Amendment No. 1 is the first of a series of Government amendments changing the description "tenement factory" to "multiple factory". They meet a series of similar amendments by Senator Hawkins. This amendment, with its consequential amendments Nos. 3, 8, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, meets 4, 9, 38 and 40, and it is suggested that the grouping for the debate be in this form: 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40. The decision on amendment No. 1 should cover all these amendments.
Factories Bill, 1954—Committee.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, to insert the following definition before the definition of "owner":—
"‘multiple factory' means any premises where mechanical power from any prime mover within the close or curtilage of the premises is distributed for use in manufacturing processes to different parts of the same premises occupied by different persons in such manner that those parts constitute in law separate factories;".
There was a view expressed in the Dáil that it was desirable to change the definition of "tenement factory" to "multiple factory". The position is that "tenement factory" has a particular connotation in our factory legislation over the past 50 years, and probably a certain amount of case law has been built up around that definition. No one liked the idea of a tenement factory, inasmuch as it was inclined to be associated in the public mind with some kind of undesirable tenement. houses. We were, therefore, in general agreement that we should endeavour to apply this description in order to meet this view. This amendment is submitted as I suggested in the Dáil and in the Seanad on the last occasion to substitute the description "multiple factory" for the description "tenement factory". That gives effect to the view expressed in the Dáil and in the Seanad.
I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to introduce this amendment. It is fitting that the Minister has made a similar case to that which I would make.
This is sentimentalism in legislation to some extent.
Amendment, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, to insert the following definition before the definition of "owner":
"‘occupier means the employer of the persons engaged in the work carried on in the premises in respect of which the word is used."
I would suggest that this amendment should be accepted. I do not know whether my wording is best but it would seem to me that it would meet the case. I know that in previous Acts there was no such definition, and I do not know whether it is desirable or not to insert it in this Bill. Looking at it solely from the legal point of view, it does seem to me to be desirable, and that the term "occupier" should be clarified. I would suggest that it be considered by the Seanad.
The word "occupier" has never been statutorily defined. Even the British, in their 1937 and 1948 Acts, did not attempt to describe or define who the occupier was. There have been a number of court decisions determining who was the occupier, and that being so, it is better to leave the description in the Bill as "the occupier". If we were to attempt to define it in this Bill in some other way, we would run the risk of upsetting the already accepted definition of "occupier". The courts have interpreted "occupier" as meaning the person who runs a factory, who regulates and controls the work in the factory, and who is responsible for the fulfilment of the provisions of the Factories Acts within the factory. That seems to meet the point which Senator Cox has in mind. We think, in all the circumstances, it is probably better to leave the matter as it stands.
I will accept that and withdraw my amendment. I merely wished to draw the Minister's attention to the fact.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), to delete the definition of "tenement factory".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), page 8, lines 37 and 39, to delete "passing or".
This is again merely a drafting amendment. It does seem to me that there are two dates mentioned-the passing of the Act and the commencement of the Act-which may give rise to confusion and difficulty. The sub-section ends with the phrase "as the case may be" but that, I think, deals with "as the case may be" as between, on the one hand, the passing or commencement of the Act, and, on the other hand the making of the regulations. Again, I merely draw attention to a possible ambiguity.
Senator Cox seeks to delete the words "‘passing or", leaving the section to deal with things to happen after the commencement of the Act. There are two contingencies provided for in the Bill and you have to take the Bill as a whole. Some things happen after the passing of the Act and some things happen, which are related to the commencement of the Act. In Section 11, the phrase "commencement of the Act" is used, but you will find that Sections 33 and 45 relate to certain things which happen on the passing of the Act and it is therefore necessary to keep these two phrases "passing" and "commencement" because some things come into operation on passing and some on commencement, and this section therefore merely dovetails into Sections 33 and 45 where "passing" is an operation which has to be fitted in with this section.
I am still rather of the opinion that it is ambiguous, but, as the point has been considered, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 6:
In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), before "altering" to insert "packing,".
The first word in this paragraph is "altering" and I think it is not quite clear whether that means packing or not. I thought I had better draw attention to it.
I looked into this amendment when I received it from Senator Cox and I am advised that, if it were accepted, it would mean that a retail grocer packing tea, on the counter might be held to be operating a factory. In any event, no amendment of the definition appears to be necessary to take care of the work of packing articles when done under factory conditions. If the Senator will look at paragraph (3), lines 28 and 29 on page 9, he will see that "any premises in which the business ... of packing articles is carried on as a separate business, or incidentally for the purposes of any factory" is deemed to be a factory, but the Senator's amendment would catch a grocer packing tea on his counter or any other commodity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In sub-section (1), paragraph (vii), line 50, to add "but shall not include premises used solely or primarily for office purposes".
There may possibly, be a point here. The paragraph refers to any operation in the nature of printing, but in nearly every office or in a great many offices nowadays—even lawyers' offices —operations such as photostating and so on are carried on, and whether there should be a distinction made to exclude that kind of reproduction or not, I do not know, but I thought I should draw attention to it.
I am advised that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that the Bill does not apply to office premises where perhaps some reproduction of documents work is carried on as part of the office work. I think this paragraph has to be read with the whole of Section 3 and in relation to the stipulation that the work must be carried on by way of trade. I am advised that the section as it stands cannot be held to apply to the kind of reproduction work which takes place in offices.
Again, I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (4), page 10, line 44 and line 45, to delete "tenement" in both places and substitute in each case "multiple".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 is met by amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Douglas
I asked the Minister, on Second Reading, whether he would consider the possibility of adding a sentence to that clause giving him power to exempt bleach houses and dye houses from its provisions, and I asked whether he had power under any other section of the Bill to provide exemption in cases of houses where they could not completely comply with the provisions.
I think you have to look at Sections 15 and 16 together. If it is a floor which is not capable of being drained, there is nothing we can do about it, but Section 16 sets out:—
"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."
In other words, if the floor is wet, well and good—you are obliged to take steps to drain it off, if it is possible. If the operation is a continuous one as a result of which the floor is wet all the time, you cannot prevent it being wet, because wetting the floor is incidental to the operation. In a case like that, you have to pass on to Section 16, which says that, because it is slippy, there is an obligation to protect a person from slipping on the incurably wet floor and it is left to somebody to devise means of meeting the liability in respect of slipping on a permanently wet floor. I do not think we can do much more about it, but if the Senator has any suggestion as to what could be done in the very difficult circumstances, I shall be very willing to consider any such suggestion.
Mr. Douglas
I cannot really make any suggestion. I only wanted to be quite certain that the Minister would have powers in the Bill if there was a case, as in a dye house where you often have a very wet floor which can be drained but which often remains damp and clammy. Most dye houses provide their employees with clogs to get over the possibility of endangering their health. I only wanted to be certain that the Minister has power to exempt factories or places of that kind from the provisions of the Bill in such circumstances.
I think the Senator's point is covered by Section 15. If you cannot drain the floor there is nothing more you can do except to employ all your talents to see what can be done to prevent slipping. I think a combination of Sections 15 and 16 covers what the Senator has in mind.
Mr. Douglas
I am quite satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), page 15, line 50, to add "and have not been incurred in or about any unsuccessful legal proceedings".
There is one exception at the end of Section 18 which provides for the payment of costs in an unsuccessful proceedings. Section 19 seems to be of a similar nature but that exception is not made and I suggest that it is right that that exception should be made in Section 19.
This is a matter on which I have no very fixed views. The general idea in Section 19 is that where a sanitary authority will not do what is expected of it under the Bill the Minister may move in in order to ensure that the property owner complies with the regulations. It may happen that the Minister, having instituted proceedings, which the sanitary authority ought to have carried out and did not carry out, will be unsuccessful in the courts. The section is merely ensuring that if the sanitary authority does not do its duty under the Act it should be compelled to pay the coats if the Department has to move in. If the general opinion is that the Department should underwrite the costs I am prepared to move an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage.
As the section stands it is quite inconsistent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As Sections 18 and 19 are correlated as to the responsibility of the sanitary authorities I take this opportunity to say that I would consider that the period of one month from the date of the notification of the active default after which the Minister takes power to compel them to do the work is rather short. The work may be of a very involved nature such as the construction of a new sewer and such work could not possibly be done inside one month. The Minister would have to take power to take into consideration the work involved and the length of time it might take to have it completed. It may be that the local authority proposes, in order to comply with the requests made by the inspector, to do some work which would take a considerable length of time so that even with the full cooperation of the local authority or sanitary authority it could not be completed within the month given in this section. I would like the Minister to look into the period of one month allowed and see if more time could be given to the local authority and the Department in order to make for the good working of the Bill rather than that the Minister should take action within a month.
I think the Senator is slightly misunderstanding the question. Originally, it was not intended to give any notice to the sanitary authority of the inspector's intention to move and the month was put in by the special committee when the matter was before the Dáil. This is to meet a case where the sanitary authority will not do the work and the Minister gives a month's notice of his intention to move in the matter. In effect, it means that if the sanitary authority does not move to have the work done within a month the inspector will move in. The intention is to give the sanitary authority a month to reflect on the wisdom of deciding not to do what it should do.
Sections 19 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I would like to point out to Senator Cox and to the House at this stage that amendment No. 11 is the first of a series of amendments inserting the word "reasonably" before the word "practicable". These amendments are Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. They are all cognate, and if it is agreed they could be debated together and a separate decision taken on each if necessary.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1), page 18, line 45, before "practicable" to insert "reasonably".
The word "reasonably" is used consistently throughout the Bill and is very properly used, but in this section the word "reasonably" has been left out which would rather seem to impose an absolute duty. I thought the point should be raised so that it could be inquired into.
In this amendment and in six others Senator Cox is anxious that the word "reasonably" should be inserted before the word "practicable" so that the words "reasonably practicable" would operate. The expression "reasonably practicable" is used elsewhere in the Bill, for instance, in Section 54 in relation to the obligation on an employer to provide accommodation for clothing. The courts are quite used to the interpretation of the word "practicable" and they are also familiar with the words "reasonably practicable". I feel that the insertion of the word "reasonably" before "practicable" in Section 29 would definitely tend to weaken the obligation which is imposed on the occupier of a factory of taking steps to ensure that factory workers do not fall into a container containing corrosive oil or scalding water.
I think that where we are providing against that contingency we cannot soften or weaken the Bill. It is because of the fact that it is not desired to soften or weaken the provisions of the Bill that the word "reasonably" is left out. The test is the practicability of doing it. The phrase "reasonably practicable" occurs in respect of Section 54, which section applies to the provision of accommodation for clothing and where there is no danger of a fatality if there is any slothfulness on the part of the occupier of a factory in providing the necessary accommodation. Anything that softens or weakens this particular section will tend to do so at the expense of the lives or the health of those who are affected by the section.
