Regarding the amendments to the Factories Bill, the only ones calling for comment from the Chair are Nos. 1 and 20 offered by the Minister. These amendments introduce substantial new matter and in accordance with procedure it is necessary to recommit in respect of them. Senators will also remember that with a view to speeding the Committee Stage of the Bill within a specified time there was an understanding at that stage that amendments not disposed of would be retabled and the Bill recommitted to consider them. The amendments involved are No. 9 onwards and I take it that the necessary motion will be made for recommittal when they are reached.
Factories Bill, 1954—Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:——
In page 6, Section 1, to add the following sub-section:—
(4) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) of this section, Section 127 of this Act shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.
By way of preface I have to say that the issuing of a number of the amendments which have been introduced here as Government amendments represents the decision by me to meet, as far as practicable, some suggestions which were made by the Seanad during the Committee Stage of this Bill. Amendment No. 1, however, is not one of these amendments. I am asking the Seanad to agree to amendment No. I. because I think there are distinct advantages in amending the Bill in the manner contemplated. Under Section 127, an advisory committee would be set up and the structure of the advisory committee is set out in this section, but the advisory committee cannot be set up as the Bill now stands until the Bill itself comes into operation and, before the Bill can come into operation, persons who will be affected by the Bill must get a reasonable period within which to familiarise themselves with the provisions of the Bill. Apart from that, it will be necessary, before you can make the Bill operative in substantial measure, to promulgate a whole variety of regulations.
Normally, if this Bill is passed without the amendment which I am now offering to the House, it would mean that the Department of Industry and Commerce would proceed at once to compile the large number of regulations which would be necessary to give effect to the Bill. Then they would fix the operative date and the regulations would apply. In that way, the advisory committee not being in operation, it would not have an opportunity of seeing these regulations and of course could not be expected to deal in a matter of a week or two with the very many regulations it will be necessary to promulgate.
I am asking the House to do something which I think will commend itself to the House. I could arrange that all these regulations would be made and issued departmentally, without the advisory committee getting an opportunity of beaming its collective wisdom on them. I prefer to have the services of the committee, so that both sides will have an opportunity of examining the regulations and of giving their views on them. In other words, I am asking for power to appoint the advisory committee first, so that I can avail of its collective wisdom and so that they can make suggestions as to how best the regulations could be drawn up. That would be advantageous both to the Department and to factory owners, as well as to workers affected. I commend the amendment to the House in that spirit.
I understand that the Minister requests the House to agree to give effect at an earlier date to the section which provides for the setting up of the advisory council, so that he can have the wisdom of this committee at his disposal in drafting the various regulations. We on this side would be entirely in agreement with that, but there is a doubt in my mind as to whether the implementing of this new section would mean that the Act itself would come into force on that day, without giving those to whom it applies an opportunity of considering the Act and making preparation to put its terms into effect. If that were so, we would be doubtful about accepting this amendment. If it is only to avail of the advice and knowledge mentioned, we would be in entire agreement with it. The new sub-section says that "notwithstanding anything ... the section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act." The amendments made here will have to go to the other House and the Act will come into operation on receiving the signature of the President.
No, no. The Act shall come into force on such day as the Minister appoints by Order. That will be in projection some time in the future—six, nine or 12 months. In the meantime I would get the services of the advisory committee. That would be advantageous to factory owners and workers. It is dispossessing myself of facilities which in other circumstances one might find it difficult to induce Ministers to dispossess themselves of.
I would be entirely in agreement with the Minister, provided that, in so far as the owner or person in charge of a factory is concerned, the sections will not apply without their having due notice.
Only Section 127 will come into operation earlier.
I would like the Minister to bear in mind the importance of having on this committee persons other than those resident in the Dublin area or connected with Dublin factories. He should also appoint persons from rural areas, so as to have their advice in drafting the regulations. After all, this committee now will become more important than it was before the Minister introduced this sub-section. Now he is going to appoint this committee to enable him to have their views on the various regulations. Therefore it is important that it should be composed of persons with widespread knowledge of activities in various industries, not only here in Dublin but also in rural Ireland.
May I suggest that if this amendment is accepted, sub-section (5) might require amendment? It empowers the Minister to make the appointment after the commencement of the Act.
I have a subsequent amendment covering that.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 15, line 50, to add "and have not been insured in or about any unsuccessful legal proceedings" after "person".
This arises out of a proposal made by Senator Cox on the Committee Stage. I undertook to look into the matter raised by him. I have done so and I am satisfied to have the words set out in the amendment added and the amendment is tabled accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
In the absence of Senator Douglas, I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 36, Section 52, to delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(5) Except where the water is delivered in an upward jet from which the employed persons can conveniently drink facilities shall be provided at each point of supply for the cleansing in drinking water of cups or other drinking vessels.
I think Senator Murphy would like to discuss amendment No. 4 in conjunction with amendment No. 3.
I think that Nos. 3 and 4 go together. They are both connected with the supply of drinking water. My amendment differs from No. 3 in that No. 3 omits the provision of drinking cups or drinking vessels. The purpose of my amendment is to provide that wherever possible the drinking water should be delivered in a upward jet. I think that is very important and you will find that in recent years in many factories it has been the practice to supply the drinking water from upward jets which are the most hygienic source of drinking water supply. We find, however, that that is not possible in certain instances. I believe that if there is not sufficient pressure in the water supply, you cannot get the upward jet to operate.
It is where that cannot be done that I am trying to provide that there should be drinking utensils in use which would not be the cause of spreading disease. You will know that there are certain diseases communicable by drinking vessels, which are very dangerous and serious and no amount of washing or rinsing of the cup or utensil will provide against the spread of that disease. It would be a very serious matter in factories with a large number of employees, where workers might be drinking out of the same cup, if a large number were infected with the disease by one particular person drinking out of the cup, in spite of any washing or rinsing that cup might have got.
