rá go gcuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo agus molaim an tAire mar gheall ar é thabhairt isteach, agus mar ghetall ar an méid oibre atá curtha isteach sa mBille, mar Bille mór toirtiúil is ea é gan aon agó. Ach is dócha nach ceart dom Bcaoileadh leis gan focail molta a rá, leis, ar son an té a chéadcheap é—an tAire a bhí ann roimh an Aire seo, mar dob é sin an tAire a chuir an obair ar fad beagnach isteach sa mBille agus a dhein tréan-iarracht ar rialacha a dhéanamh maidir le monarchain sa tír seo do chur ar aon dul leis na rialacha atá i bhfeidhm ins na monárchain I dtiórtha eile.

Do réir mar a thuigim, tá sé leathchéad bliain ó achtaíodh na rialacha go n-oibríonn ár muintir futhu inniu. Is fada an tréimhse é sin gan amhras. Sé an fáith, is dócha, gur ceapadh nár ghá aon leasú a dhéanamh ar na rialacha a bhainfidh leis na monarchain. Buíochas mór le Dia go bhfuilimid ar an mbóthar ceart anois agus go bhfuilimid ag dul ar aghaidh le tionscalú na tíre seo. Agus sin é an fáth gur gá rialacha den tsaghas atá sa mBille seo d'achtú anois i gcóir na haimsire atá le teacht.

Firstly, I should like to welcome this measure because I see in it a determined attempt to bring factory legislation in this country up to the standard at which it is in progressive countries to-day. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the statement he made and on the work he put into this measure. Also, I think it is our duty to congratulate the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, for the comprehensive way in which he tackled this problem of factory legislation.

As the Minister stated in the House, this Bill has been in progress since 1953. It had to be reintroduced because of the change of Government. During all that period no doubt the measure got a very detailed examination. It was deemed advisable to refer the Bill to a Special Committee of the Dáil and I must say that that Special Committee of the Dáil did very commendable work. The reports they issued from time to time, as they made progress with the consideration of the provisions of the measure, were very enlightening and very constructive indeed.

I think the new amendment that the Minister referred to, namely provision for the establishment of safety committees in factories under section 73, is a very advisable one. No doubt those committees will be on the spot to watch developments, to anticipate the requirements of the factories and to make an on-the-spot report of accidents as they may occur from time to time and to report, I suppose, on the various alterations that may be necessary in the working of the particular factories to which these special safety committees will be assigned.

Although that is an innovation in this country, it is not such in other countries. I understand that in countries such as Britain and America committees like these have been functioning. No doubt it is a good and useful thing for us to take stock of what they have been doing in those countries and if we think it advisable to pattern our legislation on what they have been doing. Of course, America and Britain have a long tradition of industrialisation behind them and there are many useful things that we can learn from those countries in the matter of factory legislation.

We in this country are comparatively young in regard to the industrialisation of our country, and I suppose we yet have many things to learn. At the same time, it can be truthfully said that we have made great strides over the past 20 or 25 years. We have made strides, not only in turning out industrial products in this country but also in providing industrial buildings here that can compare favourably with those in other countries. So well have many of these factories been equipped to cope with the requirements of modern times that the provisions enshrined in this measure will not be found irksome or burdensome to the people who control those factories. I would even go so far as to say that in some cases it would hardly be necessary at all to make any regulations to control the conduct of their business.

There is one thing that we have to bear in mind and that is the satisfaction of our people who are employed in factories. It is important that healthy conditions should obtain for the workers employed in our factories because to my mind the healthier the conditions are in the factories, the better the operatives will be able to cope with their work and the more work they will be able to turn out. Satisfaction and contentment of mind in these cases are always better than to have people dissatisfied or discontented. The operation of a measure of this kind will, as I have said, be of economic advantage to the country as a whole by reason of the fact that, when the workers employed in our factories find that we are taking such an interest in other welfare by providing good hygienic conditions of working for them, they will be likely to turn out better work.

I am glad to see that steps are being taken to ensure that no person under the age of 18 will be taken on for industrial work without a certificate. If That is, I think, as it should be, because there might be a tendency in some cases to employ young people, maybe at a rate of wages that would not be commensurate with the importance of the work they were doing.

This is a very comprehensive measure. It contains, I thing, 128 sections. It is a highly technical measure, and I do not think it would be useful, as the Minister has Suggested, to make anything like a long speech on it. It is more of a Committee measure. No doubt, we will require some little time to consider possible amendments, that is if, after the very careful and detailed consideration which was given to the Bill in the other House, there will be any room for new amendments. I would venture to say, comprehensive though the measure may be, that in the light of experience, and with the further development of our industrial arm, it will be found, with the passage of time, that amending legislation will have to be brought in to suit the changing conditions in this modern world. Of courses all we can do at present is to meet the situation which presents itself to us as best we can.

The Minister referred to office workers. There is no provision in this measure to cope with their position, although I think that if it had been considered in time there would be nothing to prevent having their position examined in this Bill. The Minister has given us to understand that further legislation will be necessary. The difficulty about that of course is that there is so much legislation nowadays that one has to wait before an undertaking of that kind can be fulfilled.

Finally, I would say that it will be gratifying for the people engaged in industrial employment in our cities and towns to know and realise that the people of the country are taking an interest in their welfare, and that it is to be expected in future there will be co-operation between the cities and the country in matters of this kind. There is nothing like co-operation. It brings about good results. We hope that if it is necessary to promote legislation for the people living in the rural parts of Ireland, legislation say that would be in keeping with this as regards their welfare, the people living in the towns and cities will have no hesitation in coming to their rescue.

Again, I welcome this measure. A good deal of thought has been given to it and a good deal of hard work has been put in to it, and I hope that the provisions enshrined in it will be found to work satisfactorily and well.

Mr. Douglas

I share the view of Senator Kissane in that I welcome this Bill. I agree with the Minister that the consolidation of factory regulations was long overdue. I am glad that the Minister in introducing the Bill in the Dáil more or less confined himself to the text of the 1953 Bill which had been introduced by the previous Government.

The Minister mentioned that the Bill had been considered by a Special Comimittee of Dáil Éireann, and that a full report of the deliberations of that Special Committee has been available to the members of this House for some considerable time. I do not think it would be desirable or necessary for this House, in its consideration of this Bill, to set up another Special Committee to examine it, but I do feel that when a Special Committee of that kind is set up by Dáil Éireann, opportunities should be provided for members of the Seanad to attend it and, where they have expert knowledge, to put it before the Committee. I feel also that in the case of the proceedings of Special Committees, when they are dealing with specialised Bills such as this, members of the outside public should have an opportunity of seeing the deliberations and of making recommendations or submissions before the Special Committee reports back to the Dáil.

The Bill as introduced was available to outside organisations, both of labour and manufacturers, but the amendments as proposed in the Dáil, and the reports of the Special Committee, do not in many cases reach these bodies until it is too late for them to put their submissions to the Minister. The amendments which were introduced on the Report Stage in the Dáil did not, in fact, reach the organisations of manufacturers, at least two organisations of which I know, until the Bill had, in fact, passed through the Dáil. I feel that is a rather unsatisfactory method of legislating.

Generally speaking, as a manufacturer I very much welcome this Bill. As I said earlier, it was long overdue. I have tried to examine it in the light of what I believe is its major principle, that is to secure an improvement in the conditions of work and in the safety and health of these employed in our factories. In the course of the comments which I propose to make, I am going to ask the Minister to consider whether the particular sections of the Bill with which I wish to deal do, in fact, achieve the objects which I think are the basis of the Bill.

In the Dáil, in referring to the definitions and general interpretations of the Bill the Minister dealt with the definition of a tenement factory. I do not like the word "tenement" in this particular sense and would far sooner see the substitution of the words "multiple factory". In the speech in the Dáil he said he did not like the word "tenement" either and would look into the section to see whether the word in this and subsequent sections could be amended to read "multiple factory".