I feel that any amendment which has the effect of weakening the section from the point of view of the obligation put on the occupier of a factory to provide substantial protection for his workers would be an unwise provision so far as the Legislature is concerned. Having given that explanation, I hope the Senator will see the section in a different light from that where you are dealing only with accommodation for clothing.
I am quite satisfied if I am told it is deliberate that there should be a distinction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
Amendment No. 12, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In lines 8 and 12 to delete "woman or young".
Section 31, as it stands, says:—
"A woman or young person shall not clean any part of a prime mover or of any transmission machinery while the prime mover or transmission machinery is in motion, and shall not clean any part of any machine if the cleaning thereof would expose the woman or young person to risk of injury from any moving part either of that machine or of any adjacent machinery."
It is, of course quite natural to understand the purpose of the section which is to guard against accidents to women employees or young persons. If we examine the accident figures in our factories we will find that in the majority of cases they are not due to either of the classes mentioned in this section. The accidents occur because of familiarity with the particular machine resulting in a lack of attention to the particular work that has to be undertaken. If the cleaning of a particular machine is of such a nature that we must provide in this Bill that women or young persons are not to be engaged thereon, then I think we should go much further and stipulate that no person should be asked to undergo risks by working in such circumstances. We are providing that two types of people should not be employed on this particular work. I think we should go a step further.
Maybe if the Minister feels that there is something in what Senator Hawkins says, he might provide for the contingency in the regulations. It might be undesirable to accept the Senator's amendment. I am sure there is certain machinery that has to be cleaned and which has to work continuously. It may not be practicable to stop such machinery. I have seen people clean machinery in motion because it was much easier to do it that way. I am sure that adequate protection could be assured to operatives by the intelligent use of regulations. These regulations have always been applied in the past and I am sure the Minister will have them applied in the future. It would be very hard to insert a definite provision in the section which might interfere with some industrial process or make it difficult to maintain some industrial machinery.
This section declares:
"A woman or young person shall not clean any part of a prime mover or of any tranmmission machinery while the prime mover or transmission machinery is in motion...".
In other words, it says that a woman or young person must not clean any part of a prime mover or transmission machinery at all under any circumstances. They are debarred from cleaning the prime mover or transmission machinery while it is in motion. Apart from that, the section goes on to say:—
"... and shall not clean any part of any machine if the cleaning thereof would expose the woman or young person to risk of injury from any moving part either of that machine or of any adjacent machinery."
This section, in fact, says: "Take special care to put women and young persons in a special position. They cannot touch this particular class of machinery at all. That is prohibited absolutely. They shall not touch any other part of the machine if there is any risk of injury." They are put in a special category and this section legislates specially for them.
You have another class of worker— the male worker who all his life has been a fitter or machine mechanic. In his case, the situation is entirely different. In the first place he is mechanically minded. Secondly, his work may consist in taking these machines to pieces or assembling them. He has got to get them to move in order to do the requisite assembling or dismantling. I do not think it unreasonable if he were to switch on the prime mover or the transmission machinery in order to get at an inaccessible part of the machinery. He may have to do that in the course of assembly or dismantling operations on the machine.
In any case there is another kind of contingency which has got to be provided for. A person may, in regard to a processing machine, have to do some cleaning, not in the sense of polishing or oiling the machine but in the way of taking off some excess waste product processed in the machine. If he merely scooped that away every time it passed him by it might well be held to be cleaning of the machine. This matter was discussed in the Dáil and in the Special Committee. These considerations were advanced and after full consideration of the matter it was generally felt that the security given is as good as you can make it unless you run the risk of saying: "No person shall ever clean the machine if it involves cleaning it while the prime mover or the transmission machinery is in position".
Anybody who has experience of a factory knows that that may have the effect of stopping processing operations from time to time and even stopping them when there is no likelihood whatever of any injury being caused. If you draw this section too tightly you may make it impossible to provide safeguards for the processing machine which must run continuously during processing. It may stop at some vital part of the operation when the product might be destroyed and when it might become impossible to continue the process.
I might mention that this section is not new. It is merely a redrafting of a section which appeared in the 1901 Act. It is, therefore, a very familiar section so far as our factory legislation is concerned. If there was any possibility of making this tighter from the point of view of a woman or young person, I should be glad to look at it sympathetically, but I think that we have gone as far as it is possible in this matter. That is especially so when one also looks at the provision in Section 32 with regard to the training and supervision of persons working at dangerous machines. I think that the combination of both sections is the best provision that can be made in this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 31 to 38, inclusive, put and agreed to.
With regard to amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 which appear on the Order Paper in my name, as the Minister says the points raised in these amendments are being considered, I am satisfied, and do not propose to move the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
The same point arises in connection with amendments Nos. 17 and 18 in my name on this section as on the last section and therefore I do not propose to move them.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:
In sub-section (14), page 27. line 14, before "shall" where it secondly occurs to insert "if in the opinion of the Court he was guilty of negligence".
I would suggest that the court should have the power not to impose a penalty if it is of opinion that there had not been negligence. I do not think it is right to say that the court must take certain steps.
I am obviously at a great disadvantage in discussing this matter with so eminent a legal personality as Senator Cox. I shall have to ask his indulgence in arguing some points against his amendment. In this amendment, Senator Cox seems to me to be departing from what are the established procedures. I think it is an accepted rule of law that if there is an offence there must be a penalty, no matter how small, unless, of course, the Probation of Offenders Act is applied. Senator Cox's amendment seems, however, to make proof of guilt dependent on the issue of negligence which in itself is a difficult thing to establish. In this particular case, an offence can be committed by making a false report or a report which is deficient in a material particular. That is the issue in the case before a court can impose a fine on a person, that he would have to be found guilty in a court of summary jurisdiction of that offence. If the court finds a person guilty of an offence, the offence being the supplying of a false report or a report that was deficient in a material particular, then the court has the power to impose a fine.
I think the Senator's amendment is travelling outside of that by bringing in something which is foreign to the section, namely, is there any question of negligence? In this case the negligence issue is not raised at all. In this section the question is, is it a fact that a person made a false report or a report which was deficient? If so, then in a court of summary jurisdiction a persons convicted of that offence can be fined by the court. The Senator's amendment brings in the question of negligence which is not raised by the section. It is merely a matter of determining whether the report was false or was deficient. If the court says it was not, then that is all right, but if the court decides that it was false or deficient, and if the person is convicted of that offence there is an obligation to impose a fine.
I do not know if that is a complete answer in this case. The section says if a person fails to make a thorough examination or a report which is false or deficient in any material particular he shall be guilty of an offence. My case is that a man could conscientiously make a careful examination and that the examination had failed to detect something. It might happen that a conscientious engineer could make a careful examination. He might be quite satisfied that everything was perfectly in order and later an accident might happen. I think it is only fair that, in a case like that, the mere fact that he had failed to detect something should not in itself lead to his being automatically convicted with perhaps the result of serious injury being done to his career. I think that the court should have the opportunity of saying that it thought he had exercised reasonable and proper skill. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I think the point is one that should be considered by the Minister.
Does the Senator think that a court would convict in a case such as he has mentioned?
An offence is committed automatically if he fails to make a careful examination and if, as a result, something happens. If a man makes a careful examination of a machine and reports that, in his opinion, it is in perfect working condition, and if a month later an accident occurs, he is caught automatically. I think that in a case like that, an injustice might occur.
Surely it is for the court to decide whether a thorough examination has been made or whether the report that has been made is deficient in a material particular. It is a question of fact for the court to decide whether or not a person has made a thorough examination. Surely, the court must decide that in the light of the person's qualifications. For example, I could not make a thorough examination of a factory, but the person contemplated in the sub-section is a person presumably of special skill in making such examinations. Presumably, the court would take into consideration whether his examination was thorough or not in relation to his established skill. The same thing would apply to the words "material particular". Without professing to understand the meaning of the word "negligence" in law it seems to me that the court, having got all the particulars before it, would still be able to decide with the words in the section just as it would if the other words were added in.
If an examination is made and if it fails to detect something that is wrong, which afterwards produces an explosion or accident, you could not say that that has been a thorough examination. I do not see how the court could say this was a thorough examination if it had not disclosed the defect.
I do not want to argue it, but I think it could.
Perhaps the Minister would consider the point.
I will look into it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Section 40 agreed to.
Sections 41 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Perhaps amendments Nos. 21 and 22 could be discussed together and separate decisions taken on them if necessary.
The Government amendment tries to achieve as far as possible what the Senator has in mind, without travelling outside the provisions of the Factories Acts. I will explain it if he wishes.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) In any premises which is used partly as a private dwelling, the owner thereof shall provide such reasonable safeguards in case of fire for the persons dwelling therein as may be prescribed by the Minister in regulations under this Act.
Section 45 makes it essential for the sanitary authority to issue a certificate that they are satisfied with the means of escape in the case of fire in relation to the factory building. We had recent experience where this provision did not compel the sanitary authority to take into consideration where the factory might be part of a dwelling. We had some rather tragic cases in recent years and it was to guard against those things that I put down the amendment. If the Minister suggests that his amendment meets the case, I am quite satisfied. I think the Minister's case is in relation to the issue of the certificate by the inspector appointed under his Department, whereas by incorporating my new sub-section it would be made an obligation on the sanitary authority as it is in the first case. It is not right that the sanitary authority should be called upon to issue a certificate in connection with the factory building itself and not have regard to the adjacent buildings or tenements in the same building.
An amendment was moved in the Dáil to Section 45 to provide that in any premises used partly as a dwelling-house the owner shall provide such reasonable safeguards in the case of fire for the persons dwelling in the premises as may be prescribed by the Minister. I did not accept that amendment, but in view of the discussion which took place and because I realised the issue was one of considerable importance, I undertook, to. examine the matter further. I have made that examination in considerable detail. There is clearly a problem to be faced, but my difficulty is that it is not one for settlement in this Factories Bill.
The sole purpose of the Factories Bill is to protect the life and health of those who work in factories. When this point was discussed with the parliamentary draftsman to see what further steps might be taken, he warned that I might be going outside the ambit of the Long Title of the Bill if I were to take powers to impose obligations in relation to parts of buildings which are not factories. I am convinced from my examination that very little amendment, if any, of legislation is necessary. Local authorities are charged by the Oireachtas with the duty of taking steps to prevent fire. They have very wide powers under the Fire Brigades Act of 1940, powers which seem to me to be adequate for dealing with the point raised.
We have to remember that in relation to tenement houses there are other conditions besides the existence of a factory in the premises which give rise to added fire risk for occupants of the building. I need only mention that in many of such buildings you will find a shop on the ground floor where packing and other inflammatory material is losely stored or scattered, giving an incentive to the promotion of fires. The existence of a factory in the building is only one of the problems of fire hazard in a crowded dwelling-house of that kind. I am anxious to be as helpful as I can in this matter and the best I can do is contained in the amendment which I have tabled here.