It is because of that risk that I have put down the amendment which provides that there should be a supply of paper cups. I can imagine that the reaction of some Senators would be the cost of these cups but from my inquiries I find that they are procurable for a very small fraction of a penny and I do not think that, in instances where the upright jet is not practicable, there could be any serious objection to the supply of paper cups which can be used and disposed of immediately.
I think that the owners of factories would look upon this proposal as a long term saving because it would be a saving to the extent that it would prevent the spread of disease and loss through sickness. I think that if Senators would look upon these two points—the supply of drinking water through upright jets and where that is not practicable the supply of paper drinking cups—they would consider that they are good points and that there would be support from all sides of the House for this amendment. I believe that the owners and proprietors of factories would welcome such an amendment. Those of them who have the welfare of their employees at heart already provide those upward jets for drinking water and they would welcome the extension of such a provision to all other factories and factory owners and proprietors.
There is a double-barrelled approach to this section by Senator Douglas and by Senator Murphy. The effect of Senator Douglas's amendment would be to remove from the occupier of the factory the duty of providing suitable cups or drinking vessels. Senator Douglas believes that it may be unhygienic for the occupier to provide the cups and he thinks that the workers should provide the cups themselves. I doubt if the workers would do that, but if the occupier does provide a cup there is nothing to prevent the worker from providing one of his own. If the worker supplies a cup, then he will not be expected to bring it to the factory with him in his pocket every day and it will have to be deposited in his locker. If he wants a drink of water from his own cup, he will have to go to his own locker, get his own cup, dust it, and bring it to the water, fill it with the water and have his drink. When he has drunk, he will have to rinse his cup, dry it, go back to his locker and put it back there.
I can imagine that being a rather leisurely action as we all know the pattern of human life and human frailty. I was much astonished when I saw an amendment of this kind fathered by Senator Douglas. The Bill is more realistic. It says that if you can provide jet water do it as it is the best thing to do but if it cannot be done, the occupier of the factory should provide suitable drinking utensils and some means of washing them. I think I should protect Senator Douglas from the consequences of his own amendment.
Senator Murphy approaches the matter from a different angle and seeks to establish the ideal situation. He says that if water is available, it should be wherever practicable delivered in an upward jet from which the employed persons can conveniently drink, but he believes that, where that is not possible, it is an unhygienic practice to have a communal glass or cup used and seeks to have a drinking vessel provided which would be used only once and then discarded. We would all like to see a situation of that kind in operation, but I do not think at this stage that we can have such a provision written into our legislation and say that it must be the practice.
I would prefer a more realistic approach to the matter and a slower method of dealing with this question of water and I would suggest that the matter await the making of the welfare regulations contemplated under Section 57 of the Bill. I think that both Senator Douglas and Senator Murphy might approach the problem by making regulations as we find the situation and then fitting the situation into the regulations in the hope that we will ultimately reach the position visualised in the amendments they have submitted.
Acting-Chairman
Are the amendments being pressed?
I will accept the Minister's undertaking that he will bear in mind what I have said when he comes to making the regulations. I think that is important and I accept the undertaking.
Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In page 42, line 3, to delete "not exceeding five years," and substitute "being, in the case of a basement bakehouse other than a basement bakehouse at least one side of which is not below ground level, a period not exceeding five years),".
Senator McGuire has tabled an amendment adding a new section to this section, providing that a certificate of exemption may be issued for a period in excess of five years if at least one side of a basement bakehouse is not below ground level. This matter was discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill and therefore I need not traverse the same ground again. I am prepared to accept the general idea behind Senator McGuire's amendment and accordingly I have tabled amendment No. 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:—
In page 45, line 5, to insert after on matters affecting the safety health and welfare of the person employed" (inserted in Committee) the following:—
"(being representations made on the request of the safety committee)".
In the discussion in Committee on paragraph (f) the fear was expressed that a safety delegate might go outside his terms of reference in his discussions with the inspector. I agreed then that the paragraph should be amended to relate his representations to the inspector to such matters as had been discussed by the safety committee on which presumably there had not been satisfaction obtained from the occupier of the factory. The amendment which I have tabled provides that the representations which the safety delegate will make to the inspector shall be such representations as he is requested to make by his safety committee. That will not give him the right to make representations on any matter which may momentarily come into his head when speaking to the inspector in the factory.
I appreciate the Minister's approach to this, but there is still a difficulty I fear. The safety delegate has certain functions, and the Minister now proposes to provide that the only matters which he can bring before the inspector are matters and representations made on the request of the safety committee. How can the inspector know that the suggestions put before him by the safety delegate have already been discussed and are the unanimous decision of the safety committee and that they are not instead the whims of the safety delegate himself?
I would point out to the Senator that the sub-section will now read:—
"The inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate at the request of the safety committee, and for this purpose he may inspect any records of the proceedings of the safety committee."
Therefore, he sees the minutes of the safety committee and knows whether the safety delegate is acting within his authority.
But under the section there is no obligation on the inspector to inspect those minutes.
The position is that I am making this addition to the sub-section at the request of the House, namely, that the representations which the safety delegate would make would be at the request of the safety committee. It was pointed out in committee that the safety delegate might go off the rail and give the inspector his own broad views on how factories should be run. Therefore, it has been decided to tie the safety delegate to his committee more definitely so that he will be the organ of the committee rather than the dispenser of his own views on life's problems. This addition is being made to the sub-section to make it clear that these are the representations which the inspector has to consider, that is, representations made by the safety delegate at the request of the safety committee. The inspector will be entitled—that is already in the Bill—to inspect the records of the proceedings of the safety committee. Therefore, he will have access to the records. These will show the nature of the discussions which took place on the matter and probably the decision arrived at.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In page 47, to delete "counsel, solicitor or agent" in line 14, and substitute "counsel or solicitor" and to insert "or friend" in line 17 before "of the person".
