It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1 and 14 together, since amendment No. 1 arises our of amendment No. 14.
Office Premises Bill, 1957—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:—
"foot candles" means the degree of light received one foot from the source of such light measured in the power of standard wax candles;.
The real amendment here is No. 14, which reads:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Lighting of less than six foot candles generally or of less than ten foot candles for typing and machine rooms shall not be considered sufficient and suitable.
seeks to amend Section 12 of the Bill. That section at present uses the phrase "sufficient and suitable" in regard to lighting. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a minimum below which lighting will be regarded as insufficient or unsuitable.
This matter has been considered by the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations and also the T.U.C., who in this matter, as in many others, have made representations to the Department about this Bill. The advice which the conference has is that anything below the minimum suggested would be injurious to office workers. I am sure that to Senators, as it did to myself, the expression "foot candles" seems a bit odd; but in fact it is the modern scientific measurement of light. It is an international measurement and the first amendment seeks to put the appropriate definition at the beginning of the Bill.
We have no example of this provision in legislation here, but I do not think that should frighten us away from the desirability of inserting it in this Bill. Actually, there is one example, in that the British factory legislation provides for six foot candles for factories and American regulations specify ten foot candles. This amendment simply seeks to provide a minimum below which the lighting will not be considered suitable or sufficient.
I wish to support the amendment. It should be fairly obvious that to preserve the eyesight of office employees and to make for more efficient working, it is necessary to have some scientific standard method of light measurement. Seeing that such a standard measurement is available, it should be applied, to test the efficiency of the lighting services in all offices. It would be a wise provision to include it in the Bill.
I support this amendment. There is, of course, provision in the Bill for enabling the Advisory Council established under the Bill to lay down these standards, but I think the council would probably look up the standard already laid down by the other authorities to which Senator Murphy has referred. I cannot see any reason why it cannot be incorporated in the Bill. It would be better to put it in at this stage, so that people will know the position.
The provision in this Bill in regard to lighting is copied from a similar provision in the Factories Act and in any event it does seem desirable that a matter of detail—I am not suggesting that the provision of light is a detail but the method by which suitable lighting should be provided certainly is a matter of detail—should be left to consultation by the Advisory Council. It is for these two reasons that the section is as it is framed here.
I have underlined in my mind the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary that this section is copied from the Factories Act because I hope when I bring forward the same argument on innumerable occasions during this evening's work, he will accept that as a good argument. The amendment does not, in fact, deal with the methods of lighting; it deals with the measurement of lighting. I hope nobody is under the impression that I am advocating that offices should be lit by candles six foot long or ten foot long. It is simply a measurement of lighting and in fact there are instruments used in this country for measuring lighting and the expression of the degree is "foot candles." I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment between now and Report Stage. If he is agreeable to do that, we could pass on to the next amendment.
I do not think there is any other reason I could offer for dealing with the matter in this way. It does seem that the Advisory Council, which will be composed of the various interests concerned, is the best body to make recommendations in specific cases. The Senator has suggested that there should be variations of conditions as between one office and another and we think for that reason this matter does come within the category of detail and ought to be left to be dealt with, as detail can best be dealt with, by an advisory body dealing with the special circumstances of each case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
There is a further amendment to the section, amendment No. 2.
This amendment is linked with amendments Nos. 26 and 28. Will I be permitted to deal with Nos. 26 and 28?
Might I suggest it would be better if this amendment were left until we are dealing with Section 25?
I have no objection.
Do I understand Senator O'Quigley proposes not to move No. 2?
No.
If we take the amendments on Section 25 and if they were agreed to, No. 2 will have to be taken in some way.
That will be on Report Stage.
The position is that if amendments Nos. 26 and 28, which are in my name, are passed by the House, it will be necessary, for the purpose of giving effect to these amendments, that a definition be incorporated in the definition section of the Bill.
That could be dealt with on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 3:—
To delete sub-section (2).
We have a series of amendments here. If the House will agree, amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 can be taken together. Separate decisions could be taken on Nos. 3 and 4 and a decision on Nos. 5 and 6.
I mentioned this point when speaking on the Second Reading and questioned why the Office Premises Act, when it becomes an Act, should not apply to offices where there are less than six employed. The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply, at column 812, Volume 48 of the Seanad Debates of 27th November, 1957, said:
"It has been stated by the Minister, and it was repeated in my introductory speech, that that is so for one reason: that there was a danger that the employer who employs small numbers might disemploy one or two members of his staff so that he might avoid the obligations which this measure imposes."
I think that a stronger argument in favour of my amendment to delete any minimum at all could scarcely be advanced because the Parliamentary Secretary will see that if there is no minimum figure applied in connection with this enactment, then there is no danger that bad employers will be tempted to reduce their staff in order to get outside this legislation.
Another mention was made of the point in the debate by Senator O'Donovan who said that moderately-sized shops employed two or three clerical workers and that it was unreasonable, in his view, that this Bill should cover such establishments. The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply seemed to quash that argument, too. He said that those establishments, and those people, were already covered by the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act. I want to suggest to the Seanad again this week that it is very important that legislation dealing with offices should cover all offices; that it is in the smaller establishments that conditions tend to be less favourable than in larger offices. It follows from that argument, if it is accepted, that it is those people who are employed in these small establishments who are most in need of protection by legislation. There should be no real argument against having the Act applied to all offices.
If there are some employers who do not live up to their responsibilities, I do not think the Oireachtas should excuse them, if they are doing injustice to three or four workers instead of to six or seven. For those reasons, I hope the Seanad will agree with me that it is wrong that this minimum of six should be in the Bill, that it should be deleted altogether, and that the Bill, when it becomes an Act should cover all offices, whether they employ one, two, three or four workers.
May I make one further point? The Parliamentary Secretary might appreciate this. The Factories Act, so far as I understand it, applies to all factories. There is no minimum number laid down in that Act and, if it is good enough, and it was agreed here in the Seanad by both sides, then minimum conditions should also be applied to offices, without a minimum number of workers being stipulated.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), lines 26 and 27, to delete all words down to and including the word "five" in line 27.
As this amendment does not really differ substantially from the amendment proposed by Senator Murphy, I should like to speak now in support of the view that has just been put forward by Senator Murphy. It was for the same reasons that I put down my amendment which is substantially the same, except that I leave the second portion of the sub-section standing, in order to make it quite clear that, no matter how scattered the office rooms might be, they should be counted as one office. It is possible that that is already covered by sub-section (1) of Section 3 and therefore Senator Murphy's amendment might be a better one than mine—that is his proposal to delete altogether Section 2.
Whether we decide to delete it altogether, or delete the provisions of the Bill which do not make it applicable to offices employing five or fewer persons, it seems to me the arguments put forward by Senator Murphy are very strong. Our objective here in this Bill is to ensure that office workers should be allowed to work under conditions which will not be injurious to their health, that they shall be given certain minimum human standards of hygiene, ventilation, lighting and so on. I should feel very disturbed if we were to decide where an employer employs only five people or less in an office that such people would not get any of the protection, any of the safeguards proposed by this Bill.
I am afraid that I do not see at all the Parliamentary Secretary's argument that if you did not have provisions like this, people might disemploy office workers in order to get out of the Act. If you did not have a minimum number, such disemployment would be quite ridiculous. The only way an employer could get out of the Act then would be to dismiss all the clerical workers and do all the work himself. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot ask us to imagine that the Act could be evaded by an employer if there was no lower limit.
If we leave the figure five, or the figure three or two, as has been suggested in other amendments, then obviously there might be incentives to an employer employing four workers to reduce his clerical staff to three, and if he were employing three, to reduce the number to two. Even there, I would say it would be more difficult for an employer in these circumstances to get rid of one worker out of four, or out of three, than to get rid of one worker out of six. The present employer with six on his clerical staff can evade the Act by getting rid of one worker. It is obviously easier to get rid of one worker out of six than to get rid of one worker out of three or four. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is a strong one, but entirely against himself, because it is obvious that if we leave in this minimum number, we might easily get employers disemploying workers for the purposes of evading all the provisions of the Act.
The other case put by the Parliamentary Secretary is that small employers, who employ five or less on their clerical staffs, might find it onerous from the financial point of view, to provide all the safeguards that the Act seeks. The Minister is asking for full powers to exempt any premises, or class of premises, that he sees fit. I have tabled an amendment to delete that power, but he is asking for it and he intends to get it. If the Minister saw a case of very great hardship, a case in which it would be very harsh to ask an employer to involve himself in immediate expense, the Minister has power already under this Act to exempt those premises temporarily, or for a longer time. Therefore, that argument falls to the ground.
Therefore, if we are to take the argument, that we are all in favour of ensuring the good health of workers, but if it proves too expensive for small employers to ensure the good health of their workers, then we are prepared to forgo the safeguards, the workers can then work on in bad conditions, because it is too expensive to provide decent minimum human standards. I am not prepared to say that. You will either say to a man: "You will provide decent human standards or go out of business," or you will not talk about standards at all. That is the point on which we ought to take our stand. Are we prepared to allow employers to continue working their staffs in conditions which are injurious to their health? Are we to allow their profits if those profits are to depend necessarily on the ill-health, or danger of ill-health of their workers?
I feel that it would be a much better Act if no employer's office workers were exempted. The Act has already plenty of safeguards and I do not think any employer would be harshly treated. I do not think there is any intention to implement all the provisions of the Act immediately, but it would be a good idea to ensure that, within a measurable time, there will be certain standards of hygiene and health for all office workers, no matter whether their employers employ two, three or five workers.
We are taking amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together, Senator.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), line 27, to delete "five" and substitute "three".
When I spoke on Second Reading, I pressed that the Bill should be made applicable to all offices, particularly as we were anxious to bring in the small offices where the greatest abuses take place. It is a matter of regret that the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem inclined to delete the section. My view still is that the retention of the provision which makes the Bill applicable to offices with a minimum of six clerical employees makes it largely ineffective to deal with the really bad premises.
The Parliamentary Secretary did speak of the possibility of amending the Bill in the future. I now move my amendment in the hope that the improvement it will bring about will be of advantage to the workers employed in smaller offices than those mentioned in the Bill.
My amendment differs from Senator Miss Davidson's amendment in that she thinks "three" ought to be the number to be inserted in the Bill, while I think the number should be "two". The reason I suggested "two" is this: I feel that anybody who has an office and who is able to employ two people, two typists or two bookkeepers, is in a fairish way of business and would be in a reasonable way of complying with the provisions of the Act in relation to hygiene, lighting and accommodation generally.
I am inclined to think that there would be a large number of small offices which should be covered by this Bill. The small office is more in need of protection than the larger office, for the reason that, where you have a large office, you have far more labour, and labour in these larger offices is organised, and organised labour is able to do a good deal more to improve the general conditions in which it is employed than one, two or three people in smaller offices who very often are unorganised. For that reason, I think the smaller offices are in greater need of protection than the larger offices. All the big business houses and factories with the offices attached to them will not mind the introduction of this Bill at all because they will have complied already, as a matter of good management, with what will be laid down by the Advisory Council in regard to standards of lighting, cleaning, heating and so on.
The real problem this Bill should be intended to get at is the smaller offices, where, for a variety of reasons, people have allowed their premises to get into a state of disrepair over the years. I can see the logic of having no minimum at all and I should be very much inclined to support the amendments put down by Senator Murphy and Senator Sheehy Skeffington, but I can also see the point that a professional man starting off would have difficulties in providing the accommodation that is desirable and that should be provided under the Bill. When he gets to the stage where he would be able to employ two persons he should then be in a position to provide offices which will meet the standards set by this Bill. For that reason, I urge the House to accept my amendment.
There is just one small point. If we accept either Senator Murphy's amendment or Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendment, we will still be binding ourselves to have at least two, since the first paragraph in the section says: "in which persons are employed". I think it would require a consequential amendment to change that to "a person" and we would have to keep that in mind in considering the matter.
The argument that it will be a disincentive to employ is a fair one in putting forward these amendments. I think it applies even in the case of one person. If a man wants to employ one secretary and finds that the Bill makes "two" troublesome, he will find some other way of getting the work done and will not employ the secretary at all. Wherever we put the number, there will be a certain disincentive to disemploy.
The arguments in favour of these amendments appeal to some extent to me personally. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot now accept the amendment, I would suggest that a clause could be inserted in the Bill on Report Stage to allow a Minister at some future date, by Order, to apply the conditions of the Bill to premises in which there is a lesser number—four, five, three, two or one.
I feel that, in many of the smaller offices, conditions would be rather unhealthy compared with those obtaining in the bigger offices where a larger number of employees are engaged. The suggestion I make is that a clause be inserted empowering the Minister at a later date, without bringing the matter of altering legislation before the House of the Oireachtas, to apply the terms to a lesser number of employees.
I freely admit that the figure "six" is quite arbitrary, but so, might I add, are the amendments suggested here. I think some of the Fine Gael speakers in the Dáil suggested the number should be ten. In any event, suppose it had been ten, I am prepared to venture that the amendments would be for figures like nine, eight and seven, instead of what they are here. It seems to me that whatever figure was suggested here, in the ordinary course of debate, amendments would be suggested for what would be regarded as a better figure and any figure in our present state of knowledge must necessarily be arbitrary.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that the Minister has power in another section whereby he can exclude, but surely if we were to rely upon that provision, some exhaustive inquiries would have to be undertaken by the Minister? That would involve considerable administrative cost and time. We feel, seeing that Senators are all agreed that this is something in the nature of an experiment, that we ought to make haste slowly and give ourselves time to see how the Bill, as it is now framed, will work out.
Several Senators—and not alone Senators, but Deputies—have said that this Bill is required most for the smaller offices. Very well; let us assume that that is so. I do not want to say anything against any of the arguments that have been put up here in favour of the smaller offices and the pleas on behalf of the workers in them. It would be most foolish on my part to make any such remark because I do not feel that way about it; I feel we should give amelioration to those who need it most. It has been suggested here that the small offices need improvement most. It is reasonable to deduce from that suggestion that, if you include those offices, you will incur the very maximum amount of cost in the implementation of this Bill, because, apparently, all employers of small numbers of clerks would, according to the arguments made here, have to undertake considerable structural alterations and, from Donegal to Cork, every office with a few clerks would be put to very considerable expense. That is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the argument. Our suggestion is this: Why not realise that practical difficulty and give us a little time to work this Act on the basis of the offices that, apparently, from the arguments made here, will not need to have such considerable expenditure incurred in relation to their improvement?
A comparison has been made between the Factories Act and this Bill. The question has been asked why it is that, while all factories are included, we have invidious exclusions here. Everybody appreciates that the danger of a fatal accident in a factory is much more real than serious injury either through accident or otherwise in these offices. I do not know if there is any other argument I can offer in justification of not making this universally applicable as is the case in the Factories Acts.