Sub-section (18) of Section 45 lists the type of factory to which the provision of Section 45 will apply and the amendment which I have moved will ensure that Section 45 will apply to a factory in a dwelling-house no matter how small the factory may be. It must be remembered also that Section 45 applies only in relation to persons employed in the factory. By including this type of factory in sub-section (18), however, we will ensure that its existence is notified to the local authority for appropriate action.
My Department has been in consultation with the Department of Local Government on this particular matter and that Department is now undertaking to send a special notification to local authorities about the particular attention to be paid to fire precautions which should be imposed on the owners of buildings of this tenement type in which a factory is situated. I think we have covered this as comprehensively as possible without going outside the ambit of the Bill.
Having listened to the Minister and to Senator Hawkins, it seems to me that the Minister's amendment is the more satisfactory, except in one point. I am hesitant to criticise wording which has been suggested by a legal draftsman, but I am not very happy about the phrase "a factory as respects which". It seems to me that that could be expressed by saying "a factory where".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (18), page 33, to add the following paragraph:—
(e) a factory as respects which the factory premises are part of premises of which another part is if, used as a dwelling.
Like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I felt this sub-section might be expressed in other language, but after my views had been conveyed to the parliamentary draftsman he still came down and said that this was the only effective way in which it could be done. In a case like that, a question of effectiveness or elegance, I come down on the side of effectiveness.
Would "in respect of which" be better there?
This is the parliamentary draftsman's view of the way to do this effectively and I have to be guided by him, even though I might write it differently myself, as the Senator himself might also do it.
This phraseology is very unusual.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 23:
In sub-section (1), page 35, line 35 to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
This is a small point. It does not seem to be proper that the Bill should say that the court "shall". I would be prepared to recommend changing it to read that the court "may".
I do not know whether Senator Cox has overlooked the fact that the court is not required to make an order, and is not required to say "shall," unless satisfied that the machinery, or the plant, could be said to cause risk of bodily injury. If the court is not so satisfied, then there is no obligation on it to make an order. That gives the court a discretion which, presumably, is behind the Senator's amendment. The word "shall" must stand, in view of the phrase in the opening line of the section: "If, on complaint by the Minister the District Court is satisfied." Then certain things must happen. The court has got to be satisfied. If the court is satisfied, it shall make an order.
I do not wish to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 50 agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Question proposed: "That Section 52 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Douglas
I have no objection at all to this section, and I am quite certain that no employer would have any objection whatsoever to providing drinking vessels. I feel, in practice, that it is almost impossible to get workers to rinse out the cups after having used them. I should prefer to see this sub-section (5) reconsidered for the Report Stage.
It would be all right if the person using the utensil would wash out the cup after using it, and before using it.
From the point of view of hygiene, this might be desirable, because of certain people handling them.
If a person does feel he wants a drink of water, and he has got to use a cup, it is not unreasonable that there should be some facilities whereby he could rinse the cup before using. It may very well be that he may not take this elementary precaution, but in so far as they do take it, I think it is only right to make provision accordingly.
Mr. Douglas
I think the provision of facilities for rinsing of cups, etc., is an excellent part of the section. What I am objecting to is asking employers to see that these facilities are available. I do not think that the employer should be asked to ensure the provision of washing-up facilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 53, 54, 55 and 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That Section 57 stand part of the Bill."
I would ask the Minister what exactly he has in mind by the word "specified," in regard to welfare regulations which may be made under sub-section (4), paragraph (b) which states that they shall:—
"... be made contingent in respect of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified number or proportion of the employed persons concerned, and prescribe the manner in which the views of the persons employed are to be ascertained...."
The Minister gives no indication what he has in mind by "specified number," or what will be the deciding factor in the application of that term.
I think the Senator may take it that where these welfare regulations may be made, where application is made by a specified number or a particular proportion of the employees concerned, they have to make application that these welfare regulations prescribed be made accordingly. It is a matter of determining what evidence you must have that the regulations are necessary.
What is meant by the word "specified" in this connection?
The Minister will make these regulations specifying the numbers or proportions. Supposing two persons, out of 100 or 200 employees, asked the Minister to make some kind of regulations, the Minister clearly would not make regulations in that case.
May I take it that the Minister will make the regulations only when a majority ask for them?
These regulations may have to be made by some Minister in the future. There will be an advisory committee dealing with this question of regulations, and they will be asked to bring their intelligence to bear on this matter as to what should be done. The regulations will be laid before the House, which will have an opportunity nullifying them, if it so desires.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 58 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Government amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (2), page 41, line 63, to insert, "after consultation with the Minister for Health," after "Minister".
This amendment is designed to ensure that there will be consultation with the Minister for Health before a certificate of exemption in respect of such basement bakeries is issued.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 65, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The question of the definition of what is "basement" is very important. Under the section, as it is at present defined, it would mean that certain bakery basements, bakehouses, which are not, in fact, basements, would be considered as basements; for instance, in the case of a building built on the side of a hill where there might be one side or more open to the landscape. We could take the example of Cork where there is a bakery built on the side of a hill looking down over Patrick Street. That might be desirable from the point of view of fresh air and hygiene, and it may be an ideal place to operate from a psychological point of view, also.
Such a place, under the present definition, would be described as a "basement", and would be prohibited from carrying on as a bakery. When the sub-committee met, and this particular section was discussed, reference was made to Jacobs of Dublin, and Thompsons of Cork. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at this committee, on Section 64, as reported in column 115 of the Report, said:—
"This matter, I think, was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill and has been the subject of representations. These representations have been made to the effect that the section, as drafted, would have the effect of closing down the main bakehouses of two large bakery premises, Jacobs, of Dublin, and Thompsons, of Cork. Both these premises which have been inspected are regarded as suitable for use as bakehouses from the standpoint of construction, lights, heat, ventilation, but, by reason of the contour of the surrounding ground on some sides of the building, they might come within the definition of a basement bakehouse in sub-section (2). A satisfactory amendment of the definition could not be devised which would exclude these premises but would ensure that genuinely underground premises of an unwholesome nature would still be included.
I thought it best, therefore, to take power to exempt premises such as the kind I have in mind from the operation of Section 64 where I am satisfied that the bakehouse is completely satisfactory in every way. There is a safeguard that the certificate of exemption calls for renewal at intervals which may not exceed five years."
That means that such bakehouses would exist only on a temporary certificate, and I understand that there is a firm—one of those which have been mentioned—which has in fact got new premises in Cork which it intends to develop and extend. It is obvious that they could not develop and extend premises and spend a lot of money, if it were only on a temporary certificate which might not be renewed after five years. I have a suggested amendment which might be taken on Report Stage which succeeds, I hope, in providing the satisfactory definition which was not found by the Special Committee, and I beg leave to read it. I propose to put in on Report Stage the following amendment:—
"In page 42, Section 65, between lines 4 and 5, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding the limitation of period provided by the preceding sub-section, a certificate may be issued for a period in excess of five years if at least one side of such basement bakehouse is not below ground level."
The original intention when the Bill was introduced was to ban basement bakehouses at the expiration of three years from the commencement of the Act. In the light of representations that were made and discussions that took place at the meetings of the Special Committee appointed by the Dáil, there was a reprieve granted in respect of certain bakehouses—bakehouses in use on 7th July, 1954, and where there was suitable provision for the use of the premises as a bakehouse, even though it was underground in accordance with the terms of the Bill—so that, as compared with the provisions of the Bill when introduced, there has been a very substantial modification.
The names of two bakeries were mentioned in the course of the discussion at the Special Committee and during the debate here, and so long as these conditions were fulfilled in respect of these two bakehouses, I think that very probably—I do not want to commit myself definitely—there would not be great difficulty in continuing their exemption from the provisions of the section for a longer period than five years, but, of course, that is conditional on certain things happening. One of these firms, or both of them, might have a quite satisfactory premises now which could be used as a bakehouse, even thought they might be regarded as underground, for the purposes of the provisions of the Bill, but suppose they allowed the premises to deteriorate, took no steps to prevent the dampness creeping into the underground basement or allowed structural defects of one kind or another to continue without attention, nobody would suggest that they should get a certificate to continue to operate an underground bakehouse for all time.
I think therefore we have to take a reasonable period over which to allow them to operate and, at the same time, provide for periodic review of the conditions of the bakehouse. The Minister for Health who is concerned with the maintenance of and compliance with food hygiene regulations has an interest in this matter and consultation, as provided for in the amendment I have moved, will take place with the Minister to see whether the basement bakehouses referred to here are such as to enable compliance to be secured with the food hygiene regulations which that Minister may make.
The Senator may take it from me that this provision will be administered sympathetically so long as the basement bakehouse is of a kind in which it is not undesirable to ask workers to bake bread but, generally speaking, the basement bakehouse, unless it is up to a high standard, is not something upon which we should put the legislative seal and I think it is only reasonable to require, where a bakehouse is a basement bakehouse, that the highest possible standards will operate to justify its being licensed for the purpose of baking bread. That puts an obligation on the owners of these premises to ensure that they are kept in first-class condition, and, if they are kept in first-class condition, I should think that the general view of any Minister for industry and Commerce would be to treat them reasonably, so long as there is no injury to the workers health and they make an effort to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
I am afraid I did not make myself clear to the Minister. I quite agree that, when a bakehouse is a basement bakehouse, all the things the Minister has said are true and that it would be necessary to examine the situation every five years, but I am saying that premises are being defined under this section as basements which are not, in fact, basements at all. Suppose a house is on the side of a hill. One side may be looking out over Killiney Bay. The whole front might be sheet glass—a beautiful place for a bakery. Surely that is not a basement but it would be under the section, because it refers to the floor being more than three feet below the surface of the road adjoining. That road could be at the back of the house, above it. I am saying that this definition covers premises which are not, in fact, basements at all and the drafting of my amendment does make the point clear.
For the Minister's information, in the case of the bakery he refers to, there is a road at the back with the main street in front, but I could not regard it as a basement.
That is what I mean, but, under the definition, it would be a basement.
If it looked out on McCurtain Street and if there was a road at the back, it would be a basement?
Yes.
I think there is something in the argument put forward by Senator McGuire.
Senator McGuire's amendment will be put down for Report Stage, I take it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
SECTION 67.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (2), line 25, before "and" to insert "and the maximum weights to which bags or other containers containing the products of factories may be filled."
I raised this matter on the Second Stage as I felt that something tangible should and can be done within the Bill to regulate the maximum weights that may be contained in sacks or other containers of that nature. It is quite clear that this section, in its first sub-section, is of a very drastic nature. It renders completely illegal the lifting of any weight that may injure a worker.