In Committee, Senator Cox moved an amendment to delete certain words in line 14 of paragraph (e) in Section 77. I undertook to agree to that provided I could insert the words "or friend". The amendment which I have tabled gives effect to the undertaking which I then gave to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of taking the remaining amendments.
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 53, Section 84, sub-section (1), line 35, to delete ",subject as hereinafter in this section provided,".
I should like to say at the outset that I was very pleased when I read the list of Government amendments to find that the Minister had put down an amendment which meets a number of the points that I was aiming at in my amendments which we discussed on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 9 is simply consequential on the complete removal of sub-sections (2) and (3). The suggested removal of these two sub-sections is dealt with in amendments Nos. 11 and 14 standing in my name. The Minister's amendment, No. 10, also aims at deleting sub-section (2) in its entirety. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 in my name were designed as a sort of compromise effort in the event of the whole of sub-section (2) not being deleted. I should like to say that the Minister's amendment No. 10, which is removing entirely sub-section (2) and about which we had a lot of discussion in Committee, seems to me to be an eminently wise amendment.
I stated my reasons on the last occasion and I do not think it is necessary to cover that ground again. I would like to think that this is a demonstration that the Minister is open to persuasion by this House and the other House, and that the fact that he is so open has been demonstrated by him on this occasion by other amendments as well as this. It is a demonstation which we welcome, that Ministers are prepared to listen to the views expressed here, take them into account, ponder them and where they are so convinced to propose amendments themselves along the lines suggested. Therefore I think it excellent that the Minister is prepared to drop what seemed to me most unwise exceptions to the application of the provisions of this Act, exceptions set forth in sub-section (2). I think it possible that he may have been influenced to some extent by feeling that by maintaining sub-section (3) many of the difficulties which he saw-unreal difficulties I think myself—and which he was trying to cope with in sub-section (2), could be dealt with under the provisions of sub-section (3); in other words, he may have concluded that sub-section (3) dealt sufficiently widely with the situation—that it could give him sufficient discretionary power.
That leads me, therefore, to consider once more sub-section (3). The Minister has proposed to drop altogether sub-section (2), but he has not, yet at any rate, agreed to drop sub-section (3), which says that 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. My amendment No. 14 seeks to delete altogether this sub-section. Before stating as briefly as I can my reasons for asking that it be deleted, I would like the Minister, if he speaks on this, to give us some idea of just what factories, or rather premises, which do not constitute factories but would be considered factories for the purposes of this section, are or would be covered by sub-section (3)—what type of factory would and what type of factory would not be covered by it; in other words, what general type of factories are at present under the authority of a Minister of State. One can think of examples. One can think of factories in industrial schools, for instance, and perhaps workshops in jails. There may be other examples, and I would like to be clear in my mind, and the Seanad would be grateful, I think, if the Minister would make it quite clear just what general categories of factory would be exempted from the provisions of the Factories Act by this sub-section, and what types and general categories would not be so exempted.
I realise of course that all of this refers to premises which but for this Section 84 do not constitute a factory, but we have decided in the opening portion of this Section 84 to include nevertheless certain premises which, though they are strictly and technically not factories, ought to be safeguarded, or their workers safeguarded, by the provisions of this Bill. That is a preliminary question I would like cleared up—just what kind of such factories are under the authority of a Minister of State and what kind are not?
A second preliminary question is: what kind of factories of this type has the Minister in mind as being "subject to inspection by any Minister of State"? I would submit to the House that that phrase is a dangerously wide one—any factory which is subject to inspection by any Minister of State. You could imagine a factory being inspected for half a dozen different kinds of reasons, not all of them connected even remotely with the preoccupations underlying the provisions of this Bill. If the factory, by reason of the fact that it is being inspected for some other reason, is to be excluded from the other provisions of this Bill, that would be dangerous and unwise.
The point was made on the Second Stage of this Bill that the good employer would welcome the Bill for the reason that the good manufacturer or employer would already, in a large percentage of cases, have in his factory conditions conforming to the general rules, regulations and safeguards being laid down by this Bill—that the good employer would already have seen to it that his factory was being run on lines such as are prescribed now by this Bill, and that therefore he would welcome an Act which would give statutory authority to the conditions in his factory and, furthermore, place an obligation perhaps on some of his rivals, who were, shall we say, a shade less good employers, to bring their standards up to his and to expend as much money as necessary, where the occasion arose, upon provisions for safeguards for the benefit of their workers, too. The point was well made that the good employer would welcome the Act, would be proud to have his factory come in under it.
In those circumstances it seems to me surprising, and perhaps even regrettable, that there should be any suggestion that a factory under the authority of a Minister of State should not already in large measure have implemented all the provisions and guaranteed all the safeguards which are laid down in this Factories Bill. Of course, some of those safeguards may be new ideas which they might not have implemented so far; but I should like to be able to imagine every Minister of State who has such a factory under his authority rejoicing to be brought in under the provisions of this Bill, in order that he might set a good example to private enterprise by the co-operative and expeditious way in which the factory under his authority would apply the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, I find it disconcerting that there should be a sub-section in relation to these factories which do not technically constitute factories, but which, if they are run by private enterprise or by private organisations or institutions, will nevertheless be deemed to be factories, that there should be a sub-section, I say, aimed at providing that if they come under the authority of a Minister of State they will be excluded. I find that disturbing. I do not think it is justified, and that is my main reason for asking for the abolition of this sub-section.