With regard to what Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin has said about making extension of application possible by way of ministerial Order, I think that a better way, a way which will give the organised workers, legislators and everybody else concerned a better chance of reviewing the whole position, is an amending Act, if that should become necessary, rather than a discussion on an Order. As a Senator has intimated, I have suggested that this Act may be amended at not too far distant a date. I suggest to the Seanad that, in these circumstances and for the reasons I have given, this figure of six—arbitrary as it is, it is no more arbitrary than five or seven would be —be accepted and let us recognise the practical difficulties that I think all admit are there and try to deal with them by means of a practical measure.
Very briefly, what has been said, especially by the Parliamentary Secretary, has convinced me, in any case, that there is need to delete this minimum altogether, that is, if I needed any further conviction. He talked about considerable structural alterations that might be involved for offices which might be employing small numbers. I do not think that that would be so. All of us will accept, from our own experience, that employers in a small way, persons employing a very small number of clerks, need only have their attention drawn to any way in which their offices would not comply with the legislation to have it amended. It would not mean building a new office. Surely, if the place is already so unsafe and unhealthy that that would be necessary, there is greater need for legislation to protect the people?
What is the Bill providing for, generally? It is simply that such places should be healthy and safe for the staff employed therein. It does not really go very much further than that —that the staff should not risk losing their lives in a fire and that it should be reasonably healthy for them to work in those conditions. I do not think any employer, big or small, would regard it as a great imposition that the office conditions should comply with the regulations.
Senator Stanford rightly made the point in regard to the use of the plural person in the section. I notice that the Factories Act is the same. It says "persons." It does not at any stage define the minimum number, but by the use of "persons" it implies that at least two persons must be employed.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the need for protection in respect of smaller-sized factories is more important because the people there suffer a risk to life and limb. He did not use these words, but that is the general idea of the point he was making. If you look at the title "premises" included in the Factories Act, I do not think there is very much point in that. For instance, a premises in which the plucking of fowl is carried out is regarded as a factory under the Factories Act. Therefore, I suggest that my amendment should be accepted and I want to press it.
I should like to say, in relation to these amendments, that, on reflection, I prefer Senator Murphy's amendment to my own because it is neater and more precise. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has said anything that could convince us that an arbitrary number is better than not including a number. I do not think we should include any number. I feel we should simply apply this Act universally to office workers. I do not see any purpose in an arbitrary number. So long as you have any number, you will have an incentive to disemploy, in order to get out of the provisions of the Act.
What the Parliamentary Secretary's argument amounts to is that the small employer of five or less clerical workers must be allowed to continue to employ them in substandard health and hygiene conditions because they have not the money to provide them with decent washing and sanitary accommodation, and good lighting and heating. I do not know that any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary should ask us to accept that view— that they must be allowed to continue to employ clerical workers in substandard conditions because it would cost them money that they cannot afford to put things right.
The Minister already has power in this Act to exempt, if there is real hardship. That covers Senator O'Donovan's point. I should like this Act to be of universal application. I do not see why any premises should be exempt but I do not believe that the Act will be applied immediately, the day after it is passed; but in reasonable time it should apply to all office workers. Therefore, I hope the amendments will be pressed. If Senator Murphy does not wish to press his amendment I shall press mine, but I hope he will press his amendment and I shall drop mine in favour of his.
If the House is called upon to give a judgement on these amendments by going through the Lobby, I should like to express my reason for the decision I will have to make. Quite frankly, I am with the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. Indeed, I do not know what we are doing with legislation like this at all. Perhaps I have not as much experience as other members of the House of the conditions under which clerical workers are employed in offices, but I would hesitate to apply the term "substandard" to the conditions under which they are employed in the country. I do not think it is fair or representative.
What I find most fault with is this notion or concept that you can legislate our people into conditions of perfection. I do not think it is possible. It is impossible in any country in the world. The legislators themselves are far from perfect and the machine they construct to do their job is more imperfect than they are and very frequently we find the legislation by which they function not properly constructed either.
It was said by a Senator behind me —perhaps by Senator O'Quigley— that the big offices will not mind, that the conditions that obtain there at the moment are satisfactory and that it is only the smaller offices that require attention. It may be true that the larger offices have perfect sanitary conditions, but it is one thing for the owners to provide such conditions and it is another to go in on top of the owners with the power of the law. Then there is another reaction.
We have too much of that sort of thing. We are reaching the stage when people are being legislated out of occupations and out of the country. We are restricting the freedom of the citizens and of possible employers and employees day after day. That is all terribly unhealthy. There is nothing left to the imagination, good sense or spirit of citizenship of the people. We must come down on top of them with a big stick. It is altogether wrong and unsound and I do not think it is necessary.
There are other considerations to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. There are limits to what the State can expend, or ought to expend, in this sort of social legislation in a year. It is misspending money and an awful waste of time to have inspectors driving around the country and visiting offices where three or four people are employed to see what the sanitary conditions are like. That may appeal to the minds of some people, but I do not think they are very practical people. From the point of view of the country's work, it has the opposite effect from that desired. It is discouraging, dispiriting and it makes people in the country feel that the people legislating in Dublin have no appreciation of what it is to work in the country.
There are many ways of destroying political institutions and of causing doubt and hesitation in the minds of citizens as to the competence of politicans and legislators. This is one of them—nonsensical proposals being applied in small towns and villages, an inspector going into a small office where somebody is trying to construct a little industry, perhaps in ramshackle buildings that will not conform to the standards enunciated by Senators Murphy, O'Quigley and Sheehy Skeffington. In the wilds of Canada and Arizona, when the pioneers were trying to build up, they were not terribly concerned about the ramshackle buildings in which they started. It is only in this country that such pioneers are to be supervised. I am all for hygienic conditions, all for workers everywhere getting a fair chance. You may stop them getting the chance by adopting principles of social legislation that are difficult and expensive to implement.
I am not for extending the scope of this Bill any further than the Parliamentary Secretary has gone. The number of inspectors employed would have to be doubled or trebled, if you were to inspect every small office where two or three people are employed. When the inspector marches in to these people, what will happen? Some employers will begin to wonder whether they ought to close the office altogether and disemploy some people. That is the effect it will have on some employments and the workers who are disemployed will not thank the legislators.
Senator Hayes has indicated a method by which this situation could be met. Senator O'Donovan made a suggestion about the future. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we ought to hasten slowly in this matter. Under Section 24, the Advisory Council is empowered to make certain recommendations to the Minister from time to time about the desirability of making, amending or revoking any Orders or regulations under this Act. You might extend the powers of the Advisory Council in regard to extending the Bill further, but I do not think you ought to try to do all this at once. I really do not.
It is not really such a problem. It cannot possibly be, because whatever conditions exist at the moment have existed in many offices, lawyers' offices and all sorts of offices, for the past 50 years, and I would suggest that the standard of health in these offices is just as good as it is in offices which, according to the standards of certain Senators, are ever so much better. I do not think the health of the people is suffering a great deal and before we are involved in an extension of the Civil Service and the employment of more inspectors, driving more foreign cars and using more foreign petrol, to see how people in the country are doing their business, we should give the Bill as it is a chance of being operated.
Is Senator Murphy pressing the amendment?
Yes, sir.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment as Senator Murphy is pressing his.
The decision will be taken, then, on amendment No. 3. On this amendment, the question is that all the words down to and including "exceed" in line 27 stand. The idea there is to keep open the position so that Senator Miss Davidson may move her amendment, if she thinks well of it later on.
Would you make it quite clear as to whether it is on amendment No. 3 or amendment No. 4 the division is being taken? I understood that Senator Sheehy Skeffington had withdrawn his amendment.
Amendment No. 4 is, by leave, withdrawn and the question before the House now is on Senator Murphy's amendment, that is, amendment No. 3.
Are we not voting to keep the section as it is?
Voting to keep the words down to and including "exceed" in line 27, because we must keep the position open in view of the other amendments.
Question put: "That all words down to and including ‘exceed' stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Barry, Anthony.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Brady, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Cole, John C.
- Colley, Harry.
- Dowdall, Jane.
- Farnan, Robert P.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kissane, Éamon.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- O'Brien, George A.T.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
Níl
- Carton, Victor.
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Keeffe, James J.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
- Stanford, William B.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Carter and Ryan; Níl: Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Brady, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Cole, John C.
- Colley, Harry.
- Dowdall, Jane.
- Farnan, Robert P.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kissane, Éamon.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- O'Brien, George A.T.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
- Walsh, Lawrence J.
Níl
- Carton, Victor.
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Keeffe, James J.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
- Stanford, William B.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Carter and Ryan; Níl: Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (3), to delete paragraph (b).
Paragraph (b) seeks to exempt from all the provisions of the Bill premises used substantially as a private residence or for private domestic purposes. I would remind the House that we have just decided that, in any event, this Bill will apply only where there are six or more office workers. In circumstances like that, where the business employs six or more office workers, for us to decide that if the premises are used privately for a residence, by that very fact, that office should be exempt from the provisions of this Bill, would, in my submission, be very bad. If you have an office staff of six, there is no earthly reason why you should not be considered as coming under the provisions of the Office Premises Bill, whether or not the main portion of the building is used as a private residence. Therefore, I do not think this clause should be allowed to stay.
If the Senator will allow us to have another look at this, we will see whether we can bring in an amendment on the next stage. We are inclined to accept the view put forward by the Senator. Apparently this found its way into the original draft which was somewhat different from the one we have now before us. I will have it examined and we possibly may be able to meet the Senator's viewpoint.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (3), to delete paragraph (e).
A different principle is enshrined in this clause. This clause seeks to give the Minister power to exempt any individual premises, or any class of premises, from the provisions of the entire Act, if he sees fit, by regulations. I think that is far too an important power to give to the best Minister in the world. In Parliaments we ought to retain rights such as this and not delegate them too lightly. We are being asked to put through a Bill providing safeguards for the health of office workers and to leave in it a clause allowing the Minister to exempt any premises or any class of premises he likes simply by issuing a regulation which, as I read it, does not have to have the approval of either House of the Oireachtas. It is a very dangerous thing and therefore I am moving this deletion from the Bill.
It seems to me there is no sense in the Oireachtas passing legislation and, at the very same time, giving the Minister power to exempt any and every office covered by the legislation. That is exactly what is provided for here in paragraph (e) of sub-section (3). When we pass the Bill eventually, we will be giving the Minister power not to apply the Act to any or every office he wishes. Presumably the offices the Minister might exempt subsequently might be offices that would not be up to standard, offices which would have failed to qualify for the generous escape routes already provided for in Section 3. If this is passed, offices which would not qualify for escape under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) will be given complete freedom to escape by regulations of the Minister under paragraph (e). I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree it is a wrong principle that we should pass legislation and at the same time give the Minister authority to exempt completely any offices, if he so wishes, from the provisions of that legislation.
It seems to me to be quite wrong to have this provision in the Bill. First of all, the Act provides that offices which do not employ more than five people will be exempt and then there is this provision to exempt other premises, or classes of premises, as may be declared from time to time by the Minister in regulations. There might not be the very grave exceptions to paragraph (e) if the regulations proposed by it were subject to the provision that they could be set aside by either House of the Oireachtas within 21 days of their being laid on the Table of either House.
I wonder could the Parliamentary Secretary say what classes of premises are contemplated which may be the subject of a regulation under this section? I find it most difficult to understand the reason for this section, in view of the provisions of Section 26 under which premises may also be exempted. Section 26 (1) states:—
"An enforcing authority may by certificate exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act or of regulations made thereunder any premises in respect of which, and to the extent to which, it is the enforcing authority."
Sub-section (2) of Section 26 says such exemption must have a maximum period of three years. It would seem to me that would get over the difficulty of the small office in sub-section (2) of Section 3 and, having regard to the further provisos and exemptions in Section 26, there should not be any real reason why the Minister should be empowered by paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) to exempt further classes of offices. Perhaps there is a real difficulty that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of which necessitates the inclusion of this section and he may be able to give us some assistance on that point.
With regard to the points made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington and Senator O'Quigley that regulations mentioned in paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) would not come before this House, there is the provision under Section 30 (1) that:—
"Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either House, within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation has been laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
The picture is not so gloomy then.
If we could specify, as Senator O'Quigley has suggested, the classes of offices which it would be most desirable to exclude, that would be done, but it is not possible to give details of the type of case to which this Bill would be applicable. It is one of these safeguards against reducing a piece of legislation to the absurd, as might conceivably happen. It is true to say, as some Senators mentioned, that anything that escapes paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) is caught under this section and it is for that very purpose it was put there. The amendment suggests certain suppositions which Senators would hold, such as the unwillingness of the Minister to implement the Act in the spirit in which it is being offered to the Legislature and, arising out of that, would establish a council which would be similarly negligent in the enforcement of the Act. I think there are no grounds at all for making any such suppositions.
If the council which the Minister sets up has the welfare of the employees at heart, it will see to it that no exceptions will be made to offices that should or ought to be brought within the scope of this Bill. We think the section, as it is, is eminently sensible and it is for that reason that it is there and to prevent absurd situations arising.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea of what "absurd situations" could arise?
It is just because I am not in a position to give details that the thing has to be worded in a general way. The regulations referred to must go to the council and be tabled in the Oireachtas. Surely that is sufficient safeguard to ensure that this power will not be misused?
Yes, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not illustrated how that "absurd situation" could arise. I cannot think of any such situation and apparently the Parliamentary Secretary cannot think of any. Can anyone think of such a situation?
I will give one example —offices in religious institutions, for instance.
So what?
An office in a religious institution might possibly be a type of exception which could be made by using this power and which might be a very desirable exception to make.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Votáil.
Will the Senators challenging a Division please stand?
Senators Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, Murphy and Tunney rose.
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
Section 3 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am wondering what the position is in relation to this section which says: "This Act applies to offices belonging to or in the occupation of the State but, in case of any public emergency, the Minister may, by Order,... exempt from this Act any office belonging to or in the occupation of the State..." I wonder what kind of situation is envisaged which could be classified as a public emergency? Take the case of post offices. Post offices in the ordinary course would be geared to handle the average intake of mail during most of the year, with the exception of Christmas time, but for a short time like that, extra staff is taken on. I am wondering if that kind of situation where more staff is needed in an office to do a particular job for a limited period is the type of situation envisaged as being a case of public emergency.