The word "tenement" has a completely different meaning in the eyes of the general public from what it has in fact in this Bill and that is one of the reasons why I would like the Minister to consider again the possibility of changing that word. Apparently, the definition "tenement" has been in use in factory legislation for over 50 years and it has a legal significance, but that is no reason why the Minister could not in this particular Bill change that definition and the meaning of the word "tenement".

In Section 14 of the Bill, the section which deals with lighting, in the original Bill the Minister had a sub-section which provided:—

"(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or (2) of this section or in any regulations made under sub-section (2) of this section shall be construed as enabling directions to be prescribed or otherwise given as to whether any artificial lighting is to be produced by any particular illuminant."

In the special Committee the feeling was expressed that there were certain types of lighting, in particular neon lighting, which could be injurious to health and it was felt that the Minister should have power to prescribe the particular form of lighting. I accept the arguments put before the Special Committee, but at the same time I feel that the Minister should not be placed in the position that he could prescribe the particular form of lighting or a particular manufacturer's article to be used in lighting a factory or other building.

I certainly would; welcome a section of a Bill which would enable the Minister, to have some alteration made in the lighting of this House, because certainly since I have come in here I have found it exceedingly trying on the eyes. If anything to alter that could be put into the Factories Bill, I would welcome it. I would suggest to the Minister that he should find an alternative to that original sub-section which would get over the difficulty expressed by the Special Committee but, at the same time, put the Minister in a position where he would not have to specify any particular form of illuminant.

Sections 15 and 16 deal with the drainage of floors. I have no criticism of these sections as such, but there is a difficulty in the case of bleach houses or dye houses where water can be drained off the floor without difficulty but it is almost impossible to prevent the floors from remaining wet and damp. In a number of bleach houses and dye houses I know of, clogs are provided for the workers and I think that is adequate protection. I would like an assurance from the Minister that this clause on drainage would enable exceptions to be made in the case of bleach houses and dye houses or other factories where similar conditions may exist.

A slippery floor is mentioned in Section 16 and it is not very clear. The section says:

"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."

I do not know which comes first, the slipping or the prevention of the slipping, but that is only a matter of the wording of the section.

On page 18 of the Bill, under the construction of machinery, I am not entirely clear what Section 28 is meant to provide. In the case of textile factories it might be very difficult to carry out what I believe is the meaning of this section in relation to looms and particularly to looms of the old type. It has been pointed out to me that with the high-speed shuttle, it is quite a impossible to provide complete protection for either the worker or anyone else who might be passing a loom. I think some part of this section should provide that the Minister could vary the regulations in exceptional circumstances. Possibly the Minister would consider adding an additional paragraph to Section 28 to give him that power, if in fact it is not provided elsewhere in the Bill.

Section 32, which deals with the training and supervision of persons working on dangerous machines, is a section which I do not understand: but I have been asked by a number of interested outside persons to ask the Minister if he would clarify the exact meaning of sub-section (3) (b) and (c), in which he says that any reference to a working machine shall

"(b) in the case of a steam receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of steam in that receiver, and

(c) in the case of an air receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of compressed air in that receiver."

Certain manufacturers are not quite clear as to what is meant to be conveyed by the words "in connection with the use of". Perhaps the Minister would clarify this on the Committee Stage.

On page 36, which deals with the supply of drinking water, sub-section (5) of Section 52 says:—

"Except where the water is delivered in an upward jet from which the employed persons can conveniently drink, one or more suitable cups or drinking vessels shall be provided at each point of supply with facilities for rinsing them in drinking water."

In theory that sounds a good section and as far as factories are concerned I think it is most desirable that a container which provides water with an upward jet should be provided where-ever possible, but there are occasions in factories where there may not be sufficient pressure of water available or there may be other circumstances where that cannot be provided. I have found in practice that, where two or more drinking vessels are made available for the workers, they are not inclined to rinse them out afterwards. From a health point of view it is not desirable to keep that section in the Bill as at present worded. If it is not possible to provide water delivered by an upward jet, the workers themselves should provide their own drinking vessels. On page 37, Section 56 deals with first aid. In general this is a very desirable section, but in sub-section (6) It states:—

"If an ambulance room is provided at the factory and such arrangements are made as to ensure the immediate treatment there of all injuries occurring in the factory, the Minister may by certificate exempt the factory from the requirements. of this section to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may specify in the certificate."

In many factories to-day there are first-aid rooms available where there is in practically every case a welfare officer in continuous attendance. I feel that the use of the word "ambulance" there is a restriction on the value of the whole section and I suggest to the Minister that sub-section (6) might be worded so as to describe it as a first-aid room rather than an ambulance room.

I think that where a welfare officer or other trained personnel are continuously in attendance at a first-aid room, or health room, it should completely comply with the requirements of that particular section.

On page 39, Section 61, there is a section which deals with shuttlethreading by mouth suction. This is a most desirable section, and is merely following the British regulations in that regard. New types of shuttles are now, I think, generally available to all manufacturers. I presume that, in this section, the Minister intends to allow adequate time for the change over to the new type of shuttles. I would like to go even further than the Minister, and ask him whether he would consider consulting with the textile manufacturers to see whether or not he should put an actual time limit on the period before this new type of shuttle is put on I agree that the section is most desirable, and that this unplearsant method of threading shuttles by mouth suction should be abolished as soon as possible. Section 61 also, provides that of such regulations may impose duties on persons employed as well as on occupiers." It seems to me that this is the spirit which should prevail through the whole Bill, which I said earlier is designed to make better provision for the safety and welfare of industrial workers.

In Section 73, page 44, to which the Minister referred in the course of his opening remarks, I feel that he has departed from the spirit which is so well expressed in Section 61. As I see it, he is providing for the establishment of a committee which is supposed to be more effective, but which could, if I may use the words which the Minister used in the Dáil, turn 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."

I am quite satisfied that, as long as the present Minister is in office, he will endeavour to see that the committee set up under the proposed section will be a co-operative committee. We are legislating, not just for the present, but for the future, and I can well visualise a situation such as arose in Czechoslovakia or Italy, where a safety committee such as the one proposed by the present section, could become a sabotage committee, pure and simple. It was, I think, to guard against such eventualities which might arise under some other form of government, that Deputies Dockrell and Belton tabled their amendments, under this section, on the Report Stage, in the Dáil. I think the purpose of each of the amendments was that they would give the safety committee quite a different line of approach to the whole problem, and from an angle which was thought was rather onesided. I think the section as it stands, is far more one sided than it would be if a number of Deputy Dockrell amendments had been added.

I think that the following amendments, as tabled by Deputies Dockrell and Belton on the Report Stage would bring this section into line with the spirit of the whole Bill. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the following amendments, which were proposed in the Dáil on the Report Stage by these Deputies:—

"To delete lines 6 to 10, Paragraph (a) of Section 73, and substitute the following.

(a) It shall be the duty of the safety committee to assist the occupier of the factory in securing compliance by the persons employed therein with the provisions of this Act and of the Orders and regulations made under this Act."

I feel this paragraph is giving more power to the safety committee which, remember, is composed of workers. It is giving them more power to see that not only the occupier of the factory, but their fellow workers, endeavour to comply with the safety and health regulations, as envisaged under this Bill. I feel that, instead of weakening the safety Committee, we have given strength to these safety committee.

The second amendment proposed in the Dáil which I would commend to the Minister is:—

"Before paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of proposed new section to insert a new paragraph as follows—

(b) The safety committee, or safety delegate, shall inform the occupier and the inspector of any failure of which they have become aware by workers employed in the factory, to comply with this Act, or with Orders and regulations made under this Act."