Sub-section (2) provides that the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Health, may make very specific regulations in regard to the weights that may be lifted and defines the weights that may be lifted by different types of persons—I presume that would have relation to young people and female workers. I think it should not be impossible for the Minister to be empowered to make regulations governing the size of sacks or containers that may be used for containing the products of factories. As the Bill is concerned mainly with workers in those factories, I think this amendment could be inserted and that the Bill would be improved by its insertion. If products are packed in sacks of 2 cwt., it is almost inevitable that workers will be called upon to lift them at some stage or other in the process of their removal from the place of manufacture.
We all know that in mills or factories where sacks of materials or fertilisers are being filled the occasion will arise in which those sacks will have to be shifted by mechanical or manual labour. If they are of a certain weight, there is certain to be a considerable danger of workers being called upon to shift unnecessary weights.
There is another reason for this amendment inasmuch as if the Minister has not got the power to make those regulations governing the size of sacks there may be an economic consideration that may induce manufacturers to pack fertilisers in a large sack so as to save a certain amount of expense in the cost of the sack and in the labour involved in dealing with it. In that event you may have a considerable number of manufacturers packing fertilisers in a 1-cwt. sack and still another larger number packing them in larger sacks to save time and expense. In such a case I think it would be most desirable that power be given to the Minister to regulate the size of the sacks.
When this matter was first discussed I had great sympathy with the suggestion now being made by Senator Cogan but I do not think it is something that we can incorporate in an Act of Parliament. Take bacon, for instance—the weight of a side may vary from 1¾ cwt. to 2¾ cwt. and it would be most expensive to put these sides in cwt. wrappings. It would be an impossible position. The economic question is very important and it would be very expensive to pack fertilisers in cwt. sacks. It would be more economic to put them in jute sacks. I think that the demand by the consumer and the user and more efficient handling in the factory will lead to the use of the cwt. sack in the future. I think we can very well leave this matter to the consumer and to the factories because these people will eventually come to the conclusion that it would be best to use the cwt. sack where it is more reasonable to do it. It would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to incorporate this provision in an Act of Parliament.
I appreciate that the object of this amendment is to protect beyond the factory, and beyond the protection accorded to factory workers, other workers against the use of excessive weights. I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment but I do not think that I can legislate in a Factory Bill for the weights to be carried by persons not employed in factories. This Bill deals with factories and makes provision that a person shall not be employed in a factory to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him. How can you legislate in a Factories Bill of this kind for problems which arise outside the factory and which might originate on the farm and finish on the farm? How can an amendment of the kind suggested by Senator Cogan come into legislation dealing with factories? I want to put it to the Senator, while impressing upon him that I am in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, that it might disorganise a whole industry whose machinery could be upset by forcing them to alter the size of the packets in which they market their produce.
This Bill provides protection for factory workers against lifting, carrying or moving excessive weights but you may have a situation where a factory may move most of its goods by machinery. The goods may be mechanically lifted from the factory on to a lorry and from the lorry on to a ship. The suggestion here is that, not only must you protect the persons employed in the factory against moving or lifting or carrying excessive weights, but also anybody who handles the product between the factory and the ultimate place of delivery. The amendment means that you must extend the protection which is being accorded to the factory worker to everybody who handles the product between the time of dispatch and delivery, despite the fact that in that time it might never have to be carried or moved by a human being. You cannot give protection such as that in a Factories Bill and you must get another Bill if you want to give effect to a matter of that kind. I am going as far as I can to ensure the necessary protection for factory workers but within the scope of a Factories Bill it is not possible to provide for all the contingencies which may arise outside the factory in connection with the handling of the product by human labour.
I would like to call the Minister's attention to sub-section (2) of this section. It says that "the Minister may after consultation with the Minister for Health, make regulations prescribing the maximum weight which may be lifted, carried or moved by persons employed in factories, and any such regulation may prescribe different weights in different circumstances and may relate either to persons generally or to any class of persons or to persons employed in any class or description of factory or in any process."
It will, therefore, be seen that under this sub-section the Minister is given fairly wide powers in regard to the making of regulations. I was rather puzzled for a while as to whether it might not be possible, even without any amendment, for the Minister, under this sub-section, to regulate the size of sacks or containers that might be used. Obviously, those regulations must be of a very specific kind. They are not the type of regulation, perhaps, that could be completely embodied in an Act. It would be necessary for the Minister to specify the particular type of products that it was required to deal with.
For example, he might say in the regulations that fertilisers might not be packed to a weight exceeding one cwt. If he were dealing with such a commodity as maize he might decide that half a cwt. or less would be quite an adequate weight to pack in one sack. In the same way, he might prescribe a different type of weight for cereals such as grain or flour.
All these are dealt with in factories and it is not true to say that this amendment seeks only to protect workers outside the factory. It also seeks to protect workers within the the factory. Therefore, it comes within the scope of this Bill. Even though in normal circumstances it might be possible to convey sacks of fertilisers to the place of loading there are certain other arrangements which would require these sacks to be handled by the workers in the factory. Accordingly, the amendment will not only protect workers outside the factory but also those inside the factory. Therefore, it is in compliance with the Long Title of the Bill.
With regard to the points raised by Senator Burke, a side of bacon or two sides of bacon would be of a certain fixed weight. I do not suggest that the Minister should include such commodities in the regulations. If there are definite reasons why they should not be included, then there is no reason why they should not be excluded. When you are dealing with commodities such as cereals, feeding stuffs, fertilisers and commodities of that kind which are manufactured on a very large scale and which are standard to a certain extent, there should be no difficulty whatever in making a regulation governing the size of a sack in which they may be bagged. I cannot agree with the Minister's objection to this amendment.
Section 67, sub-section (1) does not seem to be restricted to factories. It is of general application.
Take the case of a sugar factory. Most of the sugar is packed in 2-cwt. sacks. As regards the points raised by Senator Cogan, it is nothing unusual to find farmers sending in lorry-loads of grain with as much as 16 stone of grain in each sack.
And even 20 stone.
And 25 stone.
In some factories you have no such thing as machinery and the individual worker is expected to carry heavy loads of the type I have mentioned. However, I cannot see how the Minister can deal with that in this particular Bill.
Senator Cox stated that Section 67 applied to any person. I wonder would he have a look at Section 117, which says:—
"Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, this Act shall apply only to factories, as defined by this Act, but shall, except where the contrary intention appears, apply to all such factories."
There is no want of sympathy on my part in regard to this amendment but I cannot see how I can make it effective. In so far as a man who works in a factory is expected to handle, move or lift goods, I can make regulations which will ensure that the man employed in the factory and with whom this Bill deals will not be required to move, handle or carry any excessive weight, but if a factory decides to fill a bag to twice what might be the normal weight and if no man is going to handle that bag and it is going to be mechanically filled, mechanically loaded on to a lorry and mechanically driven from the factory to a ship, where is the reason, for the purpose of a Factories Bill, in saying you should prescribe the weight of a bag or a container? This thing spins on two issues.
So far as human labour is involved, we will take power to make sure that the burden on the human being will not be excessive but what Senator Cogan wants me to do is to ensure, whether the article is handled by a human being or not, you must prescribe what weight will go into the bag or container even though it is not handled by human labour. There may be a case for doing that but a Factories Bill does not seem to me to be the place for doing it. An ingenious Senator suggested on the Second Stage that we might very well commune to see in what way we could introduce a Bill which would deal with this whole problem of carrying weights not merely so far as the man in the factory is concerned—he will be protected under this Bill—but also the person who has no intention of working in a factory or working on a farm.
What Senator Cogan is trying to do is to fit into a Factories Bill and the narrow compass of a Factories Bill a provision which has much wider ramifications. Take the case of a foundry which does castings. Suppose it has a big casting. The casting is in one piece and it cannot be broken up. That casting may have to be put in a container. It will be lifted mechanically and it will probably be delivered mechanically. How can I make regulations prescribing the weight to be put into that container? The whole casting has got to go in and there is no question of breaking it up. There is an example of a case where nobody is burdened with the human toil of moving it.
You might encounter cases where goods are lifted by mechanical means into a crate. The crate may be packed mechanically. The human operation involved consists merely of wiring the crate together. All the operations may be done mechanically. Why should it be prescribed what quantity or weight of goods should go into that particular crate when it does not matter? The machine is going to lift the crate. The crate is going to be lowered and the goods will be taken out one by one at the other end. Why should that be broken up into a whole lot of small crates, especially when there is provision to ensure that it will not be handled by human labour? I would be in favour of the spirit of the Senator's amendment if he were ever in a Bill to introduce an amendment of this kind proposing this sort of protection, but I do not think that you can do that within a Factories Bill.
I appreciate what the Minister has said that he would be prepared to support any specific legislation with an aim such as that set out in the amendment. I feel, however, that he could, without any undue difficulty, accept this amendment and implement it in the regulations which he proposes to make. It is a mere exaggeration to refer to foundry castings or other articles of that kind which are packed in crates. One does not pack artificial fertilisers or grain, barley or wheat, or meal stuffs in crates. Neither does one pack sugar in crates. Senator Hickey referred to that.
In the making of regulations under this amendment, it would be possible for the Minister to specify exactly the commodities to which he was referring in the regulations. He could state whether they were grain, cereals, meal, flour or fertilisers. The regulations could be made very specific. The Minister says that the intention in the Bill is to make sure that workers within the factory are not called upon to lift excessive weights. There are other ways in which we should make sure that workers are not called upon to lift excessive weights. Wherever possible, he should make sure that manufactured goods are not packed to a certain maximum weight which would make them excessive on the worker who is handling them. Take, for example, sugar which is packed in 2 cwt. sacks. If, for example, something goes wrong during an emergency, it may be necessary for the workers to shift those sacks by manual labour. The same could apply to fertilisers.
I have said that, in abnormal circumstances, even though you had the machinery to shift the sacks it might become necessary for men to handle them manually. If you want to ensure that workers are not called upon to lift excessive weights, then the best way to achieve that is by prescribing that the commodities are not made up in excessive weights, that is as far as it is possible to do that. We all know that you cannot cut down the size of a motor engine, but you could specify that such things as cereals and meals, flour and sugar and other commodities of that kind are not packed in sacks which are excessively heavy.
The Senator is now making a slight amendment in his original proposal. If he will look at Section 67, he will see that I am taking power to make regulations prescribing the weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by persons employed in factories, etc. I cannot make regulations with regard to weights which are not lifted, carried or moved. In regard to sugar and fertilisers, I think that these will be covered by the section as it stands without any amendment, because in so far as workers have to handle fertilisers and sugar, one of the first things that arises immediately is the weight of the sugar or the fertiliser that a factory worker would have to carry. The question then arises of making regulations and of prescribing the weight. Those who have to handle those commodities later will naturally get the benefit of whatever the reduced weights are, as provided for in the regulations. I think that meets the Senator's point. As I have said I cannot make regulations with regard to weights which are not lifted, carried or moved. I think that what I have said meets the point which the Senator has made in his last speech.