There is just one other point I should like to make in relation to it, and that is that it vests in the Minister the power to make exceptions even to this sub-section. The sub-section says that this Act "shall not... apply" and so on, except in so far as the Minister may by Order direct, so that the Minister himself reserves the right to insist, in spite of everything in this sub-section, that the provisions of the Act shall apply nevertheless to some unspecified factories of this kind. I think we are all agreed, and the Minister probably also, that the less legislation by decree, by ministerial Order or by statutory instrument we have, the better, and the bigger the proportion of legislative power that we can retain in the hands of the Oireachtas the better. Therefore, on that general principle also, I would object to this sub-section, which seems to me to give to the Minister enormous discretionary power in picking and choosing, as between those factories which are either subject to inspection by any Minister, or under the authority of any Minister, and in deciding which of these shall be subject to the Act and which shall not.
I should like, in conclusion, to put this suggestion to the Minister which I would hope he might consider: If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, as apparently so far he is not, and to remove altogether this sub-section, which seems to me to be the best solution, would he be prepared to have it framed, as it were, in reverse, and to say, by the removal of the word "not", that "this Act shall apply to any premises... except in so far as the Minister may by Order direct"? The purpose of that would be that the Act would apply automatically to all these factories, except where the Minister saw that a case could be made for making an exception, and then he could make his Order and direct that such and such a factory be excepted under this sub-section.
The value of that would be that when the Minister made such a Statutory Order under the powers given to him by this Act, it would have to be laid on the Table of the House, and the Oireachtas would have the right to put down a motion with regard to it, if it was thought to be unsatisfactory, and the Minister would be under the necessity of coming to the House and explaining what considerations were in his mind when he decided to make an exception of a certain factory under this sub-section. I hope that will appeal as strongly to other members of the Seanad as it does to me—the advantage of placing on the Minister the onus of justifying any exceptions upon which he decides, rather than saying that all of these factories shall be exceptions, unless the Minister decides that some shall not.
There was a long discussion on this section on the Committee Stage in this House and—I hope he will not mind my saying so— I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington saw all kinds of difficulties and sinister purposes in the section which, in fact, are not there at all. Let me say at the outset that these sub-sections which I am proposing to delete have been in the Factories Acts since 1907," a period of 48 years. During those 48 years, these sub-sections have given no trouble whatever, and I am quite satisfied that, if they were left there for another 48 years, they would give no more trouble, so long as they are interpreted by reasonable inspectors, on the one hand, and a reasonable management, on the other. It is because there has been a well-beaten track of approach to these particularly difficult problems of how to deal with people in institutions, all of whom are not there because of their saintly proclivities, that I have decided to delete these sub-sections and to allow the full impact of the Act to operate, believing that the inspectors concerned will understand that, when going into an institution of this kind, they are not going into a high-powered factory in the country, and that they will approach the problem in the climate of the institution in the same way as they would approach the problem in a busy high-powered factory—from the standpoint of what, from experience, they know happens in these factories. I, therefore, decided to delete subsection (2) which carries with it the deletion of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and the section itself would then stand with sub-sections (1) and (3) in it.
Really, the modification of the impact of the main Act on these institutions is very small and, on the whole, relatively insignificant. Sub-section (2) can only begin to apply if the Minister, by Order, directs that it shall apply. If the Minister does not make such an Order for a particular institution, sub-section (2) would give them no relief whatever. In other words, the Minister has to make an Order before these modifications apply. Furthermore, an Order can be made only in relation to an institution where the only persons working——
I am afraid the Minister is referring to the provisions of the sub-section, the deletion of which he is moving.
I am speaking at this stage on the Senator's amendment. I have not moved my own yet, but I do not mind regarding what I am now saying as covering my own amendment. Am I not entitled to speak on the Senator's amendment?
Acting-Chairman
I was about to suggest, for the convenience of the House, that we might have a discussion on all these amendments together —amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14—because they seem to follow one another.
That is quite suitable to me. I was endeavouring to explain to the House and to the Senator the effect of my amendment to Section 84. The position is that certain conditions have to be satisfied before the relaxations take place and the relaxations then are two-fold: first, the medical officer of the institution may be appointed to be the certifying doctor —it does not say he will be and it does not say that the Minister proposes to appoint him; it says he may be, and there is no obligation whatever on the Minister to make that appointment— it is one of the two relaxations from the full impact of this Act—and secondly, in such institutions as are carried on for reformatory purposes, inmates may not be questioned by an inspector, save in the presence of a manager of the institution, if the manager of the institution has given notice to the Minister; but the Minister may, if he wishes, despite the desire of the manager, override this provision and allow an inspector to examine the inmates alone. In other words, the Act applies in full, except that in certain circumstances the Minister may make an Order. If he does, the only modifications that take place are that the doctor to the institution may be appointed as the certifying doctor and or the inspector may interview an inmate, if the Minister so desires, in the presence of the manager of the institution.
These are the only modifications from the full impact of the Act and then they are only made if the Minister makes an Order operating these two sub-sections for the purpose of modifying the main provisions of the Act. I think these are relatively trivial. I know, if I were an inspector and wanted to go into a certain place, I would ask for the manager and say: "I want to see So-and-so." I might prefer to have the manager there when putting questions. I might prefer, because of the sex of the person, to have the manager or matron present. I am quite certain that this has been the practice down through the years, during which inspectors have been discharging their duties in a manner which gave the utmost satisfaction.