If we are to have a safety committee working under this Act in the average factory I would like to feel that they were taking the responsibility, along with the employer, of seeing that the regulations are, in fact, complied with. I feel that this sub-section would help that committee to carry out its duties.

The third amendment proposed in the Dáil which I would again commend to the Minister is to amend paragraph (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 73:—

"The safety committee shall consider any representation made to it by the occupier on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed."

It was suggested in the Dáil that the word "consider" should be omitted and "take all possible steps to secure compliance with" substituted. The paragraph would then read:—

"The safety committee shall take all possible steps to secure compliance with any representations made to it by the occupier to matters effecting the safety and health of the persons employed."

As an employer one of the difficulties I have found in the past was getting my workers to comply with the safety regulations laid down by law to ensure their own safety on particular machines. I often found that a guard had been removed from a pulley, because they said that it impeded their efficiency. If the guard was going to ensure, the safety of the workers, it was essential that the work should be impeded. It is not possible for an employer to be continually in one place, and I think it would be desirable for the safety committee to reprimand their fellow workers of and help the employer to see that the section was complied with.

Section 73 (1) (a) of the present Bill gives them that power.

Mr. Douglas

I think it only assists in securing compliance. I want to make it more implicit. I do not think it gives enough power to that committee.

If it does not, there is no purpose in the committee functioning at all.

Mr. Douglas

I feel that what is provided in the present Bill does not give the committee sufficient power to take an interest in the provisions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I wonder would it be better if this discussion were deferred until the Committee Stage?

Mr. Douglas

I feel I am not asking the Minister to accept the amendments, but I would ask him to reconsider them before the Committee Stage?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a matter for the Senator himself as to what course he should take. I was just wondering whether this section could not be more generally discussed on the Committee Stage, rather than now, because we are likely to have a repetition of the whole discussion when we come to Committee Stage.

Mr. Douglas

My only difficulty, was that I would not have to put down amendments unless I felt they were acceptable to the Minister. I hope to get his guidance this evening. May I deal then with one other paragraph in this regard—paragraph (f)? Once again, I would have preferred the amendment as suggested by Deputy Dockrell in the Dáil. If the Minister, as he said a few moments ago, is absolutely satisfied that the safety committee is being giving this maximum account of power which he wishes, I must bow to his wishes, but, as an employer, I am anxious to see that the maximum co-operation is obtained from workers to ensure that there health and safety conditions are in fact carried out in our factories throughout the country. It is for that reason that I have drawn particular attention to Section 73.

There is only one other point I should like to raise at this stage. In the Bill as introduced, there was a Section 124. It was deletted in the Dáil Special Committee, but as far as I could see there was no comment ever made on any reason for its deletion the Special Committee report merely says: "Section 124 was deleted." That section provided for the inspection of certain premises and it read.

"Where in any premises which are subject to inspection by or under the authority of any Minister of State (other than the Minister), any manual labour is exercised for the purposes of instruction, in or incidental to the making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, wash ing, cleaning or adapting for sale, of any article, and the premises do not constitute a factory, the Minister may arrange with such Minister of State that the premises shall, as respects matters dealt with by this Act be inspected by an inspector appointed under this Act, and where such an arrangement is made, in spector's appointed under this Act shall have, as respects matters dealt with by this Act, the like rights of entry and inspection of that premises as the inspectors and other officers of such Minister of State have.

I am not very clear why it was necessary to delete that section, but it would appear to apply to factories which are under State control and possibly the Minister might enlighten us as to the reason for its deletion.

It related to vocational schools, which are not factories. The new provision is in Section 85.

Mr. Douglas

I could not find out exactly where it was. In conclusion, may I ask the Minister a further question? I think I heard the Minister for Agriculture make the statement here this evening that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would have power under this Bill to regulate the size of bags and containers for fertilisers or such commodities. I was not very clear where that power was given —I did not have an opportunity of going through the Bill since—and should like to know under what section he will have that power.

Once again, as an employer, I very much welcome the Bill and am particularly glad to have the assurance from the Minister that he is at present preparing legislation to deal with office offers. I do not propose to coments on that except to say that, while factory workers have been taken care of in the past, absolutely nothing has been done for office workers, and quite often you find small offices with a large number of typists and clerks packed in together in deplorable conditions. I think we might welcome this legislation.

May I ask whether we could agree to sit until 10.30 p.m. to see whether we could finish the Second Stage of this Bill? As you have indicated from the Chair Sir it is very largely Committee Bill and is not opposed. I am in the hands of the Houses of course. We normally adjourn at 10 o'clock, but we could at least make it 10.30 or even 11 o'clock for the purpose of concluding the Second Stage. Would there be agreement on that?

I think it should be possible to reach agreement on those lines. This is a Committee measure and I do not know if there are many on this side who intend to speak on it. For my part, we would be agreeable to sit until 10.30.

Can we make an order to that effect?

Could we hear at what time the Minister would want to get in—10 o'clock?

Unless the discussion ranges over a wider field than has so far been indicated, ten minutes will probably be enough for me.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to get in at 10.15 p.m.

Senator Hayes said that we could extend the time at least to 10.30. I take it that if there are visibly a number of speakers who still want to speak at 10.15, the House has power to change its mind at that juncture or must we bind ourselves now?

I have no intention of preventing anybody from speaking. I want to say that. I say we could meet until 10.30, but if it does not prove feasible then to finish, we could go on to 11 o'clock, and if it is not feasible at 11 o'clock, we just do not do it. I do not want to bind anybody.

Agreed.

The Minister is to be congratulated on this very detailed Bill which deals with a subject which I know has been worrying the Irish Trade Union Congress for some years past. The Bill provides for better, healthier and safer working conditions for certain workers, namely manual workers. It does nothing at all how ever, in regard to officer workers and I am very disappointed that this very good Bill should not have made provision for these office workers. The Minister in the course of his speech said that he had looked at that aspect of the matter and he thought that this Bill was not the appropriate measure in which to legislate for office workers.

The needs of office workers in regard to working conditions can be very clearly and briefly defined. First of all, cleanliness and that is dealt with for manual workers in Section 10; secondly the matter of overcrowding and that is dealt with by Section 11 for manual workers; thirdly, temperature and here again that is dealt with for manual workers in Section 12. The matter of ventilation is dealt with in Section 17, lighting in Section 14 and sanitary conveniences in Section 17. Part IV of the Bill, dealing with welfare, could be applied in toto to office workers.

It may be said that the detailed information as to the required conditions for office workers has not yet been established, but I notice that in this Bill provision is made in a lot of the sections for the making of Orders by the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Health, determining sufficient and suitable provisions, and it seems to me that the necessary power could be taken in the Bill and that the laying down of proper regulations could be dealt with by the Minister, just as he is taking power in the Bill to lay down proper conditions for manual workers.

The standard required for office workers is not so vague and a certain amount of work has already been done in the matter. I refer to the report of the Gowers Committee in Britain which has recommended standards in regard to these items I have mentioned and I think that these standards could and should be applied here.

I share the desire of all sides of the House and of the Minister to get through this Stage of the Bill as quickly as possible but I would urge on the Minister the importance of dealing with the question of legislating for proper conditions for office workers as quickly as possible. Quite frankly, I think that the answer he has given, that this is not the appropriate vehicle, is a Civil Service answer. There is a suspicious in a lot of people's minds that one of the reasons why the Government has not yet dealt with office conditions is that it has difficulty in putting its own house in order and that the first and greatest trangressor against any such new legislation would be the Government itself. The Minister is probably quite aware that Departments other than his own and Social Welfare have not as favourable office conditions as Industry and Commerce and Social Welfare.