As the Minister has said that he has the power to make regulations governing the weight of sacks of cereals, sugar, etc., to which I have referred, I do not think there is any need for me to press the amendment, and so there is no need to add it to the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 67 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 73.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 58, to delete "at each meeting of" and substitute "on".
This amendment appears on the Order Paper in the name of Senator Douglas and myself. Senator Douglas spoke about the safety committee on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not propose to go into the details behind my amendment except to say that it is agreed that, in the carrying out of all these Factory Acts and factory regulations, it is absolutely necessary and highly desirable that there should be a good spirit prevailing between the owners of factories and the workers. It is much better to get things done by agreement than by force or bickering or by watching one another.
There is definitely the feeling that, in this safety committee, there is introduced something which might interfere with that good spirit. At a meeting of the Special Committee of the Dáil, Deputy Larkin said: "We are trying something entirely new here, and we possibly have to feel our way." I would like to suggest, as I have been in very close consultation with both the Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Union of Employers—this point has been expressed in the Dáil by several members—that there is a certain uneasiness about the safety committee as it is envisaged in this section.
On the Report Stage of the Bill in the Dáil the Minister said:—
"The whole success of this depends on the spirit behind it. If the committee is a nagging committee the employer need not participate."
The Minister also said:—
"If the committee turns out to be a nagging committee, a knocking committee, if I may so describe it, more a source of irritation than of the promotion of better health and safety, the employer need not participate in its functions."
I think it would be a bad thing if the employer did not participate in its functions. I think that everything should be done to ensure that he would fully participate in its functions. Paragraph (c) provides that
"the occupier shall be entitled to be represented, by at least one person nominated by him, at each meeting of the safety committee."
Senators will observe that he is entitled to be at the committee, but he is not on the committee. The Minister, when speaking in the same context in the Dáil, said:—
"So far as the employer is concerned, he can put man for man on the committee with the workers if he wants to do it."
Senators will see that the words used by the Minister were "on the committee". That is what I have in my amendment. The section will then read:—
"The occupier shall be entitled to be represented by at least one person nominated by him on the safety committee."
I do not think anyone could reasonably object to that, and in view of the fact that the Labour members have already said this thing is purely experimental, I think it would be a bad thing if it went off to a bad start by any feeling of suspicion or doubt of this committee. I feel that if my amendment were accepted it would help to inculcate the spirit of goodwill in the working of this committee.
I look at "at" and "on" as having the same meaning for the purpose of this section and personally I do not see any difference in the status of persons who come into a meeting. The main purpose is to get the person to the meeting. Whether he is "on" the committee or "at" the committee does not seem to me to matter a tráinín.
If it does not matter——
I will explain why "at" is there instead of "on". The main thing is to get the man to the meeting—how he got there does not matter. He has the same status there whether you put "at" in the section or "on". I would call the attention of Senator McGuire to the opening part of Section 73, which says:—
"(1) Where the persons employed in a factory have selected from among themselves a committee (in this sub-section referred to as the safety committee) for the purpose of promoting the better safety, health and welfare of the persons employed, the following provisions shall have effect:—"
I am advised that that means that if the employer is "on" the committee he is part of the machinery of selection, he is part of the voting mechanism which produces this voluntary committee of members. The device of "at" was resorted to in order to keep him apart from the machinery of selecting those who will constitute the voluntary workers' committee.
If you look at the whole section and take it together, it will be seen that the general intention is to enable workers in a factory voluntarily to select a group of persons employed there to constitute this safety committee. They can do that if they want to do it, there is no compulsion on them to do it and they need not do it if they do not like to do it. Where there is existing a works council, it can function as the safety committee for the purpose of this Bill. The selection of the committee is in the hands of the workers employed in the factory. The purpose of putting in "at", as I say, is not to make the employer part of the selection committee or part of the voluntary operation of the workers in selecting a safety committee's representative, but to ensure in the section that every time a meeting is held the employer will be there. Does it really matter whether "at" is in or "on" is in? Is not the main thing to have the employer represented at the meeting? Sub-section (1) (e) of Section 73 says that the employer shall be entitled to be represented by at least one person nominated by him, at each meeting of the safety committee. His status will neither be exalted nor denigrated whether I put "at" or "on" in this section, but "at" is a device which enables the employer to stand clear of the selection machinery.
I saw a deputation on Saturday last from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Union of Employers and I explained all this to them at very considerable length. After hearing my explanation of it and after hearing the reasons why "at" is used instead of "on", they went away quite satisfied. For all practical purposes "at" and "on" are the same. The employer would be at the meeting and entitled to be there if he so wished and that would happen even if I put in "on", but "on" will give us administrative complications about the selection committee and for that reason I would urge Senator McGuire not to press the point to the extent of amending it, in which case it will make these difficulties, which will probably have to be got over in some way. Since "at" or "on" makes no difference to the status of the employer at the meetings of the committee, I think it is of very little value to press the matter to that stage.
I must say that my experience always is that the Minister is able to give an explanation for everything—perhaps I should say "all Ministers", speaking in generic terms —but if the Chamber of Commerce, as a result of hearing the Minister's explanation, are quite satisfied I am of course perfectly satisfied, too. Therefore, I hope that these committees will turn out to work in a spirit of friendship and not dependent on "ats" or "ons" to make them effective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (1), to delete "safety and health" in page 44, line 62, and in page 45, line 3, and substitute in each case "safety, health and welfare".
This is a matter which I discussed with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Union of Employers. They were anxious that in paragraph (f) it should be made clear that the representations which the safety delegate was entitled to make were representations on matters relating to this Bill. They feared that he might make representations on matters outside the scope of the Bill. I did not think there was any ground for their fears in that respect, particularly having regard to Section 117. I undertook to meet their point of view by making it clear that the inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate on matters relating to the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed in the factory. That is done in three places in this particular section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (f), line 4, to delete "an inspector", and substitute "if a safety delegate is dissatisfied with the results of a representation made to the occupier he shall be then entitled to submit such representation to the inspector, who".
Two features of this Bill are the advisory council and the safety committee and as they are very important features I have concentrated on them. Strangely enough, 30 years ago I was on a safety committee myself in connection with a college, organised for the safety, welfare and health of the students. I have practical experience of the safety committee and the type of problems we had to deal with, and I think those problems will arise again in the wider university of the factory and of industry. The function of this committee as set forth in sub-section (1) is to assist in securing compliance by the occupier of the factory and any persons employed therein with the ptovisions of the Bill.
For the purposes of this committee, there will be one member who will be called a "safety delegate". As stated in sub-section (1), paragraph (f):—
"an inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate and, for this purpose, may inspect any records of the proceedings of the safety committee."
I think this is giving, by statute, to the safety delegate, the right of access to the Minister, behind the back of the occupier, over his head, or under his feet. I think, by this legislation, we are going to give to the safety delegate a private key to the Minister's door. It would, I think, be so much better, to ensure mutual and happy working, that matters should be so arranged that the delegate, first of all, should see the occupier, submit his proposals to him, and then if dissatisfied, go to the higher authority.
With regard to the safety committee with which I was associated, the same position arose because we had to receive complaints. Above and beyond that, we could have gone to the vice-chancellor direct. We never contemplated that, because we thought that would be putting things a bit too high, and would not promote good feeling and understanding. I am afraid that, if we are to accept this as it stands, it will, sooner or later, mean that the delegates will avail themselves of this statutory device of approaching the inspector, and the occupier will not know what is happening, and will be uneasy as to what the safety delegate will be up to. There is a danger of the safety delegate flying off the handle at meetings of the safety committee, and there is also the danger that this proposed legislation will give him enormous power. I ask the House to consider my alternative suggestion, as set out in the amendment. This would strengthen the hand of the safety delegate, strengthen the position of the occupier, and would make things easier for the inspector.
Far from giving to the safety delegate, the key to the Minister's office——
To the inspector's office.
I hope that, under the circumstances, keys will be quite unnecessary for the purpose of these private representations. This is a proposal, as I said both in the Dáil and here, to set up a safety committee. Before the scheme will work, it will require goodwill between workers and employers. If goodwill is not present on either side, it will not work. If there is no goodwill, it would probably be better that it should not work. This legislation provides that the safety committee has certain functions which are set out. Then there is the procedure to be followed by the safety committee, and the safety committee appoints a safety delegate. The occupier shall consider any representations made to him by the safety committee only on matters affecting the safety and health and welfare of the staff employed in the factory. Then is stated:—
"(e) The safety committee shall consider any representations made to it by the occupier on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed.
"(f) An inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate and, for this purpose, may inspect any records of the proceedings of the safety committee."
As it stands, the sub-section provides that the inspector shall consider any of these representations, and for that purpose, he may inspect the records. What is the safety delegate to talk to the inspector about if it is not a question of the health, welfare and safety of the workers? I take it that, in accordance with the ordinary law of sensible human procedure, any safety delegate will proceed to the inspector only about these matters, if they have not been settled in consultation with the employer, and at the meeting of the safety committee. I would hope that the safety delegate would not find it necessary to see the inspector, except when he is dissatisfied, and does not get satisfaction.
I hope that that will be the procedure generally in such cases. Perhaps it is hard to argue against this amendment because, while this arrangement ought to work, it seems to me it would be a mistake to read into the Bill a provision which would throw on the inspector an obligation, first, to make sure that the safety delegate is discussing the matter with the occupier of the factory: secondly, that in fact, he did not receive satisfaction. The question as to whether or not he received satisfaction, or did not receive satisfaction, or whether he received a measure of frustration, has got to be sorted out. I think it is no harm to let the safety delegate talk to the inspector, to let the inspector bring his experience to bear on the safety delegate, and at the same time, to bring in the employer and say: "Look here, what is wrong in this whole business?" Having heard both cases, he should try to find a solution to the problem. I think it is a mistake to set up procedure whereby the inspector will have to find out: did the safety delegate go to the employer and, whatever happened there, did he receive satisfaction or dissatisfaction? In any case, this would not get the safety delegate away from the inspector.
If this committee is never set up, it will not prevent someone representing the workers of the factory, and making representation to the inspector. At present, workers can write to me; in fact, they do, and sometimes their parents ask: "Are you aware of the fact that such and such is happening in such a factory?" The letters have to be dealt with, because every citizen is entitled to have his or her complaints investigated. I send the letters to my Department, and the inspector goes down to inspect the factory, and investigate the complaints. This is happening at the present time without any safety committee, and this has been the procedure for over 50 years.