There was a case recently in connection with the Suez crisis where it was necessary to bring staff from different Government Departments into one particular building for the purpose of rationing petrol and kerosene supplies. I can see that being a case of public emergency to which this section would apply, but where you could have a recurrent situation, as would obtain in post offices every Christmas and where staff are working for prolonged periods during the day and night that is not a situation to which this section should apply. In a short period of that kind, where there is intensive employment and great activity, I should think that the section should not apply and that post offices should not be exempt from the conditions of this section. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication as to what would be the position in a case of that kind?
I think the Senator's ingenuity is able to conjure up as many types of emergency as mine. He mentioned one, I think, that would reasonably fit into what is visualised by this section, but in any event it is confined to State offices and offices being used on behalf of the State. These are offices, of course, in respect of which the powers under this Act would be enforced by officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
There is always the Dáil to ensure that there will be no misuse of a power of this sort. I think the Senator might rely on Deputies to ensure that in so far as State offices are concerned, they will see to it that no improper use is made of this power. As in regard to the previous case, I do not think I could give a list of all the kinds of emergency situation that might arise, but I take it that anybody applying his ingenuity to the problem would be able to make out, I should imagine, a fairly considerable list of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 14, before "shall" to insert "furniture and fittings".
I hope the Seanad will agree with me that this amendment is essential to the health of office workers. I have had sad experience of the practice in offices of the floor which might be dusty being swept and the dust allowed to settle upon and become embedded in shelves, electric light fittings and what you might call the general furniture and fittings in the office.
Paragraph (b) of the section provides that the floors shall be cleaned at least once in every week by washing or, if it is effective and suitable, by sweeping or other methods. What I am asking the Seanad to do is to put in that the furniture and fittings shall also be cleaned at least once a week, not necessarily by washing because, as Senators can see, the paragraph makes provision for "other methods". Perhaps the ideal method is to vacuum-clean the office. I know that many offices are cleaned by that method, which is the best method for the better health of the worker. I thought the Seanad might not swallow such an amendment and I put down a rather milder amendment.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree it is reasonable to ask that the furniture and fittings in an office should be cleaned by simply dusting at least once a week. I want to stress again that where these fittings, especially electric light shades, are left unclean from year to year, a very grave menace to health is caused. I have had the sad experience, as I have said here again and again, of young people going into an office and contracting T.B. and the only reason readily apparent is that the fittings were not kept clean, documents being piled on shelves and months and months of dust allowed to accumulate on them, with the result that when they are disturbed the inmates of the office inhale the dust into their lungs. I hope the Seanad will agree that this is a reasonable and sensible amendment. I hope it will be agreed that, if the whole point of the Bill is to provide a safeguard to health for office workers, it is necessary that furniture and fittings should be included in those parts of offices which should be cleaned at least once every week.
I support this amendment on all the grounds mentioned by Senator Murphy. It is essential that, in the weekly cleandown of an office, the furniture, fittings, shelves, ledges, light fittings, and so on, which become heavily dust-laden by the very act of floor sweeping, which is one of the methods mentioned in the Bill, be included. It is essential, in the interests of the health of the employees, that that should be done and that all such furniture and fittings with which employees come into contact in the course of their duties should be kept free from the accumulation of dust and dirt.
The Parliamentary Secretary should have little difficulty in accepting this amendment. It is the common experience of people going into offices that presses, lampshades, ledges, mantelpieces, and the like, are often very heavily covered with dust. Not infrequently, in post offices, and the like, you see the ridiculous situation of advertisements, published by the Department of Health at the expense of the taxpayers about diphtheria and killing flies, the taking of certain health precautions in relation to tuberculosis, mass X-ray and so on, pinned on to presses and places of that kind and, on top of those very presses and other places, there is an accumulation of dust so that all you would have to do would be to blow to get something like a miniature sand storm in the Sahara Desert. Therefore, this amendment should be accepted. It surprised me that these words were not included in the original draft of the Bill.
Senator Murphy referred to his experience of hearing people attribute the tuberculosis which they had contracted to dust, and so forth. There is a wide variety of allergies that are not traceable to any particular cause. It is always very difficult to find the real cause of an allergy. Some people are susceptible to fur coats. That does not upset a great proportion of the population, but a number of people are susceptible to allergies arising from dust. I feel that dust in offices can give rise to complaints like that which are very difficult to cure and, in a number of cases, can never be cured. The whole field of allergies, from my understanding of the position, is a closed book to the medical profession. Therefore, I urge that this amendment be accepted.
I also understand that, in the case of some offices, the cleaners employed in them follow a regulation—I do not know whether it is a convention among cleaners or a regulation of their trade union—that they do not dust or clean above a particular height—seven feet, eight feet or nine feet. That is a system which has given rise to years of accumulated dust in quite a number of offices. It should be made obligatory on owners of offices to provide the necessary accommodation to enable cleaners and people like them to get up in safety at least once a week to places where dust gathers.
In sub-section (2) of the section, an attempt is made, apparently, to cut down the amount of dust. The sub-section reads:—
"In fulfilling, on an occasion when work is in progress, the requirements of sub-section (1), the methods used shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be such as not to give rise to dust."
I do not think that sub-section would cure the deficiency which this amendment is intended to fill.
The fundamental objection to the amendment is that it deals with a matter of detail that can best be dealt with by regulations. Having heard the case made for the amendment, it seems to me that it is already met by the preceding part of the sub-section which says that:—
"Every office shall be kept in a clean state and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision—
(a) accumulations of dirt, refuse, trade refuse and waste shall be removed daily by a suitable method from all rooms, staircases and passages,..."
If there is an accumulation of dirt on the top of a lampshade, surely it is covered by that.
The better method of treating detail by means of regulations could, I suggest, be applied. It has the advantages that the Advisory Council can discuss such a matter in detail and that regulations made are more easily improved and amended, and so forth, than is a provision in the Act. Looking at the problem from all possible angles, I think the regulation method is by far the best, where detail is concerned.
There is, perhaps, some point in what the Parliamentary Secretary said in stressing that the very first sentence provides that the offices shall be kept in a clean state. My suggestion is that the amendment does not weaken but, in fact, strengthens somewhat the intention of the section as a whole. I have here the Factories Act. The very first section in the Factories Act dealing with cleanliness says that every factory shall be kept in a clean state. However, that Act then goes on to lay down and define in a whole page what the expression "clean state" means, and how it shall be arrived at. I shall not attempt to weary the Seanad by reading through it. My point is that even though the very first sentence says that every office shall be kept in a clean state, it was found desirable, and agreed to by all Parties, from our experience of dealing with factories, that these details should be entered into.
I have not asked that in this section we should enter into all the details, as we have in the Factories Act. All I ask is that there should be a definite reference to furniture and fittings in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the section. It in no way weakens the intention of the section but, rather, I submit, strengthens it. I cannot agree that there is any merit in the argument that we should leave these matters to be dealt with by regulations to be issued at some future date. The Parliamentary Secretary might have said that there was no need to bring in a Bill at all. All he need have done was to bring in a Bill of one sentence, probably, and give power to the Minister to make regulations in regard to offices.
The Seanad has always been particularly jealous of its right to deal with legislation and it has always been very suspicious of legislation by regulation. I submit that, in a small matter, it would strengthen the intention of the section to include those few words "furniture and fittings". I hope Senators will agree with me. I press the amendment.
I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Votáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senators challenging a Division please stand in their places?
Senators Murphy and Miss Davidson rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senators will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (3), line 24, before "the" to insert "the maintenance in good repair, the prevention of dampness on walls and ceilings."
This is an amendment suggested by the T.U.C. after studying the Bill. The point here is that there is not very much use in the Minister taking power to make various regulations in regard to cleaning, painting, whitewashing and colour-washing of inside walls, et cetera if, in fact, the building or premises is falling apart by reason of dampness or general disrepair. The amendment seeks to secure that the regulations could provide for the maintenance in good repair, the prevention of dampness on walls and ceilings, in addition to the other things specified in the sub-section.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should have no hesitation in taking these little extra powers. Already, he is asking for a whole lot of powers to make various regulations under the Bill and I do not think that these few extra powers will overburden him. I hope he can accept the amendment. The Minister may, in fact, never act on them, but we are suggesting that he should take the power to make regulations covering the items mentioned.
Dampness is a very difficult thing to define, particularly in an Act of Parliament. In public bodies, corporations, and so on, there was great difficulty in enforcing that sort of provision and I should not like to see it as part of an Act of Parliament. I know that we have had great difficulty, and I am sure the officials of the Department would experience equal difficulty, in defining dampness, condensation, and so on. If that were put in an Act of Parliament, it would be a very fruitful field for litigation and might act very unfairly on employers. My general view is that the vast majority of employers would like to have good conditions and I wonder why people would work for the sort of employers who would ask people to work under any other sort of conditions. They would be very silly to work for them.
I should like to support all that Senator Murphy has said in regard to the necessity for this amendment, which seeks to have inserted the words "the maintenance in good repair, the prevention of dampness on walls and ceilings". As he said, the Parliamentary Secretary should have no hesitation in accepting the amendment. An office in premises that are not being maintained in good repair and where there is dampness on walls and ceilings is certainly not fit to house human beings. Dampness of that kind is worse even than dust for bringing about T.B. conditions in workers. The Parliamentary Secretary might give the amendment a good deal of thought before he turns it down.
I agree with all three Senators in their condemnation of damp walls, but I submit that we have already provided in Sections 14 and 17 for this matter. Under Section 14, the enforcing authority may condemn a room as unsuitable for clerical work on the grounds of construction, height, lighting, ventilation or on any hygienic ground. Section 17 is different. In any event, Section 14 gives the protection which the Senators want to see provided in this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (2), line 34, delete all the words after "than" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following:—"400 cubic feet, ignoring in the computation all heights above 12 feet and excluding the space occupied by furniture and fittings."
Section 9 deals with overcrowding and I suggest that there is very good precedent for providing a minimum space for offices, that it is not sufficient for us simply to say that an office shall not, while work is carried on, be so overcrowded as to cause risk of injury to the health of the persons employed therein. Senators will readily understand that it would be very difficult to prove that an office is so overcrowded as to risk the health of the occupants. We have a very good pattern already in factory legislation. Section 11 of the Factories Act deals with overcrowding, but it goes into more detail than this Bill and provides that the minimum space shall be 400 cubic feet per worker. It differ somewhat from my amendment in that it says that, in calculating the space, heights greater than 14 feet shall not be taken into account. I am suggesting that heights higher than 12 feet should not be taken into account, but I am not very insistent on that point if I can get the Parliamentary Secretary to agree that, at least, he will give as good conditions to office workers as were given to factory workers under the Factories Act by the previous Government. Here I do not think a matter of politics enters into it because, as far as I am aware, the Parliamentary Secretary's Party supported the Factories Act. I do not remember their quarrelling about it. I do not remember their saying that it gave too good conditions to factory workers. I do not remember their saying that it went too far in providing safeguards and in going into detail.
As I said on the Second Stage of this Bill, if it was desirable to provide a minimum space, to provide minimum conditions, to prevent overcrowding in factories, there should be no great difficulty in providing the same safeguards for office workers. The office workers, as represented by the two organisations I mentioned earlier, are not being difficult about this. What they are saying is: "We are not asking anything better than factory workers; what we are asking for is the same minimum conditions." I do not think the Minister or the Seanad could agree that it would be right to refuse those workers the same minimum conditions and minimum safeguards as we have provided already for factory workers.
Again, we are convinced that this matter can best be dealt with by regulations, which will have the consideration of an advisory body composed of representatives of the workers. In this matter of cubic feet, it is not at all clear that the provisions of the Factories Act are the most suitable. Fifty years of experience of these Acts has indicated that 400 cubic feet is a reasonable provision in respect of workers in factories. It has been suggested that possibly the better way of doing so for office workers would be on a basis of square measure of the floor. I suggest that the Senator might not be serving the best interest of office workers, if he insists on having it this way. Why not leave it to the Advisory Council, which will go into the details and decide the best basis on which to provide adequate space in any particular case?
It must be granted that the bodies I referred to, representing the clerical workers, know what they are talking about. If they think this is the proper way to provide for a minimum space, some weight should be attached to their words.
I am reminded that in the Factories Act, which I mentioned, there is provision for an advisory body as well, but in that case we did not simply say: "It is up to the advisory body to advise as to the minimum space required." The Oireachtas itself set that out and laid down, furthermore, that the Minister could at a later date alter that minimum. The minimum was 400 cubic feet. I suggest it is right and proper that the same minimum be applied to offices. Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling me: "It might be better to leave this alone, as the minimum provided for office workers might be higher than is provided for factories"? The organisations representing clerical workers say that if they could get the minimum prescribed for factories they would be quite happy and satisfied. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying to them: "Do not look for that minimum; we may under the regulations give you a far higher minimum"? It is not wanted; there is no need for it; it is not mentioned in any regulation, in the I.L.A. Report or elsewhere. The 400 cubic feet is regarded as an adequate standard. We already have it for factories. There is no reason why we should not have it for offices and there is no reason why we should postpone coming to a decision on it or why the decision should be taken away from us on the ground that it should be done by regulation at some subsequent date.
It is all very well to say that the organised workers know what they want and should be given it. I do not think that argument at all answers the point I made. A man may want to get rid of T.B., but he may not be the best adviser as to how to do so or know the best treatment to apply. In this section as it stands, provision is made for consultation with the health authority. That is being eliminated by the Senator. It is possible that consultation with the health authority may be very necessary in a great many cases, to ensure that in fact what the Senator wants in his amendment will be secured.
Why did the Department not put into the Bill the standard number of square feet provided in the Civil Service as the minimum, whatever it is? I think it is 200 square feet. Would that not meet Senator Murphy?
I cannot answer that question satisfactorily to the Seanad or to myself, but I suggest to him that the Advisory Council might not fix 200, or any given number, as a flat figure applicable over the entire country. I do not know; they might or they might not. Conditions may vary so much.
I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of details about which I am not competent to speak. I suggest it be left to the Advisory Body to consider these things. They will advise the Minister and the regulations can be made accordingly. These regulations will come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and then we can discuss them. I think that is a far better safeguard for the workers.
It might be no harm at this stage—since the words "advisory council" have been used so often and since quite a number of those amendments which the Labour members of the Seanad have put in seem to be more efficiently covered by reference to the Advisory Council—to remind Senator Murphy and Senator Miss Davidson of what the Leader of the Labour Party said in the Dáil on the occasion when the Second Stage was going through that House.