Too often I have had experience of office workers in certain places risking T.B., and. I have often wondered whether it is a fact that office workers are more prone to this disease that other workers. It seems to me that such is the case, and I think it is the duty of the Government and the particular duty of the Minister to have the necessary legislation dealing with offices introduced as quickly as possible. I would appeal to him most strongly to have it introduced. I know too well the delays which can occur in a Department in getting information and work together, but certain organisations of clerical workers, notably the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations have already done some work in this respect and that association is most anxious to lay its recommendations before the Department. Not only Government offices could be said to be lacking in the proper facilities for office workers, but indeed other concerns some of which are the responsibility of the Minister have not proper office accommodation.

I have had experience of dealing with this matter and the trouble is that there are no laid down conditions, no regulations. Whilst I might express an opinion that an office is overcrowded, unhealthy and a risk to the employees working there that can only be a matter of opinion and the answer of the employer is simply "that is your opinion and mine is that the office accommodation is suitable."

There is a great need for dealing with this matter of office accommodation and I hope that we will eventually get away from the position that conditions are strictly laid down and applied for factory workers but office workers are simply tagged on to the factory with no proper accommodation and have no protection at all from the Department. With those words, as brief as I can make them, I would again urge the Minister to see that this legislation is introduced as quickly as possible. It would be helpful if he could tell us in his reply when he expects to be in a position to promote the necessary legislation.

This Bill is so good and contains so many good I features and has been so clearly summarised by the Minister and given rise to such an important debate in the other House that we would probably be failing in our duties if we did not expose it to as hard an examination as we could. I am not in a position to submit it to a very hard examination, and I speak chiefly from my experience as a member of the committees set up for the examination of Statutory Orders and delegated legislation. I would like to touch on two features of this measure to which the Minister referred in submitting it, namely, the advisory council and the safety committee. I think that the establishment of the advisory council is an excellent and most welcome departure from the bureaucratic tendencies growing so strongly elsewhere. It is a type of legislation which. I hope will be extended, and I refer especially to the procedure with regard to special regulations which is very portant and a great innovation. It provides a check of undesirable use of ministerial power to make, statutory Regulations and Orders, and I think it is a feature that should be copied in other important measures. Even were the Bill not notable for other things, it is notable for this. There are other features about which I should like to see the Minister going a little bit further. The points I have noted down are, first of all, for example, the advisory council. I feel that some independent statutory tribunal should be entrusted with the duty of making the inquiries under Schedule 3 just in case some people distrust appointments made by a Minister ad hoc.

Another thing I noted down is that Section 20 seems to offer the Minister for the time being an escape from the special regulations procedure in the Schedule in certain cases. I wonder why this escape clause is considered necessary.

I note Section 93 which provides for the appointment of the inspectors. Hitherto I believe appointments of inspectors were made under the Factory or Railway Act from a special corps. It appears that under this section the Minister may, if he chooses, appoint any civil servant from his Department to be an inspector, and may take him away again as he pleases. That could easily give rise to complications in factory administration.

I think that Sections 50 and 51 are very unusual in character. They seem to imply that the District Court can be used as an instrument of factory administration. It seems to me that if the inspector examining the conditions in a factory is not satisfied and condemns the conditions he could, subject to ministerial sanction, have that particular part of the factory closed down, and then any person aggrieved could have the right to appeal to the District Court for an order quashing what has been done. By that means we would not have the district justice in the position of both administering and judging at the same time.

I think, the welfare regulations are excellent and very commendable. I am naturally interested in Section 57 from the medical standpoint.

Regarding the safety delegates and the safety committee in Section 73, the first thing that worries me a bit—and my worry has intensified by hearing Senator Douglas's analysis—is the possibility of a safety delegate having power to approach the inspector directly. He could easily make himself a nuisance. Supposing a crank or a person with some peculiarity of judgment got himself appointed safety delegate. You will perhaps say that no wise committee will appoint such a person as safety delegate, but I have the feeling that on various committees often a troublesome person is put into an important job to get him out of the way and make him do work which other people are not willing to do. Supposing you have a safety delegate who is troublesome and will continually come direct to the inspector with various complaints and representations. I suggest to the Minister, through you, Sir, the safety delegate should first make representations to the occupier or the management and then if he does not get satisfaction from him he could go to the inspector. Otherwise I fear that you will have the safety delegate directly dealing with the inspector from time to time, without the knowledge of the employer. That, I think, is a matter which certainly requires consideration.

Another matter I would like to mention has already been raised by Senator Douglas. I do not want to encroach on Committee work but I do not think a safety committee should have the power to meet indefinitely as often as it wants to. There should be a time limit on the number of meetings it can have during working time— something like one a month or so. I could imagine a factory where half the time is taken up by the safety committee assembling and the rest of the time by it dissolving.

There is one other consideration. I do not know whether I have got hold of the right end of the stick or not. Under Section 99 it seems to me that ministerial Orders of an autocratic nature are not reviewable by the courts. I will quote from paragraph 3 of Section 99:

"Any regulations or Order made by the Minister under this Act may be made for a limited period or without limit of period and may be made subject to such conditions as he thinks fit..."

It is not clear whether the conditions are to be incorporated in the Order or regulations. Let me quote further:

"and may contain such supplemental and consequential provisions as he considers necessary..."

I have the impression that, according to a judicial decision, such terminology gives to the Minister an arbitrary discretion that cannot be challenged in the courts. Unless the Oireachtas wishes to confer an absolute and unchallengeable discretion on the Minister, those words should be avoided. Apart from that, I have nothing but good to say about the Bill.

I would like to add my need of praise to what has already been said by other Senators for the Minister and those who worked with him in Committee in the Dáil and, indeed, for his predecessor in the production of this Bill. A great deal of very solid work has been done. I should like to praise the care with which it has been done, and praise the concern felt by all those involved on behalf of the workers of all types and ages in factories. I agree with what some Senators said, that this is possibly mainly a Committee Bill. I do not propose to speak at length but I should like to make three main points.

The first is that I do not share the despondency and dismay that has been expressed by one or two Senators at the prospect of the nefarious doings of the safety committee. I do not really think they will turn out to be quite such a bunch of cranks and saboteurs as was suggested. It seems to me that the regulations are eminently reasonable. I think that in practice— although there may be some defects— they will work out well. The point I want to make is in relation to Section 76, which deals with the notification of industrial diseases.

I notice that the diseases mentioned are four types of poisoning, and anthrax infection. The question I would like to put is whether there will be the possibility of adding to this list? I take it that there will be some machinery whereby other infections or diseases might be added if it be discovered in years to come that certain diseases are attributable to working conditions in certain trades. To mention one example that I can think of— the possibility that it may be established that there is some connection between lung cancer and spray painting.

I understand that the connection between the two has not been scientifically established, although there is among the workers in that particular trade a strong feeling that the work itself has an effect upon certain lung conditions. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister just what is the process whereby other conditions, diseases and infections might also be included in that section at a future date, whether he has thought of the possible amending mechanism or what exactly is the position there?

Would the Senator look at sub-section (6) of the same section?

Yes, that entirely answers my question. I am glad to see that the possibility of adding fresh conditions is met there. I might, since the Minister has answered me so completely, ask him whether he is aware of any particular investigations on this line being conducted by the Minister for Health, or whether, in fact, there is active concern in regard to this question of industrial diseases and the possibility of there being other diseases attributable to factory conditions than those mentioned here.

The next point I want to raise is in relation to Section 84 which seems to me to be, on the face of it, at any rate, not justified. I notice that Section 84 refers to institutions where certain work is carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, and where these premises do not constitute a factory the Act will apply, except for certain conditions. It is the exceptions that concern me. I would like the Minister to develop his reasons for desiring exceptions in these conditions. The workers in such institutions, be they charitable institutions or reformatories, already suffer from one disability. They have not got trade union protection. Factory workers have a union to speak for them, but workers in semi-factories or laundries or whatever they may be, as mentioned in Section 84, have not got that protection.