It is to avoid a situation of that kind arising, and to devise a more satisfactory method, that this safety committee is to be set up. I think, in a case of that kind, instead of sending the inspector down the country to visit the factory about which complaint was made in the letter, it is easier to get that letter raised at a meeting of the local safety committee, and get the matter ironed out there. That is the purpose of this section. It has to be broadly understood, and there has to be tolerance and understanding on both sides. It you do not get that, as I said, it will not work.
I do not think the amendment which has been moved by Senator Fearon will carry it one bit further, or make this committee work. If you could get one section of this Bill showing that, by the exercise of common sense, goodwill and toleration this committee should function in the best interests of the factory, that might make it work. No amendment which Senator Fearon or myself would table could make this committee work, unless there was good sense on both sides. For that reason, I should say it is a mistake to imagine that you can import efficiency and smoothness into this, by amendment. If there is no goodwill, as the basis of approach to the safety committee, it will not work.
I prefer to give it a trial on the basis of Section 73, because that section represents the distillation of all the wisdom of the Special Committee appointed by the Dáil, and which was brought to bear on an examination of this problem. I think we should leave it there, and see how it works. There is no statutory obligation to set up this committee. It should spring from a desire to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the workers. If that problem is approached with understanding, it should work. Neither this amendment, nor any I could move— and I have often been pressed to move other amendments to sections—would make it any better than it is, unless it is founded on a basis of goodwill and understanding.
Mr. Douglas
I agree that if the Minister is going to set up this safety committee it should, as far as possible, work on the basis of goodwill. I am not certain that, under this legislation which we propose to introduce, we are laying the best foundation for working on the basis of toleration and understanding between employer and employee. In spite of what the Minister has said, I would recommend this amendment to him. Sub-section (c) with which we dealt a few moments ago and which we have not amended reads:—
"The occupier shall be entitled to be represented, by at least one per son nominated by him, at each meeting of the safety committee."
That does not mean that the members of the safety committee are in fact going to have the occupier present at the meetings, and I feel that the amendment will make it clear to the members of the safety committee that they still can go to the occupier himself, if they are not satisfied with the explanations of his representative who may attend the particular meeting. I do not feel that this amendment will make it more difficult for the committee to work; rather do I feel that it will help to bring about that toleration and understanding which the Minister desires.
My view on this amendment is that it is unnecessary, where there is goodwill on the part of the workers and the employer. The whole purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the health and welfare of those employed in factories and there is nothing new in this suggestion of setting up safety committees. They have been tried in other countries and have worked very successfully. I take it the proposal is that the workers come together and set up a committee. The employer is entitled to be present at the meetings or have a representative on this committee. They appoint one of their members to act as a delegate and I assume that the main function of this delegate will be, not to act as a trouble maker as between the inspector and the employer, but to ensure that the workers play their part in the carrying out of the necessary duties as agreed on by the committee, in consultation with the employer.
I believe there is a great deal in Senator Fearon's amendment. What the Minister has said about goodwill is admirable. Nothing can work smoothly in a factory without goodwill. We can have rules and regulations, agreements and so on, but, unless they are used in a spirit of mutual respect and confidence, we will not make any progress. I came across a case recently in which, because the works manager in a factory happened to be, if you like, a tactless individual, a little trouble arose. There was, in fact, a lightning strike, and one of the suggestions made by the labour side was that there should be some machinery whereby, if anything of the sort occurred again, they would be able to see the manager. I presume that the managing director would be considered to be the occupier of the factory and that the works manager would likely be the person to be appointed as employer's representative on the committee. If, as would be the case under the amendment, the matter went first to him, I think it might obviate a lot of trouble from time to time. I think it is an earnest of a desire to overcome difficulties of this sort rather than to have somebody taking up the attitude "If you are not very good, I am going to tell the Minister". That attitude ought to be avoided.
The Minister will not come into this.
The inspector.
He can tell the inspector now without seeing him.
Do you not think that access to the highest authority in a factory, where a person feels aggrieved, can be very desirable? We have often heard it said that there were no bad landlords—that it was the agents who were bad, and there may be a certain amount of truth in that assertion. You may have trouble with a tough works manager, when you might have a very reasonable chairman or managing director, if you could have access to him.
I cannot understand all the anxiety about this safety committee delegate. I am afraid that we are suspicious that there will not be goodwill in the committee. I should like to know in how many factories in the country there is any contact at all with the occupier or owner, because factory life nowadays has become quite impersonal from the point of view of the owner of the factory. They are all run by managers and foremen.
These would be the big factories.
And the small factories. What is wrong these days is that everything is very impersonal, so far as contact between worker and employer is concerned. I know big factories and small factories where there are works committees set up without any Minister and without any Bill which are working quite satisfactorily. What we should try to develop is a sense of responsibility in a factory and I am not a bit afraid that the safety committee delegate selected by the men will be the undesirable man we all seem to think he will be.
It is very desirable sometimes to have somebody to tell the inspector, because I can tell Senator Burke that, if the man is a safety committee delegate and he reports something to the managing director—not to the owner—or to the foreman, there is a nice quiet way of telling him off. He is looked upon as a nuisance, whereas, if he tells the inspector, who he knows is responsible for the carrying out of the factory laws, it is quite safe. The inspector will have tact and understanding and will be able to take action as if he had never got a report. Under the Factory Acts at the moment, inspectors have been found to be very lax in doing the things they should do when they visit factories.
I do not think there is any need for the amendment. Let us give the Bill a trial and see what happens. I do not believe that there is any danger of this delegate chatting to Senator McGuire or to any man like him in a factory. I suggest that we give the Bill a trial and see what happens and I agree with the Minister that there is no need for the amendment.
It seems to me that possibly the very fact that this section deals only with things which could be done without the section might make such an amendment as has been suggested necessary. It is perfectly true that at present anyone could go to the inspector, but here he is being given a statutory right to go, and it does seem that the very fact of the passing of this section might, in certain circumstances, lead to an absence of goodwill. Suppose the safety committee were to insist on meeting three or four times a week during working hours? Under this section, it could possibly be used as a method of producing ill-will in the factory, if there were people who wanted to create ill-will. It seems to me that what is suggested in the amendment, namely, that the occupier, the employer, should be told, if the move comes officially from the safety committee, is reasonable. It does not in the least take away the right which the Minister has stressed and Senator Hickey has stressed that anyone could go to the inspector at the present time. Of course he can. If a statutory right is given, there ought to be some kind of provision that a committee is not to be used as a means of making matters unreasonably difficult in the working of the factory.
I oppose this amendment very strongly, indeed. It seems to me that if it was agreed to sub-section (c) of this section would not be availed of. I quite agree that the occupier or person in charge of the factory should be aware of any grievance that arises but if he is availing of sub-section (c) he will be represented on this particular committee and he should then be aware of it. If we are to have this amendment inserted, it means that after discussion or disagreement at a factory the safety delegate can do nothing further until he can contact the occupier. It would mean that we would have to put in another amendment that, on request, the occupier should see him in so many days and a further amendment that the occupier should give a reply in so many other days. I would not like to be a safety delegate trying to contact some of the occupiers or owners of these factories and I think Senator Fearon should not press this amendment further. If he will consider this matter in the light of sub-section (c), he will see that it is not worth while pressing it and if the occupier avails of sub-section (c) he should be aware of the grievances arising and should be able to correct them without having the safety delegate go to the inspector at all.
Take a case of where the inspector arrives at the factory and knows that there is a safety committee and knows that it has been meeting. He asks for the records of the proceedings of the committee. He sees that a whole lot of matters have been raised and settled without any difficulty and then he sees that there has been a disagreement. He sees that there is a problem there and then he goes further and sees that other problems have been settled and that a second difficulty has arisen and that there has been a disagreement. Presumably at this stage the safety delegate will desire to see him in respect of these two matters, and I imagine that the inspector will say to him that if there are any other matters he had better raise them at the next meeting. He will have seen that there has been disagreement on two points and presumably, the inspector will desire to discuss these matters both with the safety delegate, the safety committee and, if necessary, the manager. That is the reasonable way and it is the way, I imagine, that these matters will be dealt with. I do not fear the difficulty that is behind Senator Fearon's amendment. May I ask a question which may clear the air? Is the fear that the factory delegate will act on his own?
That is correct.
Perhaps it would meet the case if I inserted the words "by the safety delegate at the request of the safety committee". We must assume that the committee is a responsible body. If after making these representations the grievances are not rectified, then the safety delegate is told to take the matter to the inspector.
That would make it certain that the occupier would know beforehand.
Yes, the safety delegate when he approaches the inspector will be doing so with the knowledge of the committee. That would meet the point.
How often does the safety committee meet?
That is another matter. I will put in an amendment on the Report Stage to meet that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1), page 45, line 5, after "delegate" to insert "on matters affecting the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed".
This amendment arises out of amendment No. 27.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(h) in this section, "safety delegate" means such member of the safety committee as it shall appoint to represent it.
I do not know whether the Minister will think this amendment necessary. As the section is drafted the position of the safety delegate does not appear to be clear and it is to clarify the matter that I have moved the amendment.
I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that the further definition of the safety delegate is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 73, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 74 and 75 agreed to.
The subject-matter of amendment No. 31 to Section 76 has really been dealt with already and I shall not move it.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In paragraph (e), page 47, line 14, before "Solicitor" to insert "or" and to delete "or agent".
This section seems to introduce something rather new. It is provided elsewhere in the section that relatives may be represented at an inquest by a solicitor or counsel but this section seems to import, some outside class of additional representative and it seems to me that it is rather an innovation in legal procedure. I am not, suggesting that persons who for some reason or other do not wish to employ a solicitor or counsel should not have the right to appear as, of course, they have but I think the Minister should consider whether it is right to add the words "or agent". It seems to imply the right of some kind of third person, other than solicitor or counsel, to represent the person.
It seems to me that Senator Cox has not considered the possibility that the relatives of the person, in respect of whose death the inquest is being held, might not be able, or willing, or fit to ask questions, but would prefer to ask the help of a friend, and to get that friend to put the relevant questions rather than employ solicitor or counsel. It seems to me that the Bill is rather better as it stands, as it gives the right to people to ask questions, or to get a friend to ask questions, if they cannot attend themselves or employ solicitor or counsel.
The purpose of the phrase "or agent" is to enable some friend of the deceased person to appear at the inquest and ask questions if he so desires. Admittedly, it is widening the normal scope of access to the inquest but it was felt that a person might desire to allow a friend of a deceased person to attend at the inquest. For that reason the phrase was put in originally. I have no very special views on the matter and if the House felt it desirable to delete it, I would not be unwilling to do so. On the other hand, if it was desired that provision be made for the possibility of a friend attending, I would allow it to stand. I do not think it is very important.
