Skip to main content
Normal View

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

SECTION 10.

I move in sub-section (1), paragraph (a) line 14 to delete "dirt and refuse" and substitute "dirt, refuse, trade refuse and waste". This amendment is intended to clarify the reference to dirt and refuse, and to make it clear that the requirement is to clear away accummulation of dirt and refuse. It also includes trade refuse and trade waste. It might well be argued that trade refuse, which accummulates to a large extent in certain types of manufacture, would not be regarded as dirt or refuse. While trade refuse and waste might not be objectionable from the point of view of dirt, it could be very dangerous if fire should break out. I think there would be an equal obligation, generally, not merely to keep the floor clean from the sanitary point of view, but also to keep it clean from accummulations of trade refuse and waste.

I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I think we would want to give some consideration to the use of the term "waste", which in some industries is of a commercial value. It might be difficult to prevent accummulation of waste in this sense. Cotton waste is an example, and which is part of the commercial process, whether or not it should accummulate on the floor.

The regulation in Section 10 sub-section 1(a) is that these accummulations should be removed daily by a suitable method from the floors and benches of workrooms, and from the staircases and passages. It is not an onerous condition. That is what the Section provides, and the amendment merely defines it.

Mr. Lemass

It was merely a point I wanted to make.

Amendment agreed to.
In sub-section (1), before paragraph (c) to insert a new paragraph as follows :—
(c) Where cleaning has to be carried out while work is in progress it shall be done in such manner as to avoid as far as practicable the raising of dust and where floors are swept while work is in progress it shall be done by a damp process so as to avoid raising dust.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are the same, and should be taken together.

I think my amendment accepts the spirit of amendment No. 9.

Mr. Dockrell

Might I ask you what exactly is envisaged as a damp process? Is it a technical term or a question of merely keeping down dust.

Mr. Lemass

I think we should have another look at that definition, and see if the factory requires a damp process. I think it could be described as methods which do not involve——

I think if we accepted the Minister's amendment it would meet that point of view. It covers both such cleaning and damp process.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) In fulfilling, on an occasion when work is in progress, the requirements of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, the methods used shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be such as not to give rise to dust.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11 :—

To delete sub-section (2), lines 39 to 42.

This is a point on which we have been having difficulty. It is an objection, in principle, to giving too wide a power to a Minister to exclude the provisions of the Act in certain cases. In this section I, frankly, can see no good reason why it should be possible to exclude a factory not using mechanical power, and employing less than ten persons, from the provision of keeping the place clean. There is no limitation to the grounds at all on which the Minister may grant this exemption. As we are dealing with the most elementary operations, namely, the cleaning or keeping clean of floors and passages, washing walls, etc., from my knowledge, all the smaller places should be required to do what the large-scale factories do from their own point of view. They keep their factories clean and well-painted, and have the dirt removed periodically. I think the powers we have will not be applied to those small workshops which would come under this particular sub-section.

Under Section 10, sub-section (1) (c) provision is made for the frequency by which walls, ceilings and staircases are washed, painted or colour-washed. Under the existing law, the painting requirement does not apply to any factory where no mechanical power is used. Until the Bill is drafted, these requirements will apply to factories where no mechanical power is used, provided they employ at least ten persons. If the factory has no mechanical power at all, the exemption provided for here does not apply. If the factory does not use mechanical equipment the Minister always has power to compel them to comply with the provisions of the section. Factories where no mechanical power is used are covered, and a Minister has the power to compel factories, whether they use mechanical power or not, to comply with the provision of the section. I think it is reasonably well met.

Mr. Lemass

I am not quite clear as to need for sub-section (2) having regard to sub-section (3) under which a Minister " if he thinks fit, by order, made after consultation with the Minister for Health, direct that those provisions shall not apply to factories, or parts of factories, of that class or description or shall apply as varied by the order ".

Sub-section (3) relates to paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) only.

Mr. Lemass

It seems to me that the power could be used to exempt factories employing less than ten persons, and not using mechanical power.

If the Committee wishes, then sub-section (2) can go.

Mr. Lemass

It requires consultation with another Minister before these orders are made.

I have probably tried to amend the wrong section. I am looking at the definitions. Maybe I am being a bit speedy. I do not see any definition regarding mechanical power.