It seems to me that this section is going to remove from them some of the protections that are extended to ordinary factory workers outside, who already have got trade union protection. Why is this exclusion felt to be necessary? I notice that in sub-section (2) if the managers of such institutions can "satisfy the Minister" that the only persons working therein are persons who are inmates of or are supported by the institution, then certain provisions of this whole Factory Act will not apply to them. Why not? Do not these inmates need precisely the same degree of protection as the ordinary worker outside?

There is nothing unjust about the general framework, the general conditions and provisions of the Bill. That being so, why should it appear normal to the Minister to say: "We will not apply this to people if we are satisfied that the only persons working in such conditions are inmates." The section does not quite say "mere inmates", but the suggestion as I see it is that these people are not to have all the protection afforded by this Act which I think will be a good Act when it becomes law.

Furthermore, the phrase occurs in sub-section (2) that if "such work... is carried on in good faith for the purposes of the support, education, training or reformation of the persons engaged in it, then the Minister may, by Order, direct," and so on. Now, all of these institutions, I would say, carry on such work in good faith, but I would say that there are also many factory owners outside who are going to be controlled by this Bill and who in all good faith are running factories and are doing the best they can for their workers.

We are told that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I find it disturbing that it is considered necessary by the Minister to exempt semi-factories of this kind from the protection afforded by the Act. I notice again that in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) it is provided:—

"The medical officer of the institution (if any) may, on the application of the managers, be appointed to be the certifying doctor for the institution."

If some question about the medical and hygenic conditions comes up, the person to judge and to certify will be the inside medical officer. The medical profession is one of high standards of honour, but I feel it is hardly fair to them to ask them in certain circumstances to do what amounts to inspecting themselves, to act as judge and jury in their own case. Again, I find this paragraph surprising.

I notice that in the following paragraph there is an even more surprising clause. It says that an inspector shall not examine, without the consent of the managers, an inmate in the institution save in the presence of one of the managers. I can imagine circumstances where such a person on being examined by an inspector would be extremely loath to speak freely to the inspector in the presence of people who might be coming under criticism from him. I think that this is an extraordinary clause. I do not see the purpose of it and I should like to hear from the Minister why it is felt that this kind of normal protection of allowing an inspector to speak in private to a person whom he is examining is to be removed from these people who have the misfortune to be inmates in a reformatory or in some such institution.

Finally, in the same section, I find that sub-section (3) provides:—

"This Act shall not, except in so far as the Minister may by Order direct, apply to any premises which do not constitute a factory if the premises are subject to inspection by or under the authority of any Minister of State."

That seems to me to be a mistaken clause because it is quite conceivable that the premises might be subject to inspection by some other Department for reasons totally different from the reasons with which we are concerned in the Factories Act. These might be premises subject to inspection by someone from the Department of Education, but that inspection would have nothing to do with safety and health and so on. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister what is the purpose of saying that such places will be exempt if they are apparently being inspected by any other Department for any other reason whatever.

I do not intend to say any more at this juncture, but these are the preoccupations which would be mine in reading this otherwise excellent Bill, and these are the sorts of things which I should like to see cleared up on the Committee Stage or by the Minister when he is winding up on this Stage of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister a question on Section 76. Sub-section (6) of this section provides:—

"The Minister may, as respects all factories or any class or description of factory, by regulations, made after consultation with the Minister for Health, apply this section to any disease other than those mentioned in this section."

I have in mind a disease that is very prevalent amongst miners. It is known as pneumoconiosis. It is not a scheduled industrial disease. I am anxious to know what is the position in regard to it under this Bill, or whether it is certified as an industrial disease under this Bill or under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

You would do it under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

As I am not a factory employee or an employer, I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that I should like to refer to a matter that was mentioned earlier to-day when another Bill was under consideration. On that Bill, I referred to the heavy weight of fertiliser sacks and of grain sacks which agricultural workers and farmers are called upon to lift. The Minister for Agriculture said that that particular matter would be dealt with under the Factories Bill. On reading the Factories Bill, I noted that there is a provision in Section 67 which protects workers in factories from being called upon to lift excessive weights. I am just wondering if that protection extends beyond the walls of a factory because it is conceivable that artificial manures could be packed in factories by mechanical means and loaded by mechanical means. Bags could be filled to the extent of 2 cwt. weight and, nevertheless, no worker in the factory would be called upon to lift them.

They are being filled in 2cwt. weight bags at the moment.

Assuming that they are filled by mechanical means, no worker in the factory is called upon to lift them. They may also be loaded by mechanical means, but the unfortunate agricultural worker and farmer at the other end of the assembly line would be called upon to unload these 2 cwt. weight sacks. I think that is a matter to which the Minister might give some attention. I think the Minister for Agriculture was under a slight misapprehension. The same thing could apply in regard to wheat. For example, the grain would be filled into 20 stone sacks, and these might be handled, possibly, in some warehouses or mills by mechanical means. In that case Section 67 of this Bill would be complied with. Nevertheless, the agricultural workers and the farmer would still be penalised. I know that the Minister will give this matter his attention either in this legislation or later.

I want to compliment the Minister's predecessor on having drafted this Bill. I want to compliment the Minister on having replaced it, so to speak, on the assembly line and on having secured such improvements as he thought necessary in it, in passing it through the Oireachtas.

As one working on the land—and this applies both to farmers and to agricultural workers—I know there is general sympathy with those who have to work in factories. We expect from those who work in factories and offices some measure of sympathy for those who work on the land. I do not want to say anything about the general body of this Bill, since to a great extent it is outside my general experience; but as the Bill reaches out towards rural Ireland, in the sense that it deals with the quarrying of stone and the raising of gravel in gravel pits and protects the workers therein, I would like to stress the urgency of this particular section. At the present time, having regard to the increased mechanisation of excavation work, excavation is carried out more rapidly than in the past and thereby there is a greater danger to workers employed, particularly in gravel pits. We know that in recent years there has been a large number of distressing fatal accidents to workers in gravel pits. I do not know how protection will be provided for these people, but I assume that the Bill gives the legal power to provide that protection.

I would be interested to know—and I am raising the matter more as a matter of curiosity than anything else, as I do not know the position thoroughly—if this Bill extends or can be extended to cover persons engaged in the building industry. They are exposed to very considerable risk. Persons engaged in timber felling, persons engaged in turf production or where excavation work is carried on on a big scale, are exposed to danger. In modern times we have large scale excavation work and large scale reclamation work. All of this is heavy mechanical work and I would imagine that it exposes the workers employed in it to risks as great as those in any factory.

Like other Senators, I welcome this Bill. It is a very timely one and many of the provisions in it show the considerable thought that has been given to it, not alone by those who drafted the Bill but by the technical officers of the Department who have made many of the suggestions. The suggestions regarding safety devices interested me considerably. Great progress is being made in that respect with regard to machinery for many years past and I was pleased to see that in details like that alone this is a most comprehensive measure and shows that adequate and sufficient thought has been given to it.

One of the parts of the Bill in which I was very interested was the welfare section. It has a great bearing on the hygiene of our factories. Very many of them are food factories producing for the home market and for export and it is necessary that high standards would become the order of the day. I notice that the Minister has also taken power to provide for appliances for the welfare and the improvement of the hygiene of the workers in the factory, and to ensure that it would be the duty of the management to provide the appliances and that it would be the duty of those for whose use they were provided to see that they were properly used and not abused.