There is one case in which I am not prepared to accept the amendment, and that is the case of sub-section (2). which Senator Sheehy Skeffington desires to delete. I think he might be reasonably satisfied that the main ghost has been in sub-section (2), and he might, on reconsideration, recognise that there is protection for people who might be adversely affected by the non-application of the Act to the persons contemplated under sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) applies to institutions, such as reformatories and industrial schools, which are subject to fairly close degrees of inspection by different Government Departments, both as regards the health and general welfare of the inmates. In this case, I think there is good reason that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not normally interfere in that degree of control and protection, unless he has good grounds for believing that his intervention is absolutely necessary in the interests of the inmates.
If there is anything wrong in these institutions, there is an easy way of getting at the problem. The Minister for Justice is amenable in Parliament for the administration of Borstals. For the industrial schools or reformatories, the Minister for Education functions under the appropriate legislation, and can be made amenable in the House. If there is any deficiency, from an inspectorial point of view, in the administration of Borstals, industrial schools or reformatories, the appropriate Minister can, as I said, be made amenable for whatever shortcomings are there. I think it is not right that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should come in to legislate for the problems of these particular institutions, unless he is satisfied that there is justification for such intervention by him.
Under sub-section (3), it is provided that, should the Minister for Industry and Commerce believe it is desirable or necessary to inspect these places, power is given in that sub-section for the Minister to make an Order which would put these premises in the position that they would be subject to the full protection of this Bill. In other words, if any information reaches the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the administration or supervision of an institution by other Ministers is not such as to give a reasonable degree of satisfaction, then under sub-section (3), the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, by Order, direct that these institutions will be brought within the scope of this Bill. I think this meets the situation reasonably. In other words, the responsibility for supervision is being placed properly on the shoulders of the Ministers responsible, but, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that these institutions which are controlled by other Government Departments are not being administered or supervised satisfactorily, then the Minister for Industry and Commerce moves in, and, by means of an Order, can apply the provisions to these institutions.
I think, if he stands back and looks at it objectively, with a view to seeing what is a reasonable approach to meeting these cases, Senator Sheehy Skeffington will, on reflection, admit that the weight of wisdom lies with the Ministers, whoever they may be, in accordance with the legislation which they must administer. If they fail to do that, and a situation exists in any of these institutions which makes it necessary for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to move in, then he has all the power he wants to exercise in sub-section (3). Therefore, I think that this sub-section should be left in.
Acting-Chairman
For convenience, the debate on the interrelated groups of amendments from Nos. 9 to 14 is being taken on No. 9, and if decisions are needed, they can be taken on No. 10, which is a Government amendment and on No. 14, which is a Senator's amendment.
I listened with great attention to the Minister's view. I think, perhaps, he is under a misapprehension about certain points. I do not think I said, or implied, that there was any sinister design in the Bill, as it was put before us, asking for certain exceptions to the provisions of the Act. But I could not agree with the Minister that the exceptions he mentions are trivial. It is true that there are only two of them, and it is also true that he has agreed to drop them. I did not, in fact, in opening, refer again to the points at issue under sub-section (2), because I felt we had dealt with them on the Committee Stage and because the Minister now proposed dropping the sub-section.
The Minister made a point again that the only modifications sub-section (2) allowed were in relation to the certifying doctor, and in relation to the examination of an inmate as a witness to an accident, or something of that kind, by a departmental inspector. Now, these do not seem to me to be trivial exceptions. The certifying doctor has certain duties under this Bill in other connections. For instance, under Section 79, it is stated:—
"(1) It shall be the duty of the certifying doctor to investigate and report——
(a) upon cases of death or injury caused by exposure in a factory to fumes or other noxious substances, or due to any other special cause specified in instructions of the Minister as requiring investigation...."
That certifying doctor must view the factory, under these conditions, entirely objectively. If, in one capacity he is a doctor of the institution, and is responsible for certain conditions, and is, in fact, employed by that institution, and if, in another capacity, he is to certify and inquire and go into the question of special causes of accident or injury and so on, I suggest that he himself would find it awkward to have to pass judgment on the results of causes for which he, in another capacity, may have been partially responsible. That is why I do not regard that exception as being trivial.
The Minister dealt with another point—he phrased it here to-day rather differently—when he said that the other exception allowed the inspector, if he liked, to interrogate an inmate only in the presence of the manager. That is not quite the way in which the exception is phrased. It says that "if the managers of the institution give notice to the Minister to that effect an inspector shall not, without the consent of the managers...examine an inmate of the institution save in the presence of one of the managers".
It is true that at the end of the section the Minister is given power to waive this provision. It is not, however, just a question of the inspector deciding that he might like to examine an inmate only in the presence of the managers. The sub-section says that he "shall not" examine the inmate except in the presence of the managers —unless the Minister himself intervenes. Therefore, I do not think these are trivial exceptions and I am very glad the Minister has decided himself to propose the deletion of this sub-section (2).
I might advert also to the fact that the Minister has said that these exceptions had been enshrined in legislation in this country since 1907. There were a lot of things happening in this country in 1907 which it became necessary to change in all kinds of ways. I am not one who believes because a thing was good enough here in 1907 and has gone on for 48 years, that for that reason alone it must be a good thing. Many things that were in existence then and are still in existence were excellent and still are, but I do not think it is a good defence, when we are deciding to codify and rejuvenate our legislation, to say something has been going on for 48 years and may go on for another 48.
It is a fair indication, at the same time, that it will not cause a revolution next week, if it has been there for 48 years.