In Volume 161, column 585, the Leader of the Labour Party—who ought to know quite a lot about this as he had a hand in drafting the original Bill, said this:—
"This Bill also has the merit that in Section 24 it sets up an advisory council which will be representative of people who have an interest in this whole problem, that is, those who would represent workers, those who would represent employers, those who would have an interest in social welfare activities, the idea there being that regulations would be submitted to this advisory council, that there could be an impact of reason on reason from the different sides of the advisory council and that, ultimately, whatever regulation came out of the council would have the benediction of the different groups who would be represented on the council. That was designed to ensure that the regulations would not be milled out by an impersonal Department concerned only with ensuring that its ukases compelled respect. The idea of the advisory council and the submission thereto of the regulations was to ensure that you would get a human point of view beamed on the regulations, a practical point of view, which would enable the regulations to work."
I submit that the majority of the amendments here deal with matters which would be more properly dealt with by the Advisory Council, on which representatives of office workers, quite as competent as the Senators who have spoken, will be in a position to deal with the matters covered by these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy dissenting.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 12:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) a temperature of less than 60 degrees shall not be deemed after the first hour to be a reasonable temperature while work is going on.
With your permission, Sir, I should like to take amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is agreed.
What I am attempting to do is to avoid this pie in the sky attitude about regulations after consultation, and so on, and put in a minimum temperature. Reference is made to reasonable temperatures in the section as it stands and I am asking that any temperature of less than 60 degrees after the first hour shall not be regarded as reasonable. This again is sought by bodies of clerical workers interested in it, and again we drop back on the Factories Act. Section 12 of the Factories Act reads almost word for word with the section we are now discussing, but there is a minimum provision in the Factories Act for 60 degrees.
Again, the Parliamentary Secretary may say that office workers might like it to be a bit warmer, but again I must reply that office workers have expressed a view on it. We have mention of a minimum temperature in various reports, a committee report in Britain, various I.L.O. investigations, and my information is that it is generally recognised that 60 degrees Fahrenheit is the minimum temperature. That is not to say that people might not like it a bit warmer, but the amendment seeks to provide that anything lower than that temperature shall not be regarded as reasonable.
I should imagine all good employers would already have provided heating which would give a temperature at that level or above, and there is no reason why the few bad employers should not be brought into line. The sensible employers know very well that if office work is to be done competently, it is essential that the offices should be adequately heated. After the first half hour or hour, office workers cannot give of their best if the office is not heated. As I said, I want a minimum to be provided as set down in the Factories Act.
There is another small point. My amendment No. 13 seeks to put in the word "offensive" which is not in the section as it stands, to provide that any methods of heating should not be injurious or offensive to the persons employed. Again, this is not something thought up by myself. That word is in the appropriate section of the Factories Act and I do not know how it came to be dropped out of this Bill. There does not seem to be any good reason why the word "offensive" should not be in the appropriate section of this Bill as it is in the Factories Act.
I was very interested in what Senator Murphy said about any good employer providing adequate heating. That is the only difference I have with Senator Murphy. It would be much better if we could get these things done by the employer, seeing that they will be advantageous, rather than have to put everything in as part of an Act of Parliament. Eventually, we would find ourselves in the state that no one would be able to administer all the Acts of Parliament we would have. In the year 1957, let us believe that employers have enough humanity to see that they ought to give decent conditions, if not for that reason, for the good reason that they will not get results otherwise.
This is certainly the type of minimum standard which could easily be laid down. Many employers up to the present time might not have been very particular about the standards of cleanliness or the amount of space allocated to their employees, but there must be sufficient experience available to the Minister's Department to determine what would be a reasonable standard of heat for offices. I think 60 degrees Fahrenheit has been found to be reasonable, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment.
A very important point is that contained in amendment No. 13, that the matter of provision of heat shall not be offensive. There seems to be an increased use of oil-burning apparatus for the purpose of heating. While such apparatus, if it is operated satisfactorily, may give good heat and heat that is not offensive, the situation can always arise in which, if it is neglected, it can become very offensive. It is, therefore, appropriate that there should be this stipulation that the type of heating, irrespective of the quantum, should not be of an offensive character.
The section does provide against the method of heating being offensive or injurious and I do not see why that should have been incorporated in the amendment at all. However, because of this general objection to the putting in of too much detail in the Bill, I cannot see my way to accept this amendment, either. This is a matter best left to the Advisory Council which will be set up.
There will be no point in having that Advisory Council if we put in sufficient detail into the Bill to bind everybody. That would produce, in my opinion, an absurd result, and we think that by far the best for the Legislature to do is to give a general direction and set up the agency which can most sensibly and practically implement that direction.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (1), line 31, after the word "clean" to add the following:—
and—
(a) where a piped water supply is in the premises, all sanitary conveniences shall be individually flushed water closets, except urinals, which shall have suitable flushing arrangements,
(b) sanitary conveniences shall not communicate with any office except through the open air or through an intervening ventilated space,
(c) effective arrangements shall be made for lighting the sanitary conveniences, and
(d) where five or more persons of both sexes are or are intended to be employed the sanitary conveniences shall afford separate accommodation for persons of each sex.
Sub-section (1) of this section is exactly similar to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Factories Act. That section states that suitable sanitary accommodation shall be provided for persons employed in factories. Such sanitary conveniences must be maintained and kept clean, and the Act goes on to provide what those suggested and suitable conveniences should be. That is omitted from this Bill and again we are told that the Minister, after consultation, may make certain regulations. I am suggesting that if it is right, correct and proper to make those detailed arrangements in regard to factories, it is equally right and proper to do so for offices, especially now when we have the situation that offices must employ at least six persons before they come under the provisions of this Act.
My amendment, therefore, seeks to put in the provisions already enacted for the factories, with one small exception. I am not being quite as hard on the owners of offices as the Oireachtas has been with factory owners, because in the appropriate sub-section of the Factories Act, it is provided that where persons of different sexes are, or are intended to be, employed, the sanitary facilities shall afford separate sanitary accommodation. My amendment does not go quite so far as that. It deals only with offices where five or more persons of different sexes are, or are intended, to be employed.
Again we are back to the old question as to whether we will have this done by a regulation subsequently or whether the Oireachtas will have the responsibility of deciding what is right and proper. It would be all right if there were any merit in the argument that we were starting along a new, uncharted road. The fact is that we have already dealt with exactly the same situation for factories and have agreed on what is right and proper in that case. Nobody is asking for better provisions for office workers than are provided for factory workers, but we cannot get that. We are told: "Maybe the regulations might provide something." They may and they may not; but I am asking the Seanad to see that the minimum conditions for office workers as laid down in my amendment should be accepted.
There is no use in arguing that the Advisory Council might, or might not, deal with this matter at some subsequent stage. There is also an Advisory Council in connection with the Factories Act, but, nevertheless, we are the people who should lay down the minimum requirements in the Act, rather than let an Advisory Council make a recommendation to the Minister subsequently, and then let the Minister, if he so wishes, make appropriate regulations.
I can only add the same argument again against this amendment as I have already offered against other amendments, that of too great detail. I think this one, in particular, lends itself to treatment by the Advisory Council even more than some of the others which were discussed.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 17:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) The Minister may make regulations for offices, or for any class or description of office, requiring that provision be made for fire preventative facilities.
The purpose of this amendment is to give further power to the Minister under regulations he may issue in regard to fire preventative facilities. I do not know if that is a very apt term, but I think the Seanad will recognise what I have in mind. It is really not a personal opinion; it is an opinion expressed by the T.U.C. In the large offices that will come under this Act, there should be provided and maintained some form of fire extinguishers or other methods of dealing with fire. In most large offices, there are some facilities, either buckets of sand and water, or the ordinary neat and tidy form of fire extinguisher. We believe the Minister should take this power to make regulations that fire extinguishers should be provided in offices and that they should be kept in good condition. Many offices are in rather dangerous situations with regard to fire, being on the tops of buildings and having a lot of paper in them. The Parliamentary Secretary might decide it would be no harm for him to accept this amendment.
Is that power already in the Bill?
Not just exactly as the amendment words it, but, if the Senator will read Section 18, he will see quite considerable precautions are being taken to see that the damage done by fire outbreak will be minimised to the greatest possible extent. Speaking generally on the question of devising suitable fire prevention facilities, one of the greatest difficulties is to decide a suitable standard, universally applicable, because of the great variations in the buildings with which we are now dealing, as compared with factories.
Section 18 deals with the means of escape in case of fire. I agree with the Minister that the matter is probably complicated, but he has an Advisory Council which could give him advice on the subject. If they advise him that it is too complicated to make any regulations, no regulations are made. All I am asking is that, in the event of the Advisory Council being able to make some recommendations, and his deciding it would be appropriate to make the regulation, at least he will have the power to make the regulation. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should not be reluctant to take that little power.
I should like to support Senator Murphy. I can envisage a number of cases where it would be desirable to have some type of fire-fighting apparatus. Some of these chemical fire extinguishers are very effective, particularly in small offices, where they may be very close together. It is desirable that the Minister should have power to make regulations.
I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I am not in the least impressed by the fact that the officers of his Department cannot decide what is a suitable type of fire extinguisher. There are several suitable types. They may find it difficult to put their imprimatur on any proprietary brand, but at least we could submit the type of fire extinguisher available in this country to the Bureau of Standards and let them decide the more suitable type and use that.
This does not deal with fire extinguishers but with preventive facilities.
A fire extinguisher could be a very effective form of preventive.
The biggest difficulty I see in this is the fact that the installation of all this type of equipment would require regular inspection and attention. That is going to lead to other difficulties, but the most pleasant feature in regard to this amendment is that Senator Murphy did not start off, as in the case of the last 17 amendments, by saying this provision was in the Factories Act. There is no similar provision in the Factories Act.
You could not burn some of the factories. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the matter?
Let us leave the matter at that. I do not wish to be tied on this matter. Some of the speeches were made about extinguishing fires, but this specifically refers to preventive facilities. We have now in recent years considerable fire-fighting organisations being built all over the country and it seems to me that this type of duty might eventually be organised by these fire-fighting organisations which have been set up.
I know that the matter referred to is one of the first importance, but I know there are practical difficulties in implementing what is suggested here. For that reason, I do not wish to be tied by it. If the matter is left until Report Stage, we will have something to say about another section also. I will come back with a definite reply on this at that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed too.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:—
Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—
19.—(1) There shall be provided and maintained at suitable points conveniently accessible to all persons employed an adequate supply of wholesome drinking water from a public main or from some other source approved in writing by the sanitary authority, such approval not to be withheld except on the ground of the unwholesomeness of the water.
(2) A supply of drinking water which is not laid on shall be contained in suitable vessels and shall be renewed at least daily, and all practicable steps shall be taken to preserve the water and vessels from contamination.
(3) In sub-section (2) of this section "suitable vessels" does not include open barrels, pails, tanks or other containers from which the water must be obtained by dipping or pouring, whether they are fitted with covers or not.
(4) A supply of drinking water (whether laid on or not) shall be clearly marked "Drinking Water."
(5) Except where the water is delivered in an upward jet from which the employed persons can conveniently drink, one or more suitable cups or drinking vessels shall be provided at each point of supply with facilities for rinsing them in drinking water.
Again, this is simply putting in what is already in the Factories Act.
Is the Senator back to it again?
No. I remember, when we were dealing with the Factories Act in this House, the representative of the employers was very keen on this section. He did not oppose these definite and specific provisions. He wanted to go to greater lengths in regard to providing methods in relation to drinking water. Again, the Parliamentary Secretary may say that if it is good enough in the factories similar arrangements should be provided for office workers. The fact that the House have rejected my amendment to cover all offices rather strengthens the arguments in favour of these amendments. We are dealing with offices in fairly substantial establishments. We do not think it is just good enough to say that an adequate supply of drinking water shall be made conveniently available. The Factories Act goes much further. I suggest that this Bill should go equally far and provide the same facilities.
I support this amendment. The supply of drinking water is no doubt a very essential thing. It should be kept in a clean and wholesome way. That is also very essential from the point of view of health. Likewise, the supply and maintenance in a clean condition of drinking facilities is a very important thing.
The Parliamentary Secretary should give careful consideration whether he could write into this Bill the section as it stands in the Factories Act and as it appears in this amendment.
I am more akin to an office worker than a factory worker, but I am not so different from a factory worker, perhaps, as Senator Murphy is. I feel that all these amendments which go into very great detail and for which the constant repeated argument is put forward, that there are already provisions in the Factories Act, are based on a misunderstanding. I understood from the discussion on Second Stage that this Bill has no parallel, that there was no such legislation available to us. If that is so, this Bill is an experiment.
It is an example of interference for an entirely good and sound object, I agree, but it is still interference. It involves inspectors, boards, and expense, but it is an experiment. Although it is a new Bill, it follows a model already available. There is an Advisory Council which will advise the Minister. The Minister makes regulations and the regulations under the provisions of the Bill are to be laid on the Table of both Houses of the Orieachtas, and any interested parties can read them and raise them in either House, if they think fit.
It is much better, when dealing with a matter of this kind, where we have not really got very much information, where it goes all over the country into all kinds of different places, that we should take a general provision such as is in Section 19 and leave the matter of detail to be settled by regulations made with the council upon which there will be representatives of the trade unions and clerical workers. As a general principle, that would be better than to endeavour to put everything into this Bill.
The Factories Acts were passed after a period of experience of factories which revealed frightfully bad conditions which people were anxious to remedy. I do not think the analogy with offices is quite sound. It seems to me we should allow this Bill to work in the way in which it was framed rather than endeavour, by this proposed new section and a great many other amendments, to put in detailed provisions. It may be that detailed provisions, though they are in the Factories Act, would not be so suitable for offices. I should rather see the body specially charged with doing this work frame regulations of its own.
We should endeavour to treat the matter as an experiment, to see how it works, rather than endeavour to get everything done in detail for the first time here. Nobody knows better than I do, and nobody has made more speeches about it than I have, that it is not desirable to give too much power to Ministers. However, whether we like it or not, if we are to have Bills of this kind which are welfare Bills and which provide for State interference as distinct from trade union interference or trade union action, for the purpose of making people better off than they are, then you cannot settle everything in the Bill. You must adopt the scheme that has been adopted here and in other countries for a great many years of having a council and giving power to the Minister to make regulations. In complex modern society, there is no other way in which you can do it. To endeavour to put everything you want into the Bill is a mistake, even from the point of view of the people you are endeavouring to benefit.
I say, with some grief, perhaps, that no method has been revealed to anybody, so far, which is any better than the method of settling principles as best you can and leaving certain things to be worked out by Ministers or, if you like, by officials who always get abuse but who have their uses as well as their abuses.
This type of amendment is, so to speak, misguided even from the point of view of the people you want to benefit. Therefore, I find myself in agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary and opposed to my friend, Senator Murphy.
I cannot see the Parliamentary Secretary saying that it is a matter that should be referred to the Advisory Council. The simple matter of providing a wholesome supply of drinking water in proper places is not a matter that should require the weighty consideration of an Advisory Council. That matter might finally be disposed of by this amendment which has already been included in the factory legislation.