I would suggest to the Minister that probably there are other Departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, who also visit these factories and that if there is any overlapping, while the Bill is going through this House, he may be able to remove it. I would also like to suggest that some officers be appointed to give talks on welfare, hygiene, sanitation and other matters to the workers. Most of the causes of contamination of food are certainly not visual. I would hate to think our factories looked clean and were not clean. It is quite possible in food manufacture to have things clean bacteriologically and maybe not to look clean. This problem must be understood and it is difficult for managements to put it across, but suitable lectures are very desirable.

During the emergency period, I happened to have a position as supply officer in a district staff and I got a series of lectures through attending courses given by Army medical officers on hygiene and sanitation; and I found out later, as managing director of a food factory, that a lot of this information proved invaluable to me. Our Army authorities—and for that matter the army medical authorities in other countries—during the last war were able to protect their armies from any outbreaks of what were the traditional fevers that became an aftermath of war. That was done through an understanding of a problem and through putting the knowledge across to the ordinary rank and file soldier. I believe that those who are engaged in the processing of food should be properly instructed as to the scientific requirements of hygiene and sanitation. Good competent officers can explain the most technical things in the proper language. They are able to explain them at the proper level in non-technical language and I think that is very desirable.

The Minister has done a wonderful job on this Bill and I feel that in the administration of the Bill he will find opportunities to do far more. This is primarily a Committee Bill and he will afford us an opportunity in a week or two of dealing with the sections. However, the matters to which I have referred to-night are those which I was not able to relate to a particular section and I wanted to deal with them more in a general sense. I recommend the points I have made to the Minister as worthy of consideration. Perhaps he can apply them under certain sections or under the regulations or perhaps he could do something in consulting his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, who also has a very important function in this respect.

I thoroughly approve of the Bill and compliment the Tánaiste on its introduction. It has been considered already by a Committee selected from different sections, and from the explanatory memorandum circulated I am of the opinion that the Bill should have a swift passage. I know that already, in several factories, vigorous measures to ensure the safety and health of the workers were taken before this Bill was introduced. I also know that factories in which conditions were not so good are in competition with other factories, and I think it is not altogether just that factories, in which the safety and health of the workers were a matter for consideration and concern, should be in competition with other factories in which the conditions for employees were not so good. As far as this Bill is concerned, every avenue has been explored, conducive to the safety, health and comfort of the workers.

I am glad that the Tánaiste has given us an assurance that he has also contemplated the introduction of a Bill providing for black coat or office workers. That is essential to the community. I hope this Bill will get a swift passage through the House, and that the co-operation between employers and workers in the factories will be very much improved as a result.

I should like to add my praise to that of the other Senators. At a later stage we can examine the Bill section by section.

In many cases, all these excellent ideas have already been put into effect in many factories of which I know. I should like to say that I welcome all the improvements which will now be necessary, especially for the handling and production of food, the safety of the workers, the necessary sanitary arrangements, and proper conditions for taking their food. But there is a feeling that the employer is a big bad man who is forced into doing these things for the welfare of the workers. In many cases all these things have been done in the past.

I agree with the suggestion made by Senator Burke that lectures on hygiene and the proper use of those things, which will now be provided, will be most essential, otherwise I would suggest to the Minister that, in many cases, the workers will look on them as new rules being inflicted by the officer in the factory, whose business it is to see these things are carried out, by the boss and by the Government. These improvements are not accepted at their proper value, often because of lack of knowledge of their usefulness. I think that Senator Burke's suggestion that lectures, even pre-employment lectures on hygiene, which are not given at the moment, are most essential.

From my knowledge of some of the factories in my town I can say they maintain a very high standard. Some young people have not been accustomed to such a high standard of cleanliness, and if they are made wash their hands at regular intervals, and use clean towels, they look upon this as another thing imposed on them by the boss. I am not making personal complaints in this matters but I have been told that there has been difficulty in getting the workers to use clean towels, hang them back in the place provided, and keep those parts of the factory set aside for them in a proper condition. I repeat that the officer whose duty it is to see these things are carried out is looked upon as an enemy. I would suggest to the as Minister, as Senator Burke has suggested, that a system of lectures for potential factory workers be considered. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I should like to inform the Seanad that an agreement was reached whereby the Minister might get in at a quarter past ten.

I was surprised that Senator Mrs. Dowdall implied that the boss was a big bad wolf under this Bill. I do not think this is so. I was more than surprised that at this stage of our industrial development Senator Mrs. Dowdall said that she had been told that it was difficult to get Irish workers to use clean towels. That is not true.

I should like to compliment the Seanad on the understanding manner in which they have approached the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a matter for gratification that they have endorsed the general idea of bringing what is described as factory legislation into line with modern thought in this very important problem. This Bill is, in the main, a Committee Stage or machinery Bill. Therefore, I think that Senators are at a disadvantage in endeavouring to discuss its general principles when it is so widespread, so diversified and technical, that the principles are really an amalgamation of the variety of detail with which this Bill abounds.

I hope this Bill will be welcomed by every good employer in this country. It is something for which good and progressive employers have been waiting, not in the sense of waiting to do these things, because many good employers have already done them. In many factories, there will be no need for this Bill in order to enable them to attain to the standard which the Bill sets for every factory. If an employer is good and progressive, he can look on this Bill as something which he has already done for himself, and, in so far as he has not already done all the things, this Bill will present no difficulty to him, and he will have only a modicum to do which will be necessary to ensure compliance with it. If there are employers whose standard is not up to that of the progressive employer, then this Bill is necessary to compel those employers to set their sights higher and provide better standards for their employees. Everybody will wish that there should be a compulsive approach to that kind of employer in order to get him to attain to standards which have been already arrived at by good and progressive employers.

Many points were raised which are really more proper to the Committee Stage, and I could not, in the time available to me, attempt to deal with them all, nor would it be fair to the Seanad. I will deal with some of the main matters raised, and I hope that it might give Senators an informed view as to how we wish the Bill to follow the directions we are endeavouring to follow, as far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned.

Senator Douglas referred to the description of factories as tenement factories. A tenement factory is like a tenement house. It is a building where there is more than one tenant. A building where there is more than one factory is described as a tenement factory. It has stood the test of more than 50 years of legislation, and the description in this Bill is the same description as was in the 1901 Factories Act. I do not like it myself, but it was in the Act that I inherited. As I say, it has stood the test of more than 50 years' legislation, and it is possible that, when this Bill is passed very few people will ever refer to this particular section, which describes certain multiple factories in one building as tenement factories.

If my attention had been directed to this section in detail, in the first instance, I think I would have knocked out "tenement factories" and put in "multiple factories". I have no better defence for the phrase than that to change it now would involve amendments to six or seven sections. However, I still dislike it and I do not like my name being associated with it. If Senator Douglas and the House are in favour of deleting "tenement factory" and substituting "multiple factory", even though it involves amending six, seven or eight sections, I am willing to do that between now and Committee Stage.

The Minister should do it.

I think the Minister should.

I will do it so. Section 14 deals with lighting. This section was amended by the Committee which dealt with the Bill. In the section as originally drawn, there was provision whereby the Minister could prescribe certain types of lighting, but could not specify the particular type of illuminant. In other words, the general intention of the section was to ensure that, while the Minister might prescribe ordinary electric light, fluorescent lighting or, if necessary, candle light, he could not come down and say that it could only be candlelight or it must be gas lighting. The Committee felt that perhaps the Minister was being needlessly democratic by disarming himself of that power and consequently it was deleted, leaving the Bill as it now stands.

I call attention to the fact that sub-section (2) of Section 14 sets out:—

"The Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Health, may, by regulations, prescribe a standard of sufficient and suitable lighting for factories or for any class or description of factory or parts thereof, or for any process."

I visualise that, before these regulations are made, there will be consultation with all the persons and interests concerned and that whatever regulations are finally made will represent a distillation of the wisdom of all those who are interested and that the final decision as to the particular type of lighting in a particular set of circumstances will reflect the will of those who have to work in that lighting and those who have to provide it. I should not think that we will have any difficulty on that section.