That is quite true, but I do not think I am suggesting that a revolution would be caused in relation to the interrogation of an inmate in a reformatory about how an accident took place. It seems, nevertheless, to be quite wrong to insist that he can only be interrogated in the presence of people whom he might regard—quite wrongly perhaps— as responsible for the accident. It is most unlikely that a boy or girl in such circumstances would be inclined to give frank evidence to the Department inspector. Even though that point is not likely to make a revolution, I think it would be a mistake for the Minister to amend legislation only when the point has been reached when he feels there will be a revolution if he does not do so. It is part of the social-democratic philosophy to which he and I both subscribe. I believe that it is better to reform, to change and to remove abuses before the revolution comes wherever that is possible. I do not think I am misinterpreting the Minister in saying that.
The Minister made the point that we are dealing with people in institutions, with people in industrial schools. He even went so far as to suggest that many of these people are there not because of their great virtue—which was a slightly negative way of saying they had been sent there because of some misdemeanour. He knows, of course, that in industrial schools that is, in most cases, not so—that many people are inmates through no fault of their own, but through family circumstances or poverty. He said, furthermore, that an inspector had to use common sense in going into such factories, as they were not the same as "high-power factories".
I have every confidence in the common sense of the inspector, but I say that the provisions of the Act in regard to safety and welfare ought to apply in general terms to factories even though they be under the control of Ministers. Therefore, I am being obstinate about sub-section (3). I feel that to remove entirely such factories in industrial schools and so on from the jurisdiction of this Act would be a mistake. Even though they be not "high-power factories", we are just as concerned about the safety of the workers involved, even though they be inmates and even though they be committed for some misdemeanour.
The Minister has made the case that he is quite happy about these factories at present because he has every confidence that the fellow-members of his Cabinet, in so far as they are looking after such factories, are doing a good job and he does not think he should intervene. I do not think intervention would be necessary in any major way, but just as a second check, if conditions are all right. I can see the Minister making a major intervention only if it should turn out that the conditions in such factories in industrial schools or gaols were not as good as the Minister now believes them to be under the guiding authority of some of his fellow Ministers. He talked about the Minister for Education being responsible for the Borstals. That is quite true, but it is hardly fair to place on that Minister all the onus of being quite satisfied, in relation to Borstals, not only as to educational standards and methods of teaching and training, but also about safety and protective mechanisms on machinery, about slippery floors, fire-escape possibilities and so on. I feel that the Minister for Education would be very glad of the co-operation of the Department of Industry and Commerce in helping him to put things right if they are wrong, or of getting a pat on the back if the conditions are already as laid down under this Bill.
There is a final point I should like to deal with, though the Minister did not advert to it. If the Seanad decides not to pass my amendment No. 14, which moves the deletion of sub-section (3), I would ask him to consider whether, if it is to stand it might not be better framed with the removal of the word "not". As at present framed, what it amounts to is that we as a legislative Assembly decide that under this sub-section this type of factory—that is, all factories under the authority of a Minister of State or inspected by his authority—shall be outside all the provisions of the Act, and the Act shall not apply at all. This is not just a question of saying that certain provisions shall not apply but of saying that to all such places none of the provisions shall apply. We are giving the Minister power to make exceptions, it is true, and to say that, despite the provisions of this sub-section, he decrees that certain such factories shall be included. All the power that would remain in the hands of the Oireachtas, in that case, would be to say to the Minister: "We do not think you should have made this particular exception."
If you reverse it and say that this Act shall apply to all the premises, except in so far as the Minister may by Order direct, then where the Minister thinks it fitting that a certain factory should be excluded, the Oireachtas will have the right to say: "We do not think that that factory should be excluded; we think that the protection of the Act, which we gave in legislation to that type of factory and that type of worker, should be maintained." If the Minister can justify his decision about making such an exception, he would come before us, put his case, and the Oireachtas would then have the power not simply of deciding that the exception was a bad one but of maintaining the provisions of the Act in relation to those factories, if the Oireachtas saw fit. As the Bill is framed at present, the Oireachtas could only give its opinion arising out of a ministerial Order in relation to exceptions which were being brought within the ambit of the Act and not in relation to exceptions which were already outside it. Therefore, I would appeal to him to consider putting this sub-section in a different way and seeing to it that the Act shall apply except in so far as the Minister may by Order direct.
I must confess that I am rather uneasy in regard to sub-section (3) of the section and the statement of the Minister does not altogether reassure me. There are two points. First of all, if the premises are subject to inspection by any Minister of State the provisions of this Bill do not apply to those premises, unless by Order of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It does not seem to me that there should be any objection or difficulty in applying the provisions of this Bill to such premises. I cannot see any objection or why it cannot be done.
The second point on which I am uneasy is why premises under the authority of any Minister of State should not have the provisions of this Bill applied to them. What exactly would be the premises under the authority of a Minister of State? The Post Office?
No. A reformatory. Look at Section 1, which refers to a reformatory or a Borstal school or an industrial school. There is another section which clearly declares that these are not factories at all.
Then could not sub-section (3) stand on its own?
Of course it could not. Every factory in the country comes within the scope of this Bill, including Post Office factories and Army factories, but in this section we are dealing with reformatories, Borstals and industrial schools.
The second point I was going to make does not, therefore, arise. I will take the Minister's word for it. My first point with regard to inspection still stands and I hope that the Minister will look again at this matter and, if he cannot see his way to delete sub-section (3) altogether, that he will turn it around as suggested by Senator Sheehy Skeffington so as not to have it in a negative form and have any Order made to exempt these premises come before the Oireachtas.
May I make this point so that no one else may make the same mistake as Senator Murphy who was apparently misled by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. These are not factories. Every factory is covered by the Bill. These are institutions and institutions are reformatories, Borstals and industrial schools which are under the control of separate Ministries who inspect them. I am saying in this section that, while in the past they never came within the scope of the Factories Bill and no Minister for Industry and Commerce ever had the power to intervene before, I am now taking the power for the first time in this section to say that if it is shown to my satisfaction that all the supervisory functions are not being discharged, I shall send an inspector to visit these places.