Mr. Lemass

Mechanical power is no longer the dividing line at all.

I have been advised that there is no legal definition of mechanical power.

Then as far as this section is concerned the limitation is the number employed.

It requires some electrical generation to make it mechanical power, driven by power.

Most industrial sowing machines are driven by power now.

In that case, they would be covered fairly.

In that case, I am satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (2), line 42, to insert " or to a saw mill " after " employed ".

I put that in really to call attention to the special circumstances in which a saw mill is. A saw mill is partly open ; it has a good deal of sawdust, and so on, which is almost invariably extracted by some mechanical means. It would be very difficult for the ordinary requirements of Section 10 to apply to a saw mill. It would make the work very difficult. It would hold it up a great deal and it would not benefit the employees concerned. Actually, I have put that down to draw from the Minister some idea as to what his Department has in mind to meet the special requirements of a saw mill.

The effect of that amendment is to exempt saw mills from the requirements in regard to walls, partitions, ceilings, tops of rooms and staircases being washed down and kept painted at the interval provided for in the section. There is probably some force in the Deputy's contention that because of the amount of dust raised by the operation of sawing timber it would be difficult to keep the walls of premises clean.

They would be as bad again in a week.

It is continuously dusting. There is power under sub-section (3) of Section 10 to modify the application of the section to a class or description of factory and it would probably be better to leave the matter to be dealt with by regulation rather than to give a complete exemption to saw mills, because then you would have no power over the interior conditioning.

I agree. I put the amendment down very largely to ensure that the matter would be discussed. I take it the Minister and his Department are alive to the special conditions of a saw mill.

When this Bill becomes law I take it that those who own and operate saw mills will call attention to their special conditions. We can then look at the thing and see whether it is necessary to deal with the matter by means of regulation.

It should not be felt because this had been referred to in Committee that the case made on behalf of saw mills is accepted. After all, all that is required as far as the section is concerned is that they shall keep the place clean and free from effluvia arising from any drain, sanitary convenience or nuisance and that once a day they shall remove dirt and refuse. The other provisions are long term, going over periods from 14 months to seven years, and frankly I do not think they raise very great difficulty so far as saw mills are concerned. It is not a question of keeping every speck of dust away. That is dealt with under a different section altogether. I do not think it is too much to expect even a saw mill to clean up the place once a day.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dockrell's amendment relates to sub-paragraph (c) only of sub-section (1).

In that event, I think the case is even weaker because it is only dealing with periodical painting and cleaning. I am prepared to leave it as the Minister suggests, but I think he should not feel the saw mills have already made their case.

Mr. Dockrell

They are in a very special category.

Some of them are.

Mr. Lemass

In saw mills I have seen, some of which were transportable, they have always consisted of just half walls and a roof very largely exposed to the air. It would be very difficult to apply to them the conditions regarding painting, temperature and other things that apply to more stabilised places.

When you talk about saw mills against the background of a factory it must be remembered that in a number of cases there is no factory building there at all and no place to inspect; there is no building to whitewash or limewash. Will the matter be left to be dealt with in the way I suggested, if the need arises?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: " That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I think the wording of sub-section (3) requires a little examination. It provides that where the Minister considers that the provisions of the section are inadequate he may exempt the factory concerned from them altogether or apply the provisions as varied by the order. I take it the order made by the Minister could not impose on a factory conditions more onerous than the Bill specifies and consequently I think the use of the word " inadequate " there is liable to be somewhat misleading. I do not know if I am right in that assumption, that any order the Minister might make could not impose on a factory conditions more onerous than those in the Bill; the only thing he could do is exempt them from those conditions. It would be clearly anomalous if because we considered the provisions inadequate we could exempt factories from those provisions altogether.

The sections looks at inadequately and inappropriateness from the point of view of exempting the factory from obligations to comply but the last few words of the section seem possibly to open up the way to an adaptation of the inadequacy to such an extent as to make it possible to impose more onerous conditions, because it says " shall apply as varied by the order ". Therefore, if you find the order inadequate under the existing statute, you make an order, knock out the inadequacy, add the due measure of adequacy and say: " Now that is going to apply ".

Mr. Lemass

I think that might be discussed with the legal officer because whether that would hold in court is doubtful.

We will look at that and see if there are any traps in it.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share