The question of weights was raised by Senators Douglas and Cogan. In Section 67, provision is made that a person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him and it goes on to say:

"The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Health, make regulations prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by persons employed in factories..."

This is a Factories Bill dealing with factories in their broadest sense and power is being taken here to prescribe the limits of weight which a person may be asked to lift, carry or move. So far as the Bill is concerned, it will do that in respect of persons employed in factories. In so far as one can therefore condition a person to a state of affairs in which he cannot be asked to move more than stone weight and so long as he has to handle such a container, nobody outside can handle a greater weight than is in that container because a limit has been fixed as to the weight of the container; but a case could arise in which a particular commodity would be loaded mechanically, and, having been loaded mechanically, nobody would carry it, lift it or move it.

If an object of that kind leaves a factory, there is nothing one can do in the Bill about it, and the problem then is one which is extra-territorial so far as the factory is concerned because no factory regulation would be broken if it were loaded mechanically. I do not think we can deal with that in this Bill, but I am in favour of the point of view expressed by Senator Cogan and I have already suggested to some Members of the other House that they could usefully employ their time in drafting a Private Members' Bill to provide some machinery whereby some maximum weights would be fixed by somebody.

An enormously difficult problem.

If you look at the New Zealand Act of Parliament, you will find plenty of inspiration there and an approach to the best means of dealing with the problem.

When it leaves the factory after being mechanically loaded, the men have to take it on their shoulders and put it into railway wagons.

This Bill deals with factory workers and——

When it goes from the factory after being mechanically loaded, these men have to take perhaps 2 cwts. on their shoulders.

I know, but the point is that we can legislate only for the weights to be carried by the factory worker. I cannot be asked to legislate in this Bill for people outside, because conceivably a farmer might load a bag of anything you like weighing 2 cwts. and ask his employee to deliver it to another farmer a mile away, in which case the agricultural worker would have to do the loading. If you are going to deal with this question of loading, you have to cover that man, as well as the fellow who takes goods which have been filled and loaded mechanically from the factory.

Senator Murphy raised a question about office workers and I think unfairly suggested that there was some occult motive behind the exclusion of office workers from this Bill. That is not true and not so. When this Bill was first introduced in the Dáil by my predecessor, I urged that, if at all possible, we should endeavour to bring office workers within its scope. I was told at the time by my predecessor that it was not possible to do so, that it was better to wait for another Bill and that it was impossible to apply satisfactorily the provisions of this Bill to office workers. The Bill got a Second Reading in the Dáil and when I went to Industry and Commerce, knowing that I would have to pilot the Bill through the Dáil and Seanad, I made microscopic inquiries to see in what way we could fit office workers into the Bill.

I found that the first difficulty was that in fact no material had been compiled about the type of legislation required for office workers, that no research had been done in the matter and that in fact nobody had really started to think about the type of legislation needed. That is not merely the situation as I found it, that no material had been assembled, but there has been no information assembled, I think, in any tangible way by a lot of the bodies which normally would be concerned with the well-being of office workers, nor was there any easy Geneva pattern to follow in respect of them, so that there was no brain to pick there.

I have endeavoured in the past six or eight months to concentrate the I attention of the Department on the assembling of information and on undertaking research to procure material which would be the basis of an office worker's charter. I am glad to say that the officers of the Department have applied themselves diligently to that task. A considerable amount of material has now been assembled and in a reasonably short time I hope that we will be able to take decisions in principle on the form which an office worker's charter will take, but it is not because of any desire on my part to exclude them that they are excluded from this Bill and it is not because of any plea by civil servants. The officers of my Department dealing with this matter, being office workers themselves, are as anxious as anybody else to ensure that this Bill will be paralleled by a Bill dealing with office workers and it is not a desire to avoid the problem that has prompted their exclusion. It is just because the necessary material was not available and is only now being assembled. When assembled, as I say, decisions in principle will be taken, and I hope it will be possible within a reasonably short period to get together the framework of an office worker's charter so far as the general provisions on these lines are concerned.

The question of the safety committee and the position of the safety delegate were raised by a number of Senators. Let me say this. The Special Committee set up by the Dáil which dealt with this matter had before it an amendment which I proposed, to introduce and set up the safety committee and the advisory committee. There were other amendments submitted by other members of that Committee. When these amendments, and all other amendments, came before the Committee there was no question of trying to carry a particular amendment by a vote and no question of trying to resist an amendment by a vote. There was not a single vote on any issue before the Special Committee. The Special Committee proceeded on the basis of the impact of reason on reason, and I took the view at the Special Committee that my only concern was to get the best possible Bill and make it work in the most useful manner. Although I could have commanded a majority in that Special Committee, I never once tried to use it and never let a single issue go to a vote. If the Deputies on the Committee had a strong point of view and felt keenly—and often there was a substantial volume of opinion in favour of something—I said to the Committee: "This is a deliberative Committee and I do not feel that all the wisdom is in one head, and if it is the feeling of the Committee to take a certain line I will meet their point of view." That is the way I approached all amendments.

I had suggested an amendment for the safety committee and the advisory committee. There were others with a different line of approach. All these were thrown into the forum and discussed at considerable length. Finally in the light of the views expressed by the Committee at that time I took all the amendments out—those for which I was responsible myself and those for which the Deputies were responsible-and I studied how to bring back an amendment which I hoped would meet all the points of view expressed on the Committee. I brought back two amendments, one providing for the establishment of the safety committee and the other which is down here in Section 73. That was an agreed amendment so far as the Special Committee was concerned. Not only was there an agreed amendment in the sense that all Parties represented on the Committee agreed to it unanimously, but the Committee was representative of employers and workers.

Later in the Dáil an effort was made to put in an amendment to Section 73 and to give the section an entirely different meaning. I felt that that was a mistake. If I accepted the Dáil amendment submitted, I think, by Deputies Dockrell and Belton I would render this safety committee useless, because the main purpose of the amendment offered to the Dáil of the agreed Section 73 was calculated to make the safety committee a kind of policeman so far as the rest of the employees in the factory were concerned. The amendment sought to give the committee power to make sure that the fellow in the factory did what he was told by the safety committee. I could not see a safety committee of that kind working, and I do not believe that even if I were to accept the amendment and give the section that slant it would work now.

I think that is a reasonable approach to the whole problem. I would emphasise this point firstly, that this is not a statutory committee. The safety committee can be set up by the workers employed in the factory, and its functions are as set out in the lengthy section referred to here. I would like to call attention to one function of the committee, that is under Section 73 (1) (a), which provides that it shall be a function of the safety committee "to assist in securing the compliance by the occupier of the factory and by persons employed therein with the provisions of this Act and of the Orders and regulations made under this Act." In other words the safety committee, which will be representative of the workers at factory level and of the employer or management at factory level, shall have as a task to assist in securing compliance by the occupier of the factory and the persons employed therein with the provisions of this Act and the Orders and regulations made under it. I think that is a reasonable approach to the problem.

As I said in the Dáil, if you get a committee which wants to nag at the employer and to interfere in matters not within its domain, or which wants to meet every day and a couple of times a day, a committee, perhaps, which wants to live in a fire brigade and crisis atmosphere, that committee will not work. From the beginning the type of committee I visualised is a committee of responsible people selected by the workers, letting the employers put a representative on it. A complaint was made in the Dáil that there was provision for the employer to put a representative on the committee. So far as I am concerned, the employer can match his representation with that of the workers, but I think that is a mistake. If you get the idea of equal strength, you get a position of the use of economic or numerical strength in coming to decisions. I would sooner have the kind of position we had in the Special Committee, that this thing was argued on the basis alone of what is the best thing the committee can provide for greater safety or for extending and safeguarding health in the factory. If these committees can be induced to work along these lines, and I feel sure that they can with a little guidance and lead, then I believe they will make a substantial contribution to the preservation of health and to the avoidance of accidents in factories. To the extent that they do that, they will be actually dispensing dividends not alone to the workers but to the employers as well.