With regard to the matters which have been mentioned by Senator Hayes, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill is only the second Bill that has been introduced in the Oireachtas in a period of 35 years dealing specifically with the position of the salaried middle-classes. It is proper that we should spend a good deal of time on it considering that this is only the second piece of legislation that has been introduced to deal with those classes of the community. The other Bill was the Voluntary Health Insurance Bill. For that, as was remarked by one Senator in the course of the debate on the Bill here, the salaried classes do not have to thank any Minister, because they are getting no subsidy from the State.
This Bill at least tries to remedy a great number of the grievances and difficult conditions under which salaried workers have discharged their duties over the years. Their part in society and in the community has not been sufficiently recognised. This Bill is a recognition that they have been working under not so good conditions in some cases. I would ask the House to give the most careful consideration to this amendment which should not require any reference to the Advisory Council. It is a simple, straightforward amendment dealing with the provision of enough water to drink.
I find difficulty in supporting this amendment. I can see that there may be parts of the country where it is impossible to provide suitable supplies of drinking water. I know of schools in my county where a supply of drinking water is not available. It would cost enormous sums of money to make drinking water readily available at short notice. One of the difficulties in regard to this amendment is that Senator Murphy wants it to be mandatory on the Minister to compel people to provide supplies of water, whether readily available or not.
I should like to point out that people who oppose a particular amendment here are not necessarily opposed to good conditions for office workers. I did not start to talk here for the first time to-day. The people who are opposed to these amendments are not necessarily opposed to good conditions for office workers. We have been told, truthfully enough, perhaps, that the first Bill dealing with salaried workers and their conditions was the Voluntary Health Insurance Bill, that no Minister is to be thanked for it and that the State gives no subsidy. I think, however, that Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, the former Minister for Health, should be thanked for bringing in that Bill, and I am sure that Senator O'Quigley would agree with me on that.
Yes.
You should not discuss these amendments on the basis that, if you are in favour of them, you are in favour of good conditions for office workers and that, if you are not in favour of them, you are not in favour of good conditions for office workers.
I am in favour of good conditions for office workers. I feel, however, that to attempt to put every possible detail into the Bill and establish a constant and, to my mind, a false analogy with the factories, is not a sound proposition and will not help office workers in the end. That is my only reason for being against it—the question of workability. There are people who want to give the State the power to do everything about everybody. Roughly speaking, I am against that. However, I am in favour of improving the conditions of office workers, which I know are sometimes very bad.
I work under extremely bad conditions myself, which nobody at the moment is trying to remedy. Therefore, I am in favour of people who have to work at all working under good conditions. I feel, however, that to endeavour to dot all the i's and cross all the t's is a mistake. I will not go any further than that, although one could do so.
Is there a supply of wholesome drinking water for Deputies and Senators in Leinster House in accordance with this amendment?
They would not drink it, if it was available.
There is a bar.
Senator Hayes has put the case against the amendment.
The modern miracle.
I do not think I should waste the time of the Seanad in repeating it. Surely every sensible person should accept what Section 19 says:—
"An adequate supply of wholesome drinking water shall be made conveniently available for the use of employed persons."
Unless we believe that the Minister is not going to implement the Act and that the Advisory Council will try to defeat its purpose, there is no reason why the section should not be accepted as it is.
Let me, perhaps, follow up what has been said about detail. Suppose, for instance, this amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill. Let us apply it to the situation as it exists in a great many offices up and down the country, whereby each clerk is supplied with a carafe of water, with a glass. The amendment says:—
"There shall be provided and maintained at suitable points conveniently accessible to all persons employed an adequate supply of wholesome drinking water..."
That would mean that if I have my decanter here and somebody else is sitting near me, it is available to both of us. That would be reducing the thing to the absurd. That situation could arise under this amendment.
There is only one point to reply to and it is in connection with what Senator Hayes has said. A short reply to his long statement is that I do not remember Senator Hayes, when we were dealing with the Factories Act, objecting that it went into too much detail.
It was for factory workers.
The people in offices also work. They also drink and need water. I press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy and O'Quigley dissenting.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1), line 12, after "washing" to insert "which shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying."
Sub-section (1) of Section 20 reads the same as Section 53 of the Factories Act, with the exception that some words have been quietly dropped, namely, the words: "which shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying" I ask why? If there are facilities for washing, surely it is essential that clean towels—and I underline "clean"—and soap should be provided in exactly the same way as they are provided in connection with washing facilities in factories? It is a pity Senator Hayes is not here because I should like to ask him whether it is expected that clerks should wipe their hands on the tails of their shirts, or why they should not be provided with clean towels and soap as are factory workers. I do not think there can be any merit in the argument, this time, that this should be left aside for the Advisory Council to deal with.
Why not?
To put it bluntly, are we in agreement with the principle that clean towels and soap should not be provided for office workers where, in the same building, under legislation, they must be provided for the factory workers? This is not a matter on which a great deal of advice is needed from the Advisory Council and I am putting it bluntly to the Seanad whether or not they think that office workers should not be treated in the same way as factory workers and provided with clean towels and soap as are their colleagues in the factory.
Somebody may say that office workers provide their own towels. In some cases, they do provide their own towels and soap and lock them in their desks, but in many offices there are no facilities like that for putting away towels and soap. Good employers go a little bit further and provide individual clean towels for their employees. I am not asking for that; I am not going as far as that. I am saying that, at least, the same standards should be provided for office workers as are provided in the Factories Act, that the words which have been quietly dropped should be replaced in the section and that it is quite appropriate that they should apply equally to the office workers and the factory workers.
I should like to register a protest against the lack of confidence which Senator Murphy appears to have in the trade union representatives and the aspersion which he appears to be casting on them. The trade union representatives who will be members of the Advisory Council in which, apparently, Senator Murphy has no confidence, will be equally competent to deal with office workers, factory workers or any other type of workers, and I am quite certain that the trade union representatives, if they are as active as the trade union representative which Senator Murphy's organisation has sent to the Seanad, will not waste one second before they insist on having whatever facilities are lacking in connection with washing provided. It is a shame for Senator Murphy to be continually harping on the fact that there will be on the Advisory Council trade union representatives who will not do their job.
The Bill says in regard to this matter that there should be adequate facilities for washing in offices. I do not think you could have adequate facilities for washing if you have no soap and, when you have arrived at the soap and water stage, it follows that you must have a clean towel to finish the job properly. Therefore, to carry out the terms of the section, we want soap and clean towels.
The only point I want to make is that the burden of Senator Murphy's remarks was that, unless we had compulsion, we would not have clean towels and soap. That is a ridiculous suggestion to make. It means that you will have nothing good in the world unless you pass a law to have it.
Senator Miss Davidson has answered the question. She says you cannot have adequate washing facilities unless you have towels and soap and the section includes the word "adequate".
Then we come to the point: why is this in the Factories Act and why is it quietly taken out of this Bill? If there is a doubt about it and if the Parliamentary Secretary does think that soap and towels will be provided, he should have no hesitation in accepting my amendment and making it very plain and clear to stupid trade union officials.
I commend Senator Miss Davidson's interpretation to the Senator.
There is one point in connection with this amendment I should like to put before its proposer. The type of work that office workers are engaged in is entirely different from that in which factory workers are engaged. The factory workers have to use their hands and that is the reason that soap and clean towels were specifically provided for in the Factories Act. There is really no analogy between the two types of work. We are legislating here for clerical workers and not for manual workers.
Would clerical workers include typists using carbon paper and such like, which is very dirty?
It is hygienic to wash one's hands.
Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Murphy, Miss Davidson and J. O'Donovan dissenting.
Section 20 agreed to.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 20:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) There shall be provided and maintained, for the use of all employed persons whose work is done standing, suitable facilities for sitting sufficient to enable them to take advantage of any opportunities for resting which may occur in the course of their employment.
This is an amendment to put in a new sub-section (2) and would mean, of course, renumbering the other sub-section accordingly. This amendment is suggested by some of the unions, through the Irish Trade Union Congress, who feel that sub-section (1) does not go far enough in regard to seating facilities. What is proposed here is a clause similar to that in operation, in the British Factories Act this time; and it is suggested that where the work is done standing, suitable facilities for sitting, sufficient to enable them to take advantage of any opportunities for resting, should be provided.
I do not know whether many of us have experience of this. I believe it occurs only in a certain type of work. Nevertheless, the people concerned think it important that this sub-section (2) should be put in and I should imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary would find no difficulty about agreeing to do so.
We know what happens in shops, where the unfortunate assistants have to keep dancing around on their toes from morning to night and are not supposed to sit down at all, for fear it would give the impression to the customers that business was very bad. I suppose that is rather beside the point, since we are dealing in particular here with offices. It is suggested that this amendment would improve the general intention of Section 21 and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to its insertion.
The section provides as well for the workers as is proposed in the amendment and I do not see what advantage is to be gained by substituting the amendment or adding it to the section.
I grant that the argument is not very strong, but it does seem in reading sub-section (1), that the inference is that, where the work can be done sitting, reasonable facilities will be provided for sitting. That is rather different from what is suggested in this additional sub-section. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to have it examined, to look again at sub-section (1) and examine whether it is necessary to put in this new sub-section, between now and the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Before Section 23, to insert a new section as follows:—
In every office in which not less than 25 females are employed there shall be provided a rest room.
This amendment is intended to make more specific the provision of a rest room. Senators will see right away that the provision will apply only in pretty large establishments, where 25 or more females are employed. I know that in many such establishments employers do provide a rest room and the various facilities and necessaries going with it. It is suggested that this be made obligatory in the Bill, so that the employer who is not so good may be brought into line.
I do not think I need press on the Seanad the necessity of a rest room where there is a body of female employees. Generally, it is not thought sufficient that the Minister may or may not make regulations in regard to the matter at some future date.
I should like to stress the necessity for the provision of a rest room where there is a considerable number of female staff. The number of female staff mentioned in the amendment is 25, which visualises a fairly large concern. The setting aside of such a necessary amenity as a rest room for the women members of the staff would not put a great strain on the employers' resources, either in cost or space, and we hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give consideration to the amendment.
Has Senator Murphy any reason to believe that rest room facilities are not already provided in firms which employ not fewer than 25? Has he any idea that the situation is bad in that direction?
As I said, I know that good employers generally do provide this facility. What I am suggesting is that the others who do not should be made come into line. By the very fact that the trade unions concerned in this do urge the necessity for the provision of this facility, it seems there is a complaint that some employers employing a large number of female staff do not provide it.
I have nothing to say against the idea of a rest room and that applies to many of my observations on previous sections. However, what I do suggest again is that the method of dealing with a matter of this sort as suggested in the Bill ought to be accepted, namely, that it be dealt with by the Advisory Council. If we are to go into detail of that sort, I might point out to the Senator that there are matters of detail in connection with this suggestion of a rest room which he has not dealt with and which, I think, the Advisory Council would deal with and deal with adequately. Therefore, it is best to leave it to be dealt with in that way and, for that reason, I am not disposed to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—
There shall be provided for the use of employed persons cloakrooms or facilities for accommodating clothing not worn during working hours, with facilities for drying.
Again, this is a provision which is in the Factories Act. Not alone is it obligatory to provide a cloakroom, but also to provide facilities for drying clothing. You do find that, even though offices may be centrally heated, for some very strange reason, cloakrooms are not heated, but I suppose in more modern buildings, they have come to see the light in that respect and do provide heating in the cloakroom in order to dry clothes.
I think it will be agreed that it is very necessary that there should be such facilities, especially in the larger offices. It is not safe from the point of view of health that wet clothes should be strung over radiators in the office where the clerks are working. It would be more sensible that the cloakroom itself should have the equipment by way of certain types of radiators for this purpose. It is not regarded as sufficient that, as, for instance, in Section 23, where it appears to the Minister that provision requires to be made, he would then proceed to make regulations under that section. You will see there is a mention under (b) of accommodation for clothing, but there is no mention in that section of drying the clothing. It is in order to draw attention to the desirability of providing those facilities that this amendment is put down.
I should like to stress the utility of the amendment from the point of view of health. If there are no drying facilities in cloakrooms, there is an inclination on the part of employees to bring their wet clothing into the office and dry them over radiators, and the steam rising from such clothing is very injurious, if it is breathed in by the occupants of the office. I believe there is a good case for accepting this amendment.
I find myself unable to offer any argument against the desirability of achieving the purpose which this amendment aims at. All I can say is that I do not agree on the method. The method provided in the Bill will achieve the purpose far more efficiently than any hide-bound provision. These detailed improvements do lend themselves to discussion by a body like the Advisory Council and they will make a better job of it than we can do here by a specific provision in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1), line 46, to delete "or in substitution for".
This, to my mind, is a rather important amendment and I should like the House to look at it rather carefully. What I am objecting to are the words "in substitution for". Candidly, I do not see the sense of our laying down certain conditions, in regard to welfare in Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, and then proceeding in Section 23 to give power to the Minister to substitute other provisions altogether. There may be some merit in the argument that details can best be dealt with by regulation, after being considered by the Advisory Council, but it seems to me that it is asking for too much freedom altogether to ask that the Minister be given power to sweep away, in effect, Sections 19 to 22, if he thinks fit. There is no real merit in our passing Sections 19 to 22 if at the same time we are going to allow him to have the words "or in substitution for" in Section 23. I should like Senators to take a look at that and see if there is any merit in my contention that it takes away from the usefulness of the previous sections, and that it should be deleted altogether from the sub-section.
Does Senator Murphy believe that if any attempt were made to substitute anything less for the provisions to which he has adverted in regard to health and general facilities in this Bill, the workers' representatives on the Advisory Council would tolerate it for a moment? Does he not agree that any attempt to substitute something inferior for these services, something not as satisfactory, would lead to a situation which would not be desirable? Therefore, there is no reason to fear that paragraph would be interpreted in the way he fears it would be interpreted.
I agree with Senator Murphy that if this phrase were to be used for the purposes for which he suggests, that is, the sweeping away of some benefits already conferred, there would be no justification for it; but surely he must agree with me, he must presume that the intention is to substitute something better than has already been provided. Let us take, for example, that the Minister, after consultation with the Advisory Council, makes a regulation providing an ambulance room in respect of certain premises, in substitution for a first-aid box, would the Senator suggest there would be any disability inflicted upon the workers if the first-aid box were removed when the ambulance room is provided? That is one case that comes to my mind. There are others. It is not for the purpose of giving something less good; it is for the purpose of improvement that the phrase is used.