I can understand the point made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington but, as the section stands, it seems to open the door to a type of remunerated agent other than a legally qualified practitioner. I must admit that I am fighting my own corner, but this does not seem to me to be desirable from the public point of view having regard to all the safeguards that are necessary to protect the public. We should avoid any danger of creating a class of unprofessional agents. If the Minister could provide that such an agent would not be remunerated I would agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington.
Supposing the person killed was a member of a trade union, there might be an official of that trade union present at the inquest.
The trade union is fully protected.
Suppose I delete the word "agent" from the portion of the Bill where it now is and put in later in sub-section (e) "any relation or friend of the person" would that meet the case?
I would be quite satisfied.
Our famous "safety delegate" might want to attend and ask questions.
He could get in any case under (f) of Section 73. The word "friend" goes in and the word "agent" goes out.
I think that would meet the case.
The word "relative" is in. We will add the word "friend".
A friend might be paid too.
The person concerned is dead at that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 77 agreed to.
Sections 78 to 80, inclusive, agreed to.
There is a series of amendments, Nos. 33 to 38, to Section 81 which have already been disposed of.
Section 81 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 to Section 82 have been disposed of.
Sections 82 and 83 agreed to.
SECTION 84.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, to delete "subject as hereinafter in this section provided,"
We can discuss amendments Nos. 41 to 45, inclusive, on this amendment.
I am quite happy to take together the five amendments standing in my name for the reason that the first of these, amendment No. 41, is consequential upon the passing of amendments Nos. 42 and 45, which are comprehensive amendments. The remaining two amendments, Nos. 43 and 44, are amendments to allow the House and Senators to decide to amend the section in a minor way if not in a major way.
Before I come to the point I made on the Second Stage when considering this Bill in relation to this section, I should like to say that the Minister's attitude on this Bill has been extremely conciliatory. That was apparent in the Dáil, and in the Special Committee. It was apparent from the fact that the Minister put down a number of amendments to meet points made in the Seanad on the Second Stage. Finally, it was apparent from his attitude here to-day. I welcome that.
I noted with satisfaction that in his reply on the Second Stage he said, in relation to this section, that he did not feel very strongly about it; that he had certain doubts in his mind, but that he was in sympathy with some of the points I put. The purpose of this whole section is to see to it that the provisions of the Factories Act shall apply to factories which are run in connection with public institutions, either of a charitable or of a reformatory character.
Consequently, I would commend sub-section (1) of Section 84 because it lays it down that all the benefits with regard to health, safety, welfare and so on, which are to be granted under this Bill to workers in ordinary factories, are to be granted also to workers in factories attached to and run by institutions, whether they be reformatories, mental homes and or similar establishments.
Nevertheless, I am a little disturbed by the fact that, having stated that principle and having included it in the Bill, the Minister felt it necessary to frame clauses making certain exceptions to the general provisions of the Bill when applied to the workers in public institutions.
I made the point before, and I think it is worth stressing, that workers in ordinary factories, who are now going to get this additional protection, already have one form of protection which the inmates of reformatories or mental homes or institutions of that kind have not got. I refer to the protection of trade union organisation. The protection that the ordinary worker now has in a trade union organisation is quite strong. The sort of workers who will be affected by these excepting and excluding clauses, if they are allowed to stand in the Bill, have no such protection; and it is for that reason that, while I accept sub-section (1) in the section, I am surprised to find the exceptions asked for by the Bill in the other sub-sections.
It is for that reason that my main amendments would delete entirely sub-sections (2) and (3). I should like to ask the Minister, and the House, what reasons, what positive reasons, are there for desiring that workers who otherwise are to be considered as working in a factory, workers who work there as inmates or as detainees, should not be offered precisely the same measure of protection as is offered to workers outside in a privately run factory? I should like not a negative approach to that question, but rather that some positive advantage should be suggested as resulting from refusing to give these people precisely the same protection as other workers. I would say, as I have suggested, that, if anything, they merit more protection, by reason of the fact that they have not got available to them the ordinary protection of a trade union organisation.
Sub-section (2) says that if any institution is carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, the persons having control of the institution, having satisfied the Minister that "the only persons" working therein are persons who are inmates of and are supported by the institution, then certain exemptions may be made. I draw attention to the phrase that the managers of such institution have to "satisfy" the Minister. I have mentioned that the factory work there is being done only by inmates. If there is so much as one outside worker there, one man or one woman, he or she may seek the ordinary protection of a trade union organisation, and then this section does not apply. I cannot help wondering what is the concern underlying this provision, that the Minister has to be satisfied that it will be only inmates or detainees who will be—and I use the word advisedly—deprived of certain of the protections guaranteed by this Bill? Why does he want to satisfy himself that it will be "only" such people as these?
I should like to mention the two sub-sections of Section 2 upon which I suggest it would be possible, if the Seanad should decide not to reject all of Section 2, to take a vote separately. I should like the House to have a look at these two sub-sections and at the type of exception as well as the general provisions that are asked for by the Minister in the Bill. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) provides that:—
"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."
I suggest that that might result in the placing of the doctor of an institution in an invidious position, which no doctor would relish, that is of having to act as the certifying authority over conditions and circumstances within his own control. He would have, in a sense to be investigating conditions for which he himself would be responsible. I notice—if I may without digression refer to another provision in the Bill—that in Section 77 for instance which relates to inquests, certain provisions are made in paragraph (c) which reads:—
"No person having a personal interest in or employed in or about or in the management of the factory in or about which the accident or disease occurred or was contracted shall be qualified to serve on the jury."
It is considered sufficiently important, in relation to the jury at a coroner's inquest, to see that nobody even remotely connected with the running of the factory shall serve on that jury. Similarly, I suggest that it is equally important to see to it that the certifying doctor under the various provisions of this Bill shall not, in fact, be employed or connected with the institution, be wholly or partly employed by it, for the same obvious reasons that such a doctor employed in or by the factory in question might find it awkward and embarrassing to have to pass judgment on the management which was employing him. Indeed, he might have to discover certain instances of remissness with regard to sanitation and so on, for which remissness he himself had in the past been responsible. Therefore, it seems to me to be an unwise provision.
Another purpose for which the certifying doctor is used is, of course, in connection with the health of workers, and the fitness to work of certain categories of workers. I wonder if the Minister has considered what exactly happens in a laundry or a woodworking factory, or a factory of any kind, in connection with an institution when the doctor in that institution discovers that a particular worker, while not ill enough for hospital treatment, is not fit for particular work in the factory. What, in fact, is done with such worker? What is his position, be he a detainee or an inmate? I wonder if the Minister has faced the problem which might arise for the doctor himself from the necessity of certifying as to their fitness to work of certain categories of workers in an institution which was, in fact, employing that doctor.
I now turn to paragraph (b) of sub-section (2). This paragraph seems to me to be one for which no defence at all can be made. The paragraph says that if a factory is being carried on in an institution which has been set up for reformatory purposes, and if the manager gives notice to the Minister to that effect, an inspector shall not, without the consent of the managers or the person having charge of the institution, examine any inmate of the institution save in the presence of one of the managers. I do not know what kind of a mental world is inhabited by the draftsmen of this Bill, whether they live in a realistic world or in a world out of all touch with reality, but I wonder if they would pause and think how an inspector of the Department is likely to get full and frank answers from an inmate of a reformatory, if that inmate is to be questioned by the inspector only in the presence of the managers of the institution.
I think it is obvious to anyone with common sense that an inmate who is to be a witness, and who is to be examined as to the facts and conditions, possibly the very conditions which gave rise to an accident, will only speak freely if he is alone with the inspector, or at any rate if the managers are not present. That is not by any means necessarily a reflection upon the managers. It may be simply a reflection on the stupidity, the stubbornness or the imaginary fears of the inmate, but that stupidity, that stubbornness, or those imaginary fears would exist in 99 cases out of 100. Consequently, if we are to insist that where an inspector wants to examine an inmate he cannot do so except in the presence of the managers, if the managers so request, I am afraid we are including in this Bill a clause which is very surprising indeed, and quite unjustifiable.
It is true that at the end of the paragraph the Minister is given the right, if he is satisfied that he should use it, to waive the clause; but how does a Minister become "satisfied" that the inspector would have got different answers from an inmate if he had questioned him in private rather than in the presence of the managers? I do not find this a satisfactory clause, and my hope is that it will be removed. It is for that reason partly that I put the amendments down in this somewhat fragmentary form, so that even if Senators might feel that certain other elements in this section should be retained, no one will feel that that paragraph is justifiable.
There is another point in that paragraph on which I should like to ask the Minister a question. Am I right in assuming that the phrase "an institution carried on for reformatory purposes" includes an industrial school? I am not quite sure whether "reformatory purposes" could strictly speaking be applied to an industrial school. I think I am right in saying there is a difference in law between the concept of the industrial school and that of the reformatory. I know that some inmates of industrial schools go there through no fault of their own, but simply by reason of the poverty of their parents, whereas I take it that the person who is an inmate of a reformatory has at least been found guilty of an offence. There is a distinction there, and I should like that cleared up, if the Minister would answer that question in relation to this paragraph (b) in sub-section (2), which I hope to see disappearing altogether.
Finally, I have suggested the deletion of sub-section (3). It simply says:—
"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."
An institution which is "under the authority of a Minister of State" is not to have the protection of this Bill! I wonder just what is implied by that? We all know, of course, that whatever is being run by a Department aims at being a model institution, and we all realise that the purpose of such institutions if they are under the authority of a Minister of State is of the highest; but we heard it said in relation to the whole Bill on the Second Stage that "the good employer" in an ordinary private factory will welcome this Bill because in fact the Bill enshrines principles which he has already applied in his factory. I should like to believe—and I hope we can all believe—that this Bill enshrines principles which are already applied in every institution under the authority of a Minister. What objection can there be, therefore, to having the provisions of the Bill applied to those institutions? What more objection can there be than in the case of other factories run by good employers? Why are institutions under the authority of any Minister to be removed from the provisions of the Bill?
Furthermore, in this sub-section (3) we are told that the Act shall not apply if the premises are "subject to inspection by any Minister of State". I made the point on the Second Stage that they might in fact be subject to such inspection for reasons quite different, and quite unrelated to the preoccupations underlying this Bill. It seems to me that it would be absurd to relieve such an institution from compliance with the provisions of the Bill simply because a part of the premises was being inspected by the Department of Health or by some other Department.
For all these reasons, therefore, I am putting forward these five amendments standing in my name, making it clear that the first amendment is a consequential one, consequential upon the removal of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) in their totality, and that the other amendments I am proposing would arise only if the two comprehensive amendments standing in my name were to be defeated.