As I say, I think that this thing will work except where you get the crank. Where you get him it will not work, and the committee will do nothing useful from the point of view of the workers. Similarly, where you get an employer making up his mind "I will not have this man and I will find the most convenient opportunity for insulting the committee" that committee will not work either. In cases like that you have that frustration to which I suppose human nature is prone.

I am pleading for an understanding committee which will look at its problems broadly and will say to itself: "Look, our destiny is cast in this factory. We want to make it as comfortable, safe and healthy as we can make it." If the committee approaches its problems in that way, it should be possible in the overwhelming majority of cases to find a committee that can work, and maybe their good example would in time eliminate the kind of committee which cannot approach its problems in that tolerant and understanding way. In any case, I think that there is the value in the committee—and employers should recognise it—that the purpose of the committee is to make workers health conscious and safety conscious. From the employer's point of view there is much to be gained from that angle. Anything that helps to propagate the notion of greater safety and the preservation of health in factories is something which has many advantages so far as both employers and workers are concerned.

Senator Fearon raised a number of points, some of detail. I think I have dealt with the question of the safety delegate. He raised a question about the frequency of meetings. Clearly it would be unwise to try to prescribe here how often the committee should meet, where they should meet and the days on which they should meet. It has to be left to the good sense of the safety committee when appointed. Let me say this. In this Section 73 I provided, again at the request of the Special Committee, for a situation which exists at the moment in factories. Many factories have works committees dealing with the question of production, the restoring of workers for particular schedules of duty, and welfare regulations.

A very good employer who sets up a committee of that kind finds it is an immense aid to him in the general working of his business. Where these committees function, they will serve as the safety committee so that in that case you will not have a safety committee superimposed on a works committee or a factories committee. The works or factories committee already giving satisfaction can take over the prescribed functions of the safety committee provided for in this Bill and the employer has not a second committee drafted on to his first committee. If we can make, as we have made here, established committees work smoothly and efficiently there is no reason, making the same kind of approach to the safety committee problem, why we should not make that committee work equally satisfactorily.

Senator Burke and Senator Mrs. Dowdall referred to the necessity for periodic talks on health and hygiene. The detailed functions, even in factories, are proper to the Minister for Health and I do not think that I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, could be expected to deal with them. I would, however, call attention to the provisions of Section 127, which deals with the advisory council. One of the functions of the council is to advise the Minister on the desirability of doing certain things, including "the organisation or promotion of safety and welfare campaigns amongst employers and employers". Another of their functions is "the organisation of lectures, film shows or exhibitions, the publication of posters or pamphlets or any other measures, being lectures, film shows, exhibitions, posters, pamphlets or measures designed to educate employees and employers on questions of safety and welfare in factories and on methods of safeguarding and improving the health of workers". That is a pretty comprehensive function for this advisory council. I hope that that committee at national level will undertake this work. There is power to ensure that the work which it plans at national level can be carried down to local level.

Senator Cogan raised the question of the position of quarries. I explained in my Second Reading speech that a proper measure is being prepared to provide for the safety, health and welfare of quarry workers but in case there should be any hitch in enacting such law power is taken in Section 28 of this Bill to apply to quarries the protective measures of existing mining Acts. In other words, the protection of existing Acts will be kept until such time as the existing Acts can be replaced by a more modern mining Act.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington raised some questions relating to Section 84 of the Bill which deals with institutions. I think we must avoid the risk in this matter of going too far. We must deal with what appears to be nonuniform and whether it is more practicable to adopt that attitude than to follow, the uniform, pattern which may run us into difficulties.

When you are dealing with the question of Section 84, you have got to remember that the institutions referred to are those which are carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes. In so far as these are carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes and engage in doing certain things which might bring them within the scope of a factory, although they do not constitute a factory but an institution, the Minister has, nevertheless, power to apply the provisions of this Bill to them except in certain cases.

One case is that the medical officer of an institution, if any, may, on the application of the managers, be appointed to be the certifying doctor for that institution. It does not say he must be. It says he may, on the application of the managers, be appointed the certifying doctor for the institution. I suspect that Senator Sheehy Skeffington thinks that the doctor in that case might be more a policeman than a doctor.

That just might be so although I would hope that the medical officer of an institution for quite a long time might be the best type of person to understand the mentality of the people with whom he would be dealing and that it would be better to leave him there. With his long experience of the peculiar variety of truancy of the occupants such a medical officer might, in the long run, be better than an outside doctor with no such experience and who would not know the light and shade of the pattern of life which goes on inside the institution. Therefore, I can assure the Senator that there is no sinister motive in this so far as I am concerned.

On the question of examination, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the sub-section are all based on the approach to the problem from the angle that the institutions concerned are not factories in the ordinary sense; that they are reformatories and in some cases charitable institutions dealing with a variety of people and that the occupants are not the type of persons who go into an ordinary factory.

Do they not deserve the same protection?

Of course, they do.

Does it apply to a mental hospital where you have a laundry?

It could apply to a Borstal or to places which are regarded as something in between. They should be protected by all means. A section does that by applying the provisions of the Bill to them although the place itself is not a factory. Whether you should proceed on the basis that you can do, in an institution of that kind, a reformatory or a charitable institution, all the things it is legitimate enough to do in respect of a factory, where you have got trade unionists employed and where you have got people who have got a right to work or come out if they like, is another matter. These other people may be detainees in so far as this Bill is concerned. I liked the liberal way in which Senator Sheehy Skeffington approached this question but you have got to weigh that against the wisdom of carrying outside factory practice into an institution of this kind.

It is not possible to organise a strike within such a place.

The Senator has overlooked our history over the past 30 years if he says it is not possible to organise strikes in these institutions. As a matter of fact, some of the longest, most bitter and notable strikes took place in places which might be institutions for the purpose of this Bill.

The Senator was not there.

That is another problem. I would ask Senator Sheehy Skeffington to look at the matter from that angle. If he has any deep feelings on the matter, perhaps he would discuss it again on the Committee Stage or put down an amendment. I am not wedded to the thing. I am only wedded to the idea of making a practical approach to what is a rather difficult and sticky problem when dealing with charitable institutions and reformatories.

That is all I have to say on this Stage of the Bill. In so far as the other matters raised by the Senators are concerned and on which I have not touched, perhaps, Senators will raise them on the Committee Stage?

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Next Wednesday?

Next Wednesday would be too soon for a Bill of this kind. We would require a fortnight.

Seeing that this measure has been so well received——

There is a lot of studying to be done.

I thought the Senator's Party in the Dáil had looked after that very properly.

We may have our own approach.

This is a case where the Senator might well take a chance.

If the House met on Wednesday, 18th May, it could not meet on Thursday 19th, which is a holy day. Perhaps Senators might agree to meet on Wednesday next and see what progress is made? Would that be satisfactory? We could take the Committee Stage on Wednesday next and the Report Stage a fortnight later.

Will there be any other business in the meantime?

I could not answer that question. Perhaps, if the Senator would use his influence with some people in the Dáil, we might get the County Management Bill before November. That would be of great, assistance to us.

It was going very well at about 7.30 p.m. this evening. The Seanad might get it next week.

I could not say what business we are going to get. I think we ought to take the Committee Stage of this Bill on Wednesday, 11th May. I also think that if the Senator wanted a fortnight for the Report Stage he could get it. He would then have the advantage of hearing the Minister on all the sections.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11th May, 1955.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 11th May, 1955.
Top
Share