It seems to me, from what the Parliamentary Secretary says, that the Minister would already have power under this clause to modify, to extend, to add to, or to vary the regulations. Why, therefore, does he require the power also to substitute something else entirely for them? It seems to me that the argument by the Parliamentary Secretary would be covered by the right in the same clause to add, extend or vary. Why does he need the right to "substitute"? I am not convinced by Senator Mullins's argument that we must give the Minister this power, because if we did give it to him, the workers would not allow the Minister to abuse that power.
Why not? I think the composition of the council is the most important safeguard in this Bill. If that does not work, the Bill will not work.
Speaking "off the cuff", it seems to me the Minister may make regulations without getting the advice of the Advisory Council. Even if he gets the advice of the Advisory Council, he may decide against it. How are we to know what advice he gets from the council? There is no provision for the Advisory Council to publish an annual report. I think what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the desirability of giving the Minister the power to extend, with the implication in that to improve, the foregoing sections, makes it clear there is no need for the words "or in substitution for".
It is quite plain. Under the Bill, he can make regulations "either in addition to or in substitution for, or by way of extension or variation of". All I am suggesting is that the words "in substitution for" should be taken out. The Parliamentary Secretary might realise it is one of these phrases that come into Bills without anybody being very clear as to exactly what is required. Naturally, the draftsmen tend to look for all sorts of safeguards, putting what they imagine the same thing to be in various forms and different language. There is no good argument for the retention of the words "or in substitution for" in this section. It would not be going against the principle of the Bill to remove them altogether.
I see no virtue at all in the argument any more than you might say the word "variation" could mean a worsening. I think the Senator could have argued that the word "variation" could also be applied to a worsening condition of affairs than had previously existed. After all, there must be some reliance placed on those who will be administering the provisions of this Bill. If that is absent, nothing we can put into this Bill would be of any use. Is it not conceivable that a better water supply than the one contained in a container, such as was mentioned on some of the sections, might be provided? That crops up in my mind as a type of substitution which would be of benefit to the people employed in offices.
Not unless you are going to substitute the contents of the container.
How can Senator Murphy accept the word "variation"?
Possibly the implications are not as strong as those of "in substitution for". If there is force in that argument, the word "variation" would be sufficient.
It is quite common in some offices for workers to hang their clothes on rails. If the rails were substituted by lockers, that would not be done unless that wording was there.
It is to substitute things for what are contained in Sections 19 to 22 exclusively.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (4), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) be made upon application by a registered trade union or staff association.
The amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks to give the trade union or staff association the right to ask for welfare regulations. The Minister may make such regulations, even if he does not get a request from the workers' staff associations. There do not seem to be any facilities in the section as it stands at the moment for the making of a request for welfare regulations by such associations. It is because of the shortcomings in Section 23 that this amendment is put down.
I should like to support this amendment. It makes a very reasonable request. Trade union staff associations or a trade union would be very well qualified to prescribe welfare requirements and they would be fully qualified to advise on such matters, especially in regard to the trades or occupations for which they cater. I think the Minister might include them in this paragraph.
I wish to support this amendment also. I think the people who are wearing the shoes will know where they pinch and they will be in a better position to see what the shortcomings of a particular office are than the people who are to work in it. It seems right and reasonable that applications for the making of welfare regulations by trade unions or staff associations should be entertained by the rule-making authority. Senator Mullins on the previous amendment stated that if certain things were done, no doubt the trade union organisations would take up the matter. I think that would probably be the case, even if this amendment were accepted. If this amendment were accepted, it would give trade unions and staff associations some status in the matter of requesting certain regulations to be made.
I feel that if this amendment is put in, the representations which would be made by these trade unions will be all the more responsible by reason of the fact that they have got a statutory basis for making them. When they have got this authority under the Act, I should imagine that the power, if I might call it such, vested in them by the particular amendment would be exercised in a very responsible way.
Is not that power inherent in the Advisory Council, which is representative of the trade unions? Surely the normal procedure would be that the trade union or the staff association concerned would make its application through the Advisory Council? There is nothing to prevent them doing that.
On that matter, I should imagine that it would be far better for the Advisory Council to operate in a way in which they would not be subject to the influences or pressures either of employers or employees; that it would act as a unit. Very often, for reasons which seem good to different interests in relation to this amendment, the trade union representatives on the Advisory Council, having considered all the aspects of a matter, might think it incumbent upon them not to accept the representations made to them by trade unions. I think it would be far better that the representations should be made through the body as a whole and that the different sections on the Advisory Council should not each be plugging the particular interest he would normally be expected to represent. The Advisory Council should act as a group, pooling all the knowledge of employers and employees and making what regulations seem best after examining that pool of information.
Surely that is what is visualised in the section? It seems to me that Senator O'Quigley's argument is completely superfluous and that, if the House accepts his theory, we will emasculate the section altogether. I do not see any substance in the argument whatever. The trade unions, as pointed out in the section, will have representation on the Advisory Council. If they act like a sensible body, they will surely act as a unit, taking all things into consideration.
There is a variety of trade unions and staff associations catering for clerical workers and, quite obviously, all of them cannot have representation on the Advisory Council. It is right that the individual trade unions or the groups of employees, through their trade unions, should be given the right to request the making of regulations. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is up to the Minister, on the advice of the Advisory Council, to decide whether or not he will make those regulations.
I never heard of a trade union being shy to request or demand anything. If the Advisory Council does not, as Senator Murphy suggests, bother itself with the staff associations concerned, I do not know of anything which prevents a trade union or a staff association from making direct representations to the Minister as they have always done.
I cannot see what the objection is to taking it in. What is the objection to it?
What is the necessity? The position is that not only a staff association, but a member working in an office is as free as any citizen to write to the Minister pointing out certain things. I take it that the Minister, being a sensible man, will give that letter to the Advisory Council and ask it to advise him on the matter, or is it suggested that the Minister, in certain cases, should act over the heads of the Advisory Council? If it is not that, this has no meaning.
I do not understand the section, but I do not interpret it in the way the Parliamentary Secretary does.
Quite apart from anything contained in this measure when it becomes an Act, a member of an office staff may write to the Minister complaining of conditions in his office. I take it that the Minister will refer that letter to the Advisory Council for advice. The staff association does not even have to have the complaint brought to official notice, but if there is something more than the bringing of the matter to official notice required and this amendment is proposed for the purpose of doing it, I suggest that the amendment can only mean that the Minister is now being asked to act on the representation of a staff association, without reference to the Advisory Council. I think that would be a most unwise thing to do.
Of course, if that were the intention, it would defeat its own purpose. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to the section dealing with the Advisory Council, he will see that the function of the Advisory Council is to advise the Minister on the desirability of amending or revoking any Order or regulation under the Act. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is missing the point of this. He says that an individual can write complaining to the Minister. This is not a question of complaining about the non-enforcement of the Act or any such thing at all. It deals purely with welfare regulations which may or may not be made. As the House can see, they are listed in the preceding part of the section. All that is asked, very simply, is that the trade union or the staff association should be in a position to ask for the making of the welfare regulations.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says, as I suppose he will immediately come back and say, that there is no objection to an individual doing that, then what is the objection to providing in the Act that the group, as represented by the trade union or staff association, should be given the right to request the making of regulations?
Does the Senator suggest that the regulation would be made on the application of the staff association, without reference to the Advisory Council?
No, I should imagine it would not—and this is not my fault; it is the Bill itself. I may be wrong, but I do not think it is obligatory on the Minister to refer regulations to the Advisory Council.
The Senator is not correct there. The Minister must consult the Advisory Council on the making of regulations.
The insertion of this amendment does not change that.
Will the Senator say whether he intends, whatever the words mean, that this amendment will enable the Minister to make a regulation on the application of a staff association, without referring the application for consideration to the Advisory Council?
That was not my intention at all.
In that event, the amendment does not mean anything. The staff association may write to the Minister or a member of the staff association may write to the Minister or an unorganised worker may write to the Minister, complaining of the conditions in the office. The Minister will refer that complaint, in the ordinary way, I take it, to the Advisory Council.
You may have office workers, none of whom is in a trade union but on whose behalf a registered trade union might plead, if we pass this amendment. As Senator Murphy says, a trade union might have no status in the matter, where workers were unorganised, unless there was a clause like this giving a registered trade union the right to intercede on behalf of unorganised workers.
They have that right. What is to stop them from exercising any such right? There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the staff association from doing that on behalf of unorganised workers.
This would allow them to say: "We have the authority of the Act to put forward this plea." I believe they would do it anyway, of course.
It is a question of recognition.
I do not know what is the value of status in this case. A citizen has status as a citizen and has the right to write to a Minister to make a complaint which he thinks comes within an Act of this Legislature. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent an unorganised worker from complaining to the Minister about his office and it will be dealt with by the Advisory Council. If this amendment means anything, it means that the Minister should make a regulation on the mere application of the staff association, without further ado in the matter.
Not at all. Welfare regulations may be made. If it said: "Welfare regulations shall be made", it would be a different matter. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument does not hold water.
Take "may" as distinct from "shall". Is the Senator suggesting that the Minister may make regulations merely on an application by a staff association, without reference to the Advisory Council?
Why not?
I have not time to look up the reference now, but the Parliamentary Secretary told me that, under some other section, he cannot do so. It was not my intention that he should do so without reference to the Advisory Council.
But, if you put it into the Bill, he will then be able to do it in this particular instance.
What is the difference between "they may be made on the application..." and "they may be made for a particular office or offices..."? Does he refer the application to the Advisory Council, or the office or offices? If he does, he does; if he does not, he does not.
Before he makes a regulation, as the Bill stands, the Minister must consult the Advisory Council.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary referring to sub-section (2) of Section 24 which provides:—
"The Advisory Council shall consider and advise the Minister on any matters arising on or in relation to the execution of this Act (including any proposals by the Minister to make, amend or revoke any Orders or regulations under this Act) which the Minister may refer to the council."
Again, the operative word is "may". I cannot see, anywhere, that the Minister cannot make regulation without getting the advice of the Advisory Council.
Look at sub-section (2) of Section 30. It seems to meet the case.
We are dealing with Section 23 now.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Carton, Victor.
- Connolly, O'Brien, Nora.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Keeffe, James J.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
- Stanford, William B.
- Tunney, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Liam.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Brady, Seán.
- Burke, Denis.
- Carter, Frank.
- Cole, John C.
- Colley, Harry.
- Dowdall, Jane.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kissane, Éamon.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy; Níl: Senators Carter and Ryan.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (2), line 44, after "Council" to add "and shall publish an annual report which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas."
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Advisory Council, as such, shall publish an annual report which shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is rather important that provision should be made for the publication of an annual report. It seems to me that the usefulness of the Advisory Body would be considerably reduced if there were no provision for a statement from them as to what they have been doing, what advice they have given the Minister, what matters the Minister has referred to them, how the legislation has been enforced. A statement to that effect should be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I am not suggesting that Senators or Deputies would be terribly interested in studying that report every year, but the purpose of such annual reports is to bring things out into the light of day and they are of interest to the people concerned. Obviously, this would be a matter of considerable importance to the trade unions and staff associations dealing with clerical employees. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there is no good reason why the Advisory Council should not publish a report of its proceedings and show the public what it has been doing.
There is probably a rather negative argument, too, in favour of this amendment. It could quite well be that the Advisory Council might be doing its work adequately, might be making recommendations and giving advice to the Minister, and the Minister might not be taking any notice whatever of what was being recommended. He could, in effect, not use the Advisory Council at all; he could ignore them and not treat with them. There does not seem to be any provision in the legislation as it stands now by means of which the Advisory Council could bring that fact into the light of day. I do not think representatives of trade unions, for instance, would be behaving properly if they came away from the Advisory Council meeting and said publicly that they had recommended to the Minister such and such a thing and he had taken no notice of it. The proper way of dealing with the work of an Advisory Council like this is for them to publish an annual report and have it laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I would stress the necessity for the publication of an annual report as set out in the amendment. Such a report would give the details of the advice given to the Minister to make or amend Orders or regulations under the Act and it seems that such a report is very necessary. It would also be a very valuable reference book and a guide to workers, to trade unions and to members of the Oireachtas.
I wish to support this amendment also. During the course of this debate, the Advisory Council has been a body, mystic, wonderful— so many things are to be referred to it and so many things are to be done by it so much better than they could be done by legislation. Therefore, it would be well that both Houses of the Oireachtas and the public should know what it is doing from time to time. As this is legislation of an experimental character, it is very desirable that—in the early stages, at any rate, when this Bill is going through the experimental tests of its early years— it should be subject to scrutiny by trade unions and by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The best way of achieving that is by having an annual report published by the council.
I take it that the report would not be very detailed, but it would give some idea of the way in which the Act was being implemented and it would also throw up some of the difficulties encountered in the course of the Advisory Council's work in relation to matters given to it under the Act. Whereas at some later stage it might be considered unnecessary that the Advisory Council should take the trouble of compiling an annual report, it would be very useful in the early days if such a report were made available.
I should like briefly to support this amendment. It would clearly be in the public interest that the council should issue a regular report, from the point of view of documentation, giving the facts, seeing what is happening, and so on. Perhaps Senator Murphy was a little optimistic in thinking that a body which issues a report must have attention paid to it by the Minister. We have the example of the Fair Trade Commission. Nevertheless, it becomes more difficult for a Minister to ignore a council if the public know what is being done by it.
Many of us feel that we would like to avoid too many divisions in the House, if possible, as it takes up so much time. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that a neat and simple way of avoiding a division would be for him to accept the amendment.
A neater way would be to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to express my opposition to the amendment, as I do not consider there is the slightest necessity for any such report in this case. It is quite unusual for an advisory body to publish a report. An advisory body of the kind envisaged here is entirely different from an autonomous body like Bord na Móna or the E.S.B., which have a job of work to do under Statute.
Furthermore, an advisory body is fundamentally different from a fact-finding commission which would be in duty bound to make a report at the end of its term. Here we have just a body which will advise the Minister from time to time as to what regulations should be brought in and these very regulations themselves will be laid before both Houses in due course. There is no necessity for the amendment in my opinion.
Senator Ó Ciosáin has given the reason why this amendment cannot be accepted. The council will act in an advisory capacity and its advice may or may not be accepted by the Minister. In any event, as Senator Ó Ciosáin says, it is not usual to require a report from a body which acts solely in an advisory capacity.
The Prices Advisory Body acts in an advisory capacity and issues a report after each inquiry.
They hear evidence in public.
Not always, but they always issue a report.
As this Act progresses we will be able to have further elucidation of that point.