Who will tell the Minister?
Whom does the Senator think? I get complaints every day from mothers and fathers to the effect that the factory laws are not being carried out in such and such a factory. These people are put into these institutions very often with the consent of their parents and the parents go on visiting them. In Ireland, it is never difficult to get a complaint. These are not factories. Every factory is covered in the Bill. Now, for the first time, I am leaving it open to any aggrieved person to say that conditions in such and such an institution are not satisfactory and in that case, even though they are not factories and have never been described as factories, and have never been within the scope of a Factories Act, I am taking power to apply in full the provisions of the Factories Act.
We could talk on until next week on this question but I think we have got to settle it in the ordinary democratic way. I have gone further than any Factory Bill has ever gone before by taking the power given to me in Section 3 of dealing with these people. Previously, they were all outside the scope of the factories legislation but now they can be brought in if anything is wrong. Not infrequently the Department of Industry and Commerce is asked, in connection with places like this, to come and have a look at them. That co-operation has gone on in the past and it will continue and our inspectors after visiting such a place can say that they do not think that the proper safeguards are being taken and that the provisions of the Act should be brought to bear.
I think I have met Senator Sheehy Skeffington's point of view fairly reasonably but I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to delete sub-section (3).
What about dropping the word "not"?
If I dropped the word "not" in 48 hours they would be all out from under the scope of the Bill.
There are two points I wish to put to the Minister. Does sub-section (3) apply to jails?
No. They are not in the Bill at all.
These premises that are not factories—are they likely to have dangerous machinery? Is there such machinery in such premises?
The Senator has surely seen the inside of an industrial school. Very largely, they are devoted to teaching small crafts involving handwork.
There are lathes sometimes used which might be dangerous to the inmates.
Has anybody ever seen such lathes uncovered? I have never seen an uncovered lathe in any of these places.
The average factory worker, if he meets with an accident, gets compensation. There are also statutory duties which are incumbent on the owner of a factory to observe. Would the retention of sub-section (3) not release these institutions from the observance of statutory duties?
I am sure that if an inspector under the Minister for Education or the Minister for Justice went into one of these institutions which were getting grants from the State and saw that these people were being exposed to the risks referred to, they would issue a direction. If their information were to reach us, we would take steps to deal with the matter. The Department concerned could ask the Department of Industry and Commerce to request their factory inspector to look at such machines or at such operations as have been mentioned. Advice would be given as to what should be done. That is done at present and can continue to be done.
One of the reasons I am not in favour of sub-section (3) is because Burke's aphorism "refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion" could be applied here. A recent case which we read in newspapers would seem to show that there is sometimes a conflict between the regulations governing industrial schools and the Constitution itself. In that recent case, the superior of the institution and the district justice agreed that there was a conflict between the regulations governing the retention of these inmates or their release and the protection which is given in respect of the ordinary constitutional rights of the citizen. I think it would be simpler, both for the inmates and for these who have to decide the law, if no exceptions were made or if the Minister were to accept Senator Sheehy Skeffington's suggestion by deleting the word "not" from sub-section (3). The latter would seem to be a far easier way of dealing with the matter.
I have great sympathy with the views put forward by the Senators who have spoken on behalf of people who are inmates of various institutions, and with their desire to secure for them the same safeguards as those which are being proposed for people engaged in ordinary industry. Here, however, we have a Factory Bill which to my mind caters in general for those persons who sell their labour for hire. But now an effort is being made to bring within the scope of the Bill a different class of person, those who, for various reasons, are confined in institutions. I would suggest to the Senators who have spoken that they should take some other means of achieving the object they have in view rather than through a Factory Bill. In my opinion what they are seeking cannot be done under this Bill. I think it is unreasonable to expect that the Minister would be prepared to put into operation, in the case of institutions which are run for charitable or other purposes, the same conditions as those which are embodied in this Bill and which apply to industrial plants and factories run for profit.
Could we bring this matter to a conclusion before we adjourn? I think there is one Senator who wants to ask a question.
I think my point has actually been covered, but I should like it to be cleared up by the Minister. He mentioned that the deletion of sub-section (3) could conceivably result in an application from one of these interested parties for complete exemption from the Act.
If I bring them in now, unless I am satisfied that the conditions are such that they could be out, then I will find myself in the position that I cannot immediately, after the passing of the Bill, put them all out because they comply with the provisions of the Act.
That disposes of my question.
I do not want to delay the House. Senator Hawkins said that this Bill in general is intended to protect those who sell their labour for hire. I am sure he does not disagree with those who try to extend the same measure of protection to those who happen to be inmates of institutions. I would refer him to the wording of sub-section (9) of Section 3 which specifically says:—
"Premises belonging to or in the occupation of the State or any local or other public authority shall not be regarded as not being a factory for the purposes of this Act, and building operations, etc.... shall not be excluded from the operation of this Act, by reason only that the work carried on thereat is not carried on by way of trade or for purposes of gain."
I think it is clear that this Bill does aim to cater not only for those who sell their labour for hire but for others, too. Senator Murphy made a valuable point when he said that if we are to leave the Bill as it is now, the Minister, having excluded by the Act all these factories in institutions, may on certain information being given to him, have to bring in one or two such factories. That would be tantamount to an accusation by him against one of his colleagues, because it would mean that he had found conditions in one of these institutions, under the control of a colleague, to be so bad that he had to use his power under this Bill to include it, whereas if the position were reversed, and these institutional factories were already in, no colleague of his could object to his making the exemption. He would, however, have to justify the exemption to the House. The Minister has said that, if he did include them now, they could all "get exemption to-morrow", but he omitted to tell us under what power or Act such institutions could get exemption to-morrow. I do not think that the House has had enough information on that.