Might I support Senator Sheehy Skeffington very briefly, for two reasons? I do not think any institution existing for charitable purposes could reasonably object to this Bill without sub-section (2). The purpose of the Bill itself seems to be an eminently charitable one in the widest sense of the term, in the sense of demanding for others the kind of treatment we want for ourselves. The second consideration is—and it does not seem to have struck the mover of the amendment—that the exemption of any institution might very easily invite the rigging of dummy charities, rather like the rigging of dummy companies by profit-making firms, by a factory which wanted to escape through the meshes of the Bill. For these two reasons I would support Senator Sheehy Skeffington, particularly on the amendment which proposes to delete sub-section (2). I have one question for the Minister—are jails exempt?
I would be willing to recommit Section 84 on the Report Stage if it is desired to shorten this discussion and have a longer discussion then. I think Senators Sheehy Skeffington and McHugh are approaching this from an entirely wrong point of view. Section 84 says:—
"Where, in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, any manual labour is exercised in or incidental to the making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, washing, cleaning, or adapting for sale, of articles not intended for the use of the institution, but the premises do not constitute a factory, then, nevertheless, the provisions of this Act shall, subject as hereinafter in this section provided, apply to those premises."
These premises do not constitute a factory, nevertheless, they are included within the purposes of this Bill as a factory. The discussion has proceeded and the questions have been raised, as if a place carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes is excluded from the scope of the Bill. It is not.
I think I made it quite clear that I approved sub-section (1) for the very reason that the Minister states.
That portion of my reply was not intended to apply to the Senator. The section says that even if such premises do not constitute a factory they still come within the scope of the Bill.
Is not that clear? It is a factory for all practical purposes. Then sub-section (2) says:—
"If in any institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes and to which this Act applies the persons having the control of the institution (hereinafter referred to as the managers) satisfy the Minister that the only persons working therein are persons who are inmates of and supported by the institution, or persons engaged in the supervision of the work or the management of machinery, and that such work as aforesaid is carried on in good faith for the purposes of the support, education, training, or reformation of persons engaged in it, the Minister may by Order direct that so long as the Order is in force this Act shall apply to the institution—"
Even then it can apply, "subject to the following modifications". Is it perfectly clear now that the charitable organisation and the reformatory institution come within the scope of the Bill? A charitable organisation, an institution which is used for charitable and reformatory purposes, may be brought into the Act, if the Minister is satisfied. Then the Act operates, subject to certain modifications. What are the modifications? They are:—
"(a) 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;"
But it does not say he shall. He may be appointed by the manager, if the manager asks that he should be. What are his functions? Senator Sheehy Skeffington contemplated a medical officer here—I do not know whether it was holding inquests or testifying at inquests. The medical officer has no such functions. He has got the rather mundane task of examining a young person at 16 years of age to see whether that person could work at these operations, or he has to certify as to industrial disease. As far as the other activities are concerned, his function is to mind his own business. He has no other functions, and there is no purpose in creating a monster out of that doctor in the institution. These are simply pedestrian tasks, which the doctor performs for the purposes of this Bill.
Would he not have to certify in relation to industrial diseases?
In respect of industrial diseases, and in respect of the suitability of the medical condition of a person at 16 years of age. If he is appointed, these are his functions. Before he can be appointed, the manager must make a request to the Minister, who must agree. These are the pedestrian tasks of the medical officer. The total effect of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendment would be that he would create, if it were accepted, an extremely difficult situation. Section 84 relates to institutions which are not factories. They may engage in any of the following:
"making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, washing, cleaning, or adapting for sale, of articles not intended for the use of the institution."
But these premises do not become a factory.
Does the Minister advert to Section 3, sub-section (1), paragraph (v) which states:—
"any laundry carried on as ancillary to another business, or incidentally to the purposes of any public institution".
That would certainly bring in laundries.
They are factories.
I think the Minister said they were not, under Section 84.
Once you wash clothes in the institution, not for the institution, then that is a factory. In other words, you have a right to wash clothes for the institution, but if you start to wash other people's clothes it is a factory, for the purpose of Section 84.
Apart entirely from Section 84, some of them are considered by the Bill as factories. The Minister has suggested that they are not factories at all. The Bill says that they are—some of them at any rate.
While these are carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, other factories are carried on for the purpose of trade. This is an entirely different approach. I think the Senator is making a mistake in trying to establish trade union conditions for these people. Normally, this is a meritorious endeavour, and I am fully in favour of it. I hope that the Senator will find a trade union to cater for them. These are people who are under medical care.
Not all of them.
Section 84 (1) brings almost every institutional activity within this Factory Bill.
It does not bring in institutions which are "under the authority of any Minister".
All except those. We are agreed on that?
Section 84 (2). The Act applies there, unless the manager can
"satisfy the Minister that the only persons working therein are persons who are inmates of and supported by the institution".
The Senator would be endeavouring to establish trade union conditions for people who are put in there to be supported by the institution. They are not working for the institution, and it is not exploiting them: it is maintaining them. These people are under medical or mental care.
Will they not need protection from the ordinary dangers of machinery?
Sub-section (1) is employed because, for the purpose of these industrial activities, it might have outside people as well as institutional people. It is carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes. In Section 84 (2) you get the kind of situation in which these inmates are being supported by an institution. They may be people who are subject to medical care, people who are insane, people who may be mental defectives, but even there they get the protection of the Bill, subject to certain modifications. What are the modifications? The first is that the doctor can have a look at them if they are going to be sent to this work and if they are under 16 years. He looks at them until they are 18—one simple task. He cannot do that unless the manager asks that he should be allowed to do it and unless the Minister for the time being says: "Very well; you may do it." He can never do it if the Minister will not allow him. The second is in relation to this question of the examination of the inmate—that the inspector examines the inmate in the presence of the manager. Is there anything seriously wrong in that? Here is an inmate—a mentally defective man or woman, boy or girl. Is there anything wrong——
I do not think the Minister adverts to the fact that the paragraph does not refer to mental homes but to reformatories.
A charitable institution.
They are not mental defectives in any ordinary accepted sense of the word.
They could be, but these are the only two restrictions.
They should not be in a reformatory in that case.
I am not saying that one is the same as the other, but you could have a place for the reformation of people, and, if you have a place for the reformation of people, this section operates. The approach to this whole problem is an approach to the problem of what you should do in dealing with this class of person—those who are in charitable institutions, those who are in institutions for reformatory purposes and those who may be in these places for medical care, physical or mental. For all practical purposes, they have the full protection of the Bill, except in respect of these two limited functions. I do not think you can push things to the extent that you can regard an institution carrying on by solicited contributions and maintaining the inmates as being in the same position as the biggest factory in the City of Dublin. You have to recognise that some of these people are there in the most peculiar of circumstances and that this section is bent in order to deal with that situation.
What is the positive advantage of preventing a boy in a reformatory from giving evidence to an inspector privately?
There is no question of a boy in a factory giving evidence at all. If an inspector goes into a factory for the purpose of any inquiry, he sees the person concerned in the presence of the manager, but you are not dealing with ordinary people here. If these were ordinary people, one could say that this is not necessary, but the persons concerned here are not ordinary factory workers. They are miscreants of one kind or another. They are people who are in there, in these institutions, for the public good —not so much for their own good as for the public good. They may be persons who are physically or mentally ill and that is why there is this approach. In any case, in one way or another, this section has been in our factory legislation since 1907—for the past 48 years—and it has not caused any of the problems which have been conjured up in the course of this discussion.
The Minister has again said that they may be mentally ill. They should not be in a reformatory, if they are.
Of course not, but they can be in a charitable institution.
This paragraph refers only to reformatories, and by this paragraph an inmate of a reformatory is prevented from giving evidence to an inspector in private.
If the view was that the manager stood in the place of the parent in such an institution, there might be an argument for it, but is that the view of the Minister? In all probability, these people would be juniors—they would not be adults— and in the same way I do not think that any inspector would have the right to examine any child, except with the permission of the parent. In this case, I think the manager would be in the place of the parent—he would be placed in the parents' place by the court—and if that is the argument, there might be merit in it.
I do not know why there should be any fear that an inspector would commit any wrongful act by interviewing an inmate.
He cannot, without the permission of the manager.
I think that is right in this particular kind of case. Let us take the case of a home for females who are miscreants of one kind or another. Is the inspector to knock at the door of the institution and to say: "I want to see Mary Murphy", that Mary Murphy being in the institution for a variety of reasons, all odd in themselves and not calling for public approbation, and, having found Mary Murphy, to say to her: "I want to talk to you about some things which happened in this factory"? Is there anything wrong in a case like that in the manager or manageress of a female institution of that kind sitting down while Mary Murphy is being asked questions by the inspector? What are we going to make out of Mary Murphy? She is not an ordinary factory operative.
But she is entitled to the same protection.
And she is getting all the protection in the world under the Bill. I have asked twice to be shown the limitations. One of the limitations is that the manager or manageress should be there—neither need be there, if they do not wish—when the inspector puts his questions and in an endeavour to remedy that we are creating a situation in which an inspector can stalk into a female reformatory and interview anybody he likes. This has stood the test of 48 years of sympathetic and understanding administration and why it should be approached in this way now as if inspectors of the Department were fiends whose activities must be curbed, I do not know.
I think it should be obvious to nearly everybody present that my objection was not to something dreadful which the inspector would do, but to the very simple situation in which an inmate of a reformatory would be afraid to tell the truth to the inspector in the presence of the manager or the manageress whom he or she might regard, even wrongly, as being responsible for the conditions about which he was giving evidence. There is nothing to prevent the inspector from bringing in somebody else to accompany him, but the fear would arise from the presence of the manager who might, perhaps quite wrongly, be considered by the inmate as being responsible for those very conditions about which the inmate is being questioned by the inspector. I do not think anybody will remember my suggesting that an inspector is likely to do something wrong. I am simply stating that a boy or girl will not speak freely if he or she can speak to the inspector only in the presence of the manager.
Has the Senator adverted to the last portion of subparagraph (b)?
Yes, I mentioned it.
It sets out:—
"... but the Minister on being satisfied that there is reason to believe that a contravention of any provisions of this Act or any regulation or Order made thereunder is taking place in any such institution may suspend the operation of this paragraph as respects that institution to such extent as he may consider necessary."
In point of fact, I mentioned that, and said that the Minister had the right to waive the whole clause, but I put the question: how is the Minister to decide that it would be a good thing on the whole, in a particular case, if a particular inmate was heard by the inspector not in the presence of the manager?
Perhaps we might proceed with the rest of the Bill as we have already exceeded the time allotted for these particular amendments. The amendments will be put down again for Report Stage.
Sections 84 to 128, inclusive, First, Second and Third Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th May.
Business suspended at 6.25 p.m. until 7.30 p.m.