Because of the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to accept sensible amendments which have been put forward, the work and responsibility which has been laid upon this Advisory Council is rather unique. We have asked it to do things which the two Houses of the Oireachtas should have done, that is, lay down proper provisions. The Parliamentary Secretary put his finger on the difficulty when he said that the Minister may or may not accept and act upon the advice so given. It is because of that very fact that it is essential that they should publish an annual report. Otherwise, it means putting those who might be on the council in a difficult position. They might be doing their work quite adequately, but there is no way by which the public or the people who sent them there may know what recommendations they made and whether or not the Minister proposed to act on those recommendations.
We have very good newspapers.
That may be so, but for my part I would regard it as improper that people put on such a council would report back to other bodies saying what they recommended to the Minister. It is for the Minister himself, if he wishes, to make an announcement. There should be a formal way of reporting annually as to what has transpired. Otherwise, the only way trade union representatives could deal with difficulties would be to resign; and even then they might feel it would be a breach of confidence to state the reason for their resignations, which probably would be that the Minister had failed to take any notice of the recommendations or advice they had given.
I wonder what form the report would take or what form Senator Murphy has in mind. Where regulations are made by the Minister after consultation with the council, they are laid upon the Table and we know what they are. Any interested parties can find out what they are. If the council advises the Minister and the Minister makes regulations, then again they appear. It is suggested that, when the council advises the Minister and he does not make the regulation, that should appear in a report. I am not very clear as to what the report should be as distinct from the regulations made which will be published. What else is there?
Obviously the report would contain the recommendations made to the Minister. That is the essential purpose of desiring an annual report. Senator Hayes says it is undesirable that such facts should be brought to light. If you do not publish them you are putting this council in the position of being stooges, tying their hands, putting them in the position of not being able to say anything, and the only recourse open to them in the end is to resign from the council altogether. There would also be dealt with and reported upon the enforcement of the Act. That would be another matter to be included in the annual report.
Then the annual report, it is suggested, should be published to spotlight, so to speak, the disagreement between the Minister and the council. That seems to me not to be desirable. I think Senator Murphy is not quite correct in his last statement, that they would report on matters in relation to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. They would only advise the Minister on that. It seems to me that the council must get some chance of doing its work and it is suggested that an Advisory Council set up by a Minister, no matter who he is, should make an annual report indicating how they disagreed with him. That takes a view of Ministers which I regret my experience does not seem to justify.
Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Murphy, Miss Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, and O'Quigley dissenting.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I made the suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Stage of the Bill dealing with the composition of the Advisory Council, that he might allow these bodies to nominate their own representatives to this council, instead of the Minister appointing them, for the simple reason that the appointment by a Minister of a council like this might lead one to suspect that they had the complexion the Minister wanted them to have. If some bodies were able to nominate their own representatives on the council, it would be much more satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary has said himself a few moments ago that the composition of the council is the most important safeguard of all, but if the council is completely nominated by the Minister, it rather reduces that safeguard. I should like to see these bodies being allowed to nominate representatives to this council, half the council at least being nominated by, say, trade unions, chambers of commerce, and such bodies.
What Senator Cole says is reasonable enough in substance, but there possibly would be, on occasion, practical difficulties in giving effect to it. In any event, he knows, as most Senators and Deputies know, that the usual practice in matters of this kind is that consultation is had with interested associations and they are asked to suggest names from which persons will be selected. That is the usual practice and I do not think it is likely to be departed from in this case. The carrying out of that practice in respect of this Bill will ensure what Senator Cole wishes to achieve and I think he might be satisfied with an assurance that the practice will be followed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In paragraph (a), line 22, to delete "Minister" and substitute "sanitary authority,".
There is a series of amendments to this section and, if the House agrees, we can take Nos. 26, 27 and 29 together. If necessary, separate decisions on each can be taken. We referred earlier on to amendment No. 28, but we can take Nos. 26, 27 and 29 now. We will come to No. 28 presently.
This section is probably one of the more important sections in the Bill. It relates to the enforcing of the legislation. What I am suggesting here is that we should look again at the way the Act will be enforced and see that in the case of offices in the occupation of the State, the enforcing authority, instead of the Minister as representing the State, would be the sanitary authority. That is what is desired, naturally enough, by the people employed by the State. They say very bluntly they do not see the joke of the Minister inspecting his own office and the Minister, in effect, prosecuting himself for not complying with the legislation. Surely it is more sensible that somebody who is not the owner of the office should be the inspecting authority. I do not think that employees of the Government would be lax about bringing their own office up to the requirements provided for in the legislation, but civil servants being notoriously doubtful——
Notoriously what?
Doubting Thomases— might not agree with the Minister. I think it would be appropriate that the sanitary authority should be the enforcing authority and that they should inspect the offices and take the appropriate steps where they are not in line with the provisions of the Act. As regards (c), "in every other case", I suggest it would be appropriate for the Minister to be the enforcing authority. Already the Minister has factory inspectors who are scattered around the country who are qualified in this type of work. Where the office is attached to a factory, it is sensible that the factory inspector should inspect the office, that he should be the enforcing authority or the representative of the enforcing authority. There are other offices not attached to factories and it seems to me it would not be very sensible or practicable to have a variety of enforcing authorities throughout the State. It would be easy to get a general pattern if you had the enforcement done by the central authority, by the Minister, through the factory inspectors who, in any case, would be in those localities inspecting the offices attached to factories. When they are in any locality, they should have the power to inspect other offices not attached to factories.
I do not feel terribly strongly about it. There is no great matter of principle involved. It is just a matter of trying to decide what is the best practicable way of enforcing this legislation, of getting it working smoothly. My idea may find some favour with the Seanad. That is the idea embodied in these amendments.
Senator O'Quigley wants to speak on amendment No. 28. The Senator may proceed on that amendment.
I think the arguments on all four amendments are arguments which apply to amendment No. 28. First of all, I wish to say that I do not think these amendments ought to be taken as implying that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not apply the provisions of the Act in the case of Government Departments, or that sanitary authorities would not apply the provisions of the Act in the case of offices occupied by them. That is not a necessary implication at all of these amendments, but the Minister, in dealing with a somewhat similar amendment, put down during Committee Stage in the Dáil, on Section 25, as reported in Volume 164, column 107, of the Dáil debates said: "I would not go on record as assuming that the sanitary authorities would not obey the law in their own offices". I do not think that is involved at all in these amendments, but I do think there is a certain principle involved in them. It is this: that a Minister of State, or a public body such as a sanitary authority, should be in no different position as regards the enforcement of a particular Act of Parliament, or the application of an Act of Parliament to them, from that of any other body in the State, whether that body is a private corporation or public corporation, like the E.S.B. or Aer Lingus, or a private citizen.
For that reason, the Minister should be in the position, like the sanitary authority, that some other outside body should be entitled under the Act to see that the provisions of the Act were being observed, as in the case of a private corporation or private citizen. For that reason, my amendment suggests, in the case of offices in occupation by the State, the enforcing authority should be the sanitary authority, and, in the case of offices in occupation by a sanitary authority, the enforcing authority should be the Minister, and that in every other case, the enforcing authority would be the sanitary authority. My reason for making the sanitary authority the enforcing authority in every case, except in the case of its own offices, is that sanitary authorities already have sanitary inspectors. I think nowadays they are referred to as health inspectors. They could be employed, in the way which Senator Murphy suggests factory inspectors could be employed, to inspect offices in the areas in which they act as health inspectors.
From the point of view of the sanitary authorities, and from the point of view of the Minister, it would rid them of a lot of possible difficulties if there was some outside person or body who could enforce the Act. For example, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may be satisfied the provisions of the Act are complied with in relation to a social welfare office in some provincial town, but the staff working in that office may not think they are. It would be far better for the Minister to have some outside authority who could say, as between himself and the staff, whether in fact the provisions of the Act were being complied with. If they are not, if the employees in such an office feel the provisions are not being complied with, it would be an easy matter to have the difficulties resolved by the court, but if they were to bring proceedings in the District Court, as provided for in the Act, it would be impossible to have the sanitary authority, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce as the case may be, prosecuting themselves.
I do not think it is right that a sanitary authority, or any public body, should be in a different position in relation to court proceedings under any statute from that of a private individual or a private corporation. It may be objected, of course, that the Minister is not going to introduce an Act and then proceed to ignore it. That may be so, and I am sure that is so, that the Minister will enforce it, but, in the case of sanitary authorities, it is not every local authority that might be agreeable to enforcing the provisions of this Act in relation to its own offices. There have been cases of local authorities who have not carried out their statutory duties. These local authorities were wound up and a commissioner appointed to act in their place.
There may possibly be cases in which sanitary authorities will not enforce the provisions of the Act in relation to their own offices and, as the Bill stands at the moment, there is no way to enforce the provisions of the Bill in relation to their own offices. Precautions should be taken, in case there is a recalcitrant sanitary authority, to ensure a provision in the Bill enabling some authority other than the sanitary authority itself to enforce the provisions of the Bill in their case. The only way I can see that being achieved is by making the Minister the enforcing authority.
I should like to support this amendment on general principle. I think, without casting any aspersions on the sanitary authorities or on the Minister concerned, that it is a good thing to divide the supervisory and executive power by asking the Minister to supervise in the case of local authorities, and having the sanitary authority supervise in the case of ministerial responsibility.
I am not quite sure—perhaps, the Minister might clear the matter up— about the offices in Leinster House. I take it that, as the Act stands at the moment, it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who would be concerned, but if we were to ask that the sanitary authority be responsible for the enforcement of the Act, I suppose it would come under the Dublin Corporation. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that one of the offices housing clerical staff in Leinster House was to have one of its windows completely blocked up by a wall of concrete blocks to within six inches of the top of the window, whose authority would it be to see to it that this preventing of ordinary light and air coming through that particular window should not be allowed? It may seem a fantastic supposition, unless you have, in fact, been in the office in this House where, in fact, it has been done—a beautiful window blocked up almost entirely by concrete blocks to within six inches of window pane. I refer to one of the offices upstairs.
If that kind of thing is found to be bad for the health of the workers involved, I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary now whose responsibility, in fact, does that become? Would it, in fact, be the responsibility, under this Act, of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or is there some special dispensation in regard to Leinster House in regard to the offices and the health of the clerical staff?
I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington is taking me into another sphere altogether in relation to the blocking of windows by concrete walls. The right to block the window is the first question that has to be settled. I do not think we can deal with a question of the legal right of the person who put the window block there under the provisions of this Bill. I may not understand the Senator aright, but it seems to me that this is a question entirely extraneous to what we are doing in this Bill.
With regard to the enforcing of the provisions, the method suggested in the Bill has been designed to secure economy of administration and a considerable degree of convenience. Also, offices in factories will be inspected by the Minister's officers who, in any event, would be inspecting the factories. The only function the sanitary authority would have in the factory is in relation to Section 13 which deals with sanitary conveniences. In spite of all the protestations that have been made that Senators believe that the sanitary authority would do its duty in respect of all those State premises, I think the argument put forward for a change indicates that there is some reservation or doubt in their mind about the matter.
We are not at this stage prepared to accept that assumption as likely to be correct. We think that because of the undesirability of creating a further superstructure of inspection in the State at a high cost, this simple method ought to be tried. In any event, the officers who will be appointed by the sanitary authority will no doubt be men with considerable local knowledge, much more than the Minister's officers can be expected to have. That, in itself, should help considerably in the expeditious administration of the Act in each sanitary authority area.
It would be altogether undesirable that the sanitary authority should be charged with the task of inspecting State premises. The Minister's officers are quite competent to do that efficiently and, in fact, they do it in respect of any State factories there are in the country.
With regard to Leinster House, I take it that it is reasonable to assume that it is a State institution and for that reason the Minister's officers are the appropriate people to see that the provisions of the Act are complied with in respect of the offices of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann. I do not think there is anything special I have to say to Senator O'Quigley in relation to the offices occupied by local authorities.
He would by his amendment remove the offices of a local authority from inspection by the sanitary authority and transfer it to the Minister, but he would leave all other offices apparently for inspection by the sanitary authority. We do not think that these sanitary authority officers are likely to be specially selected by the sanitary authority so that they will not enforce the law and do their duty. In any event, they will all be reputable officers who will do their duty, if they accept the obligations of appointment.
Outside of these general observations on the changes suggested in these amendments, I do not think I could say anything very specific to convince anybody who holds the contrary view. Again, let me say that it is a pioneer piece of social legislation and I think we ought to be prepared to give it a try out. If, in this matter of enforcement, we find, after a period, that it has fallen down badly, the resources of the Legislature will not have been exhausted and it will be possible, by further legislation, to remedy any serious defects. I could not accept these amendments.
I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the section, as it is, is convenient and economic. I think there is merit in that contention. However, he has not shown that the amendment put down by me would make the section less convenient or less economical. I think it would be at least equally convenient, equally economic and certainly would be far more effective. Mention has not been made whether the section as it is at the moment would be very effective. The Parliamentary Secretary rather hinted that if it was not very effective, he could look at it again. I think the amendments I have put down are good ones and would make the enforcement of the Act much more effective.
Is it the intention that the officers of the local authority will be the present health officers? The health officers of the local authority supervise the health regulations. They are subject to the Department of Health. In this case the Department of Industry and Commerce is putting up this legislation. Will it mean that a local authority will require new officers, or can this Act be enforced through the work of the existing officers of a local authority?
It is the intention that the sanitary authority will employ the services of the officers who are in fact engaged on this work and who are best qualified to do it. If further assistance is required, it will be the duty of the sanitary authority to appoint officers—I take it, officers who are already in their employment—to assist their existing staff of sanitary officers.
Will they be responsible to the Department of Industry and Commerce in respect of this work and will they be responsible to the Minister for Health in respect of their other work?
The point raised by Senator Ó Donnabháin is extremely important. It is the matter I was about to raise, but in a slightly different context. I could see some case being made for not requiring offices in the occupation of the State to be inspected by the sanitary authority and for saying that the Minister will enforce the Act in relation to offices in the occupation of the State. Under the Bill, as far as I can see, the sanitary authority is not responsible to anybody. If the sanitary authority, in relation to its own offices, does not enforce the provisions of this Bill, as far as I can see, no power is given to any body or any person in any section of the Bill to make the sanitary authority comply with the provisions of the Bill in relation to their own offices.
Generally speaking, the sanitary authorities are the corporations of the county boroughs, the urban district authorities and the county councils. Certainly, the county councils and the corporations have fairly large offices and fairly large staffs employed in them. I think it is right and proper that, if it were only for the purpose of setting a good example, it should behove local authorities to put their own houses in order before going along to private citizens and private corporations and compelling them to comply with the provisions of the Act. There does not seem to me to be any way of compelling the sanitary authorities to do so. For that reason, it is very desirable that offices in the occupation of local authorities should be subject to inspection by the Minister. Perhaps that point may not have occurred to the Parliamentary Secretary and he might consider amending the Bill in that respect between now and the Report Stage.