Furthermore, if it is so that all these factories in institutions would have the right to claim exemption under some unspecified Act, how can the Minister ask, in this sub-section itself, for power to bring them in, because that is what he is doing? He is asking us in this sub-section to give him power to "direct by Order" that such factories shall come in. More or less in the same breath he tells us that if they care to claim exemption they can get it! If that is so, I fail to see why he is asking for the power to bring them in by ministerial Order.
If at any time they are not complying with the directions set out in the Act they can be brought in. This is a power that is going to endure for a very long time. The last main Factory Act was passed in 1907.
What happens if the Minister brings them in and they then claim exemption?
If I bring them in it is because they are not complying with the provisions of the Act.
I find it unsatisfactory that the Minister should have to rely on casual information and complaints that the conditions are such and such in these factories, rather than on his own departmental inspectors' reports. In conclusion, I would remind the House that in all of this Bill we are dealing with the safety and welfare of workers in factories. The reason why they are in a factory is irrelevant. We want to guarantee the safety and welfare of workers whether they happen to be inmates of an institution or not. If they are workers who are inmates in an institution, as I said before, they have less protection than the worker outside, who is selling his labour for hire and who has the protection of his trade union. I would again ask the Minister to consider the deletion of the word "not" so that the onus would be on him to justify any exemptions to the Oireachtas.
I have in mind laundries which are run by institutions. What is the position under the Bill in regard to them?
This Bill makes it clear that these places are factories.
Acting-Chairman
Is amendment No. 9 withdrawn?
Amendment No. 9 becomes necessary only if sub-sections (2) and (3) are deleted.
Acting-Chairman
Well, amendment No. 14 will decide that.
I move that the question be now put.
There is no need.
On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, is that not precisely what you are doing?
Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10:—
In page 53, to delete lines 37 to 62 and in page 54 to delete lines 1 to 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 54, Section 84, to delete sub-section (3).
Acting-Chairman
Is the Senator pressing amendment No. 14?
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"—put and declared carried.
I would like a division.
How many Senators are claiming a division?
Acting-Chairman
Will they please rise in their places.
Dr. Sheehy Skeffington and Dr. McHugh rose.
That is that.
Acting-Chairman
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In page 57, Section 88, to delete sub-section (4) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(4) Any person undertaking any such building operations to which this Act applies as may be declared by regulations of the Minister to require notice under this sub-section shall, not later than seven days after the beginning of the operations, serve on the Minister a written notice stating the name and postal address of the person so undertaking the operations, the place and nature of the operations, and whether any mechanical power is or is to be used and, if so, its nature.
I think this amendment would meet Senator Hawkins' amendment because it is making the arrangement much more flexible as to what the notification should be. When this matter was discussed by the Special Committee of the Dáil, the view was expressed that substantial building operations or works of engineering construction should be notified to the Minister as soon as possible after their commencement so that the inspection staff would be quickly aware of the undertaking. It seemed to be the general desire of the Dáil Committee that this obligation of notification should not be imposed upon a contractor having a number of small jobs even though, of course, the provisions of the Act will apply to any and every job.
In response to the wish of the Dáil Special Committee, I tabled an amendment which was adopted as sub-section (4) of Section 88 in the text now before the House. In the sub-amendment Deputy Lemass pressed that, as well as granting an exemption for operations which could be completed within six weeks, exemption should also be granted for operations which would require not more than six persons to be engaged at any one time. This was intended apparently as another measure of the size of the operations. I found it difficult to meet the wishes of the Committee in limiting the obligation to send notice of substantial operations. It is a difficult thing in a Bill of this kind to define what exactly are substantial operations. Distinctions by reference to the time taken for a job or the number of men engaged on it are not very satisfactory. There can always be special pleading that the job was intended only to be a short one but in fact took longer than was expected because this or the other thing happened. Measurements in relation to the number of men employed can be equally unsatisfactory as the number of men engaged at any one time in any job can vary enormously with the particular operation that is going on. Furthermore we may find that, in the course of time, measurements we now write in from the point of view of time or the number of persons to be employed may be varied by changes which will take place in the intervening years.
Consequently I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to put in an amendment designed to meet the Dáil point of view and the viewpoint put forward by Senator Hawkins. which is on the same lines as the Dáil point of view, which makes it possible to have these matters, concerning what type of operation required notice to be sent to the Minister, dealt with by regulations after we have more precise experience. In other words the amendment makes it more flexible. We can do as the Senator suggests. We can make the number five or six or seven or eight, and we can fix any time by regulations which can be sent to the Advisory Committee and, if at any time these regulations are unreasonable, they can be annulled by a motion of the Oireachtas. I think that is a more flexible way to deal with it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Government amendment No. 17:—
17. In page 58, Section 89, to delete sub-section (4), and substitute the following sub-section:— (4) Any person undertaking any such works of engineering construction to which this Act applies as may be declared by regulations of the Minister to require notice under this sub-section shall, not later than seven days after the beginning of the works, serve on the Minister a written notice stating the name and postal address of the person so undertaking the works, the place and nature of the works, and whether any mechanical power is or is to be used, and, if so, its nature.
This meets the same point in the next section.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Fearon authorises me to say that he is not moving amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
Government amendment No. 20.
In page 71, line 34, to delete "commencement", and substitute "passing".
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.
Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
I believe that, on the understanding that item No. 4 would be finished before tea, an order was made that item No. 5 would be taken at 7.15 p.m. I take it there will be no objection to taking item No. 4 now, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is here.
Agreed.