Special Committee Factories Bill, 1954 debate -
Thursday, 27 Jan 1955

SECTION 27.

Mr. J. Larkin

I move amendment No. 20:—

To add to the section two new sub-sections as follows:—

(2) Any person who sells or lets on hire, or as agent of the seller or hirer causes or procures to be sold or let on hire, for use in a factory in the State any machine intended to be driven by mechanical power which does not comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds.

(3) The Minister may by regulations extend the provisions of the last preceding sub-section to machinery or plant, which does not comply with such requirements of this Act or of any regulation made thereunder, as may by specified in the regulations, and any regulations made under this sub-section may relate to machinery or plant in a specified process.

Amendment 20 is, in fact, to add to this section a provision that has been added in the code in the United Kingdom. The purpose is to ensure that in respect of new machinery the suppliers of the machinery, either by way of sale or hire, shall comply in the construction of the machinery with the provision of the section. It seems to be a reasonable precaution because, quite clearly, if there is to be a statutory requirement placed upon a person owning and operating machinery it is reasonable that those who sell or let that machinery, as in many other cases, should only sell machinery which will comply with that statutory requirement. Not everybody who buys machinery or hires it is aware of all the statutory requirements and he could well find himself possibly with a machine that is not complying with the statutory requirements. This particular amendment that I have here is in the Act in the United Kingdom, the 1948 Act, and I think it must have been based on their experience. To the extent that a great deal of the machinery purchased and used in this country comes from the United Kingdom, the makers and manufacturers of that machinery will be aware of this provision and there will not be such great difficulty as there would be in introducing some completely new feature.

Mr. Norton

I think the provisions in our Bill are stronger than those in the British Bill in as much as the requirement of Section 27 must be met as soon as the Act comes into force even for existing machinery. In our case here the whole structure of the Act is based on the idea of putting the onus of compliance on the occupier of the factory. The amendment seeks to bring in the supplier but if you do that it may only help to provide a person who uses the machinery with a defence in the courts as he can plead at any time that he was informed by the suppliers that this machinery complied with the provisions of the Act. In that case, if the supplier is to be made liable there is the possibility of getting after the supplier. In Britain, most of the machinery is made in Britain. You know who the supplier is. He has a British address and can be prosecuted. Here, most of our machinery is supplied from Britain or elsewhere and the person is outside our jurisdiction and the possibility of getting after him is correspondingly weakened. As far as the Bill is concerned I think it goes as far as it is possible in the circumstances operating here.

Mr. Lemass

I think so too. If we had a machinery industry here there might be some justification for introducing a section such as Deputy Larkin suggests but, in fact, the only person who could be got after here under this section would be the local agent of the supplier of the machinery, who would have no influence whatever in its design. The mere introduction of the section without having any legal power over the producers of the machinery, because they would be outside the jurisdiction, would, as the Minister says, weaken the clarity of the section. It is far better in our circumstances to keep the obligation solely on the occupier of the factory.

Mr. J. Larkin

In the English Act, the obligation is also on the factory owner as well as the supplier. I can see no insuperable difficulty in maintaining that joint responsibility. There may be something in the argument that the suppliers of machinery are outside the jurisdiction. At the same time we speak here of the agent of the seller or the hirer and he will be in most cases located in this country.

Mr. Norton

Would it -meet the Deputy's point if we put in a provision in the Bill where machinery is manufactured here?

Mr. J. Larkin

That will not be very extensive.

Mr. Norton

It seems of very little use to put in a provision as to the supplier. A German supplier of machinery to Ireland is liable——

Mr. J. Larkin

it also deals with his agent.

Mr. Lemass

It would be reasonable to put in a provision to the effect that any person manufacturing for sale or hire in this country, machinery for use in workshops, should construct that machinery having regard to any regulations made by the Minister in regard to safety devices.

Mr. J. Larkin

The only argument against that is that we are going to put the obligation on the Irish manufacturer of which the foreign manufacturer would be relieved.

Mr. Lemass

He would not be relieved if the machine did not have regard to the ministerial regulations. It would be illegal to use it if it did not conform with those requirements.

Mr. J. Larkin

It might be.

Mr. M. E. Dockrell

I would be afraid if we entirely followed Deputy Larkin's amendment that the guilty person here might get off under that and there would be somebody else outside the jurisdiction and you would be left with nobody to go after.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. The defence would be, " I purchased a standard type of machinery sold by somebody in Britain. He did not hear of the regulations made here and consequently had not provided this screen or fence or whatever safeguard was prescribed in the regulation."

Mr. M. E. Dockrell

And you can try him, if you like to take a case in the English Courts—a very difficult thing.

Mr. Norton

Some of the agents are visiting agents and others would be people without resources.

Mr. M. E. Dockrell

They might only have an office here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, put and agreed to.