It would be fantastic to suggest that the officers of the local authority should supervise the State institutions and that then, complementary to that, the officers of the State should supervise the local authorities. Every county council office and every building of the corporation, when this Bill is enacted, will have to see to it that their own house is in order.
I raised the question of the supervision of other people who have more than six persons employed. The officers of the local authority, when this Bill becomes an Act, will be operating through the Department of Industry and Commerce. At present, they are operating through the Departments of Health and Local Government. To my mind, the proper way to do it would be that the same group of officers would do all the work. Does it entail an imposition on local authorities to appoint separate officers to do this work? It would be possible that the same group of officers, whether in the corporation here in Dublin or in the county council, would do the three sets of duties: (1) local government officers on the sanitary side; (2) health officers on the health side; and (3) I presume the same officers can do this Department of Industry and Commerce work.
An immense amount of work could be thrown on large sanitary authorities such as municipal authorities in Dublin, Cork and Galway where a considerable number of offices employ more than six persons. There would be a considerable amount of work for somebody there. In the more rural sanitary authority areas, I presume there will not be many offices where more than six persons will be employed, and, in such areas, the work under this Bill, when it is enacted, will be practically negligible. However, in the city, it will impose a lot of extra duty on corporation officials. There, the health authority and the sanitary authority are coincident.
We should need to be very naive altogether to believe that the officials employed by the Dublin Corporation could take on the work of inspecting all the offices in Dublin, apart from Government offices, without any increase in staff. They would have to be very much underemployed at the moment—which I believe is not the case—if that additional work were placed on their shoulders without a corresponding addition to their staff.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Brady, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Dowdall, Jane.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Kissane, Éamon.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- O'Brien, George A.T.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
Níl
- Barry, Anthony.
- Burke, Denis.
- Carton, Victor.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Donegan, Patrick.
- Hayes, Michael.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Keeffe, James J.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Carter and Ryan; Níl: Senators Miss Davidson and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
What is proposed with regard to amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29?
In view of the defeat of amendment No. 26, I am not moving amendment No. 27.
For the same reason, I am not moving amendment No. 28.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1), line 30, to delete "all or" and in line 31 before "any" to insert "save those in respect of cleanliness, overcrowding, sanitary conveniences, fire escape, drinking water, first aid and washing facilities."
Section 26 provides for exemption certificates and, while conceding that there should be some provision for exemptions, I am suggesting that exemption should not be allowed in respect of the important matters of cleanliness, overcrowding, sanitary conveniences, fire escape, drinking water, first aid and washing facilities. It may be appropriate for the Minister to make an exemption Order in respect of anything else, but for those essential items, there should not be power for the Minister to make an exemption, in effect, to take out offices from the provisions in regard to these matters.
I should like to say that the power sought for the enforcing authority is far too sweeping and that the section should not be allowed to stand, unless it is amended by the insertion of the words proposed in the amendment.
I find myself in sympathy with this amendment also. I am opposed to the notion of allowing wide-scale exemption. Under the terms of the previous section, the words in this section "an enforcing authority" can mean the Minister by himself and we are giving the Minister, therefore, power under this section to "exempt by certificate" from all or any of the provisions of the Act any premises he likes. I should like to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary as to whether the provisions of Section 30, sub-section (2) would apply to these exemption certificates, because I take it an "exemption certificate" is not a "regulation". I want to know is it an "Order" within the meaning of this Bill because sub-section (2) of Section 30 says:—
"The Minister shall, before making any Orders or regulations under this Act, refer his proposals to the Advisory Council."
We have no guarantee that this certificate will be placed on the Table of the House, because it could hardly be interpreted as being a regulation under sub-section (1) of Section 30. If, on the other hand, it must be taken as being an Order, then, of course, this Order would have to be submitted, under sub-section (2) of Section 30, to the Advisory Council. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether this exemption certificate constitutes an Order within the meaning of this Bill.
My view is that Section 30 does not apply to such an exemption certificate. If the Senator is not satisfied with my view of the matter, I shall have the matter further examined and I may be able to give him more authoritative information on the next day.
This section is limited to an overall exemption period of three years. The reason it is put in here at all is that in certain cases it might be found impossible to enforce the provisions of the Bill and enable the enforcing authority to be reasonable in such compelling circumstances. That is all there is to it. There is no indefinite suspension: It cannot last longer than three years.
This is rather an important point. Because of the carrying of the previous section, enforcing authorities are scattered all over the country and because of this section, we are giving each of those enforcing authorities the right to make an exemption, without reference to the Minister, without reference to the Advisory Council and without having the exemption reported to the Advisory Council. I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to look again at this section between now and the Report Stage. The more I read it. the more dangerous it seems. Granted there is only a maximum period of exemption of three years, but even so, I think it is dangerous without some reference to the Minister or some reference to the Advisory Council. I would ask him to consider that aspect of it between now and the Report Stage.
I shall do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 31:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) An annual report of the activities of the enforcing authorities shall be laid before both houses of the Oireachtas.
In view of the fact that, because of the carrying of Section 25, we have a variety of enforcing authorities scattered all round the country, it would be unreasonable—or not so much unreasonable as unrealistic—to ask that these enforcing authorities should publish an annual report and lay it before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(f) with respect to any matters under this Act, to question, and to take in writing a statement from, every person whom he finds in an office or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been within the preceding two months employed in an office;.
This section confers upon inspectors appointed by the enforcing authority powers to do certain things. Under Section 1, paragraph (a) they are entitled to enter and inspect certain kinds of premises having certain inflammable materials. Under paragraph (b) they are entitled to take with them members of the Garda. Under (c), (d), (e), the inspector is entitled to require the production of documents, to make examination of the premises and to require any person whom he may find in an office and whom he may have reasonable cause to believe to be employed in the office, to give such information as it is in his power to give as to who is the occupier of the office. Paragraph (f) contains, to my mind, very far-reaching powers and vests them in the inspectors.
I am well aware of the fact that somewhat similar provisions to paragraph (f) have been incorporated in other Acts. It seems to me to be wholly unnecessary that in relation to the simple matter of finding out who was the occupier of the office and other matters in relation to compliance with the provisions of this legislation, an inspector should be invested with the wide-scale powers given under this paragraph. It will be observed that the inspector is entitled to examine any person he finds in an office, alone, or in the presence of any other person. In the ordinary course of events, if an inspector goes into an office and finds, say, during lunch hour, one typist between the age of 17 or 18, he is entitled to incarcerate her in a room or, during working hours, to take the typists or clerks and incarcerate them in a room and say: "I want to ask you certain questions." He can say to the employer: "I am entitled under Section 28 of the Office Premises Act to do what I am doing and if you obstruct me, you will be guilty of an offence." That is a very outrageous power to vest in an inspector under any Act.
It seems to be wholly unnecessary for enforcing the provisions that such extraordinary power should be given to an inspector to examine any person. whether alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit. In the ordinary course of a member of the Garda Síochána wishing to question a person under the age of 21 he is bound to have the parent of that child present; and any answer he gets without the parent being present would not be admissible in evidence afterwards in any proceedings that might arise.
Furthermore, in the ordinary course, this is a free country where we can speak and where we have freedom of speech, but we have equally freedom not to speak, and if a Guard asks: "Do you know anything about an accident that occurred at such and such a place yesterday morning?" and if I happen to be there and for one reason or another, I do not want to say anything, I can keep my mouth shut and there is nothing the Guard can do to compel me to speak. Under this Bill, however, any person found in an office can be incarcerated in a room with the inspector and can be compelled to speak. If the person does not do so, sub-section (4) of this section is available to deal with him. If any person wilfully delays an inspector or fails to comply with the requisition of an inspector in pursuance of this section, or wilfully withholds any information as to who is the occupier of any office, or conceals or prevents, or attempts to conceal or to prevent, a person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector, that person shall be deemed to obstruct the inspector in the execution of his duties.
Sub-section (5) provides that where an inspector is obstructed in the execution of his duties or powers, the person so obstructing shall be guilty of an offence; and the offence is punishable by a fine not exceeding £20, under Section 32. These powers are altogether too wide and are wholly unnecessary. The powers given in the amendment are entirely adequate—that an inspector would be entitled, with respect to any of these matters, to question—which is the entitlement of a police officer who is investigating a charge—and to take in writing a statement from every person whom he finds in an office or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been within the preceding two months employed in that office. That is a much safer measure of power to vest in inspectors for the purposes of this legislation.
I am in general agreement with the views expressed by Senator O'Quigley and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider whether this paragraph (f) is necessary at all. I do not think the amendment proposed by Senator O'Quigley helps the situation very much. This sub-section is both objectionable and unnecessary. It is objectionable because, as the last speaker has said, it gives to an inspector appointed under this Act power far in excess of the powers normally held by a member of the Garda Síochána who, even when investigating a far more important matter than would be under investigation in this case, would not have the powers which the inspector is to have. The courts have always been very jealous of the right of the citizen not to answer questions, not to make statements, not to do anything which might jeopardise his own position. I do not see why that general principle should be interfered with in this Bill.
Apart from being objectionable, the sub-section is unnecessary. All that is really required is for an inspector, when he is investigating, to go into an office, simply ask questions and get whatever information he wants. I cannot see why the Bill should seek to give him these excessive powers, to set up an inquisition and cause people to submit to examination and to sign declarations that what they are saying is the truth. It seems quite fantastic and unnecessary to give these powers to an inspector, and consequently I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this sub-section between now and the Report Stage and to reconsider whether it is necessary at all. I should like to refer to sub-section (g).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing with the amendment at the moment. We can take that up on the section.
The question arises as to whether we are putting in a sub-section excessive powers to be exercised later on by inspectors under the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are dealing here with a section of workers, clerical workers, and we should try to be consistent as regards this whole question. Quite recently, we were dealing with other workers, and we had no hesitation in putting powers such as these into the Act, that is, the Factories Act. We were dealing then with manual workers and the question is: are less powers to be given to inspectors under this Act to deal with clerical workers than were given under the Factories Act to deal with manual workers?
In reply to Senator Ó Ciosáin's point, if the House made an error of judgment in the Factories Act, that is no reason why it should not change its mind now. To put it mildly, it is a very poor appeal to reason to say this section was put into some other piece of legislation. I agree with Senator O'Quigley and Senator Ryan that there does not seem to be any need for this clause in the section.
I would not agree entirely with Senator O'Donovan that this provision should not be adopted simply because it is in another Act. There are a number of provisions that appear in almost every Act which have been found to be useful for securing the purposes for which the Act is passed. This strikes me, at first glance in any event, as being one of that type of stock provisions that enforcement measures of this kind usually require. I am inclined to agree with those who say that excessive powers should not be necessary for enforcing what is a comparatively simple measure of this kind and that there should not be anything akin to the powers which the Garda Síochána have in trying to run down crime and criminals. If the enforcement of the Bill as an Act would not be prejudiced in any way by the removal of this, I do not think the Minister would have any great objection to it. However, I would not like to express definitely whether it could be removed without detriment now or whether it is absolutely necessary, until it got some further consideration. I want to be reasonable as far as I can and to meet all reasonable objections without reducing the effectiveness of the Bill as an Act. For that reason, I will undertake to have this paragraph further considered and come back and tell the Seanad on Report Stage what the result of that consideration has been. I suggest that ought to meet the position for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill".
Sub-section (g) says: "To exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect." I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would consider this sub-section also. This is a very detailed Act, not as detailed as some of the members of the House would like, but nevertheless a very detailed Act, in which practically everything is dealt with very fully. The powers of the inspector are set out at considerable length, and I think it is objectionable to end up by having this sub-section giving them "such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect." It makes all the other sub-sections unnecessary. Why not say "the powers that may be necessary for carrying the Act into effect" and leave it at that, or else have a sub-section setting out his powers and leave out the last one. It is objectionable in principle to give him wide powers of this nature. I have no doubt it appears in many of the Acts, but I do not think that necessarily justifies it. In the hands of a ruthless Minister, or irresponsible inspector, it could be abused. I think it is an undesirable sub-section in principle.
I undertake to have it reconsidered.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Government amendment:
In paragraph (i), line 30, before "required" to insert "when making or signing a declaration".
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 35 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), line 14, after "authority" to add "or by or on behalf of the persons employed in the event of the neglect or default of the enforcing authority".
This section deals with the prosecution of offences and this amendment becomes more important because of the fact that Section 25 has been passed without amendment. Section 25 now sets out that the Minister is the enforcing authority for his own offices and local sanitary authorities are the enforcing officers for their own offices. Because of that fact, I suggest it is even more important that some right should be given to the staff to proceed to take action themselves, if there is neglect through default of the enforcing authority. The amendment says: "or by or on behalf of the persons employed." The action could be taken by a trade union, or an association representing those people. Because of the fact that Section 25 has not been amended, the people employed should be given the authority to initiate prosecutions if there is any default on the part of the enforcing authority.
I would support this amendment. It would be a good thing if it were accepted because, in the event of the enforcing authority not enforcing the Act, there are other remedies available to employees which might prove very expensive, both for themselves and for the local authorities, if they were to avail of them. The simple remedy of enabling proceedings to be taken in a District Court, which will not be very costly and which will be expeditious—in the event of the enforcing authority, which will always be the local authority, failing, neglecting, or defaulting in its duty—has the virtue that it is simple and ready. It would avoid what could involve very costly proceedings if the employees in an office were to avail of the other remedies available in law to them.
I think I can spare Senator Burke the necessity of rising to talk on this amendment. I am disposed to accept it, but I should like a little time to examine it further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 39 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the position that will arise in relation to proceedings in a District Court. It is not unusual, in legislation of this kind, to have a provision enabling the rule-making committees of the District Court or Circuit Court, whichever has jurisdiction, to enforce the particular section. I wonder can the Parliamentary Secretary say has that yet been considered and has any provision been made for the rule-making authorities of the District and Circuit Courts to administer this section? If not, it may prove awkward to bring proceedings in the District or Circuit Court.
It may be that Senator O'Quigley has suggested there is some very serious difficulty in the way of my accepting the amendment. If there is, I am afraid what I have said will have to be qualified by the position as I find it. If it is a fact that it is strewn with a whole lot of rule-making difficulties, as the Senator suggests, I would suggest it be left for further consideration between now and Report Stage. I want to apologise to Senator Burke for having forestalled him.
The Parliamentary Secretary may have misinterpreted what I have said. It may not be necessary. I have not had an opportunity of going into this matter. It may not be necessary to provide this specifically for making these rules. If it is, a very small sub-section would provide for everything necessary. It would avoid a very great deal of confusion in the courts. I hope nothing I have said will change the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 40 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11th December.