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

SECTION 2.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No.13:—

In sub-section (4), line 14, to delete " five " and substitute " three ".

This is an amendment to provide for reduction of the period in respect to which an existing factory can be exempt from complying with the provisions of a section. The period granted in the sub-section is five years and that can be extended for a further period of five years if suitable mechanical ventilation is installed. I feel five years is too long. I think three years is ample particularly with the condition that they can get a further extension if they put in ventilation.

Mr. Norton

I am prepared to agree to three.

Mr. Geoghegan

At present it is five years and they can get a further extension.

Mr. Norton

It must be borne in mind there would be a time lag between the passing of the Bill and its operation.

Mr. Lemass

I would be in favour of a reduction to three as is suggested in Deputy Larkin's amendment, but Deputy O'Malley, who is not now present, as he had to go on a deputation to a Minister, thinks that there would be cases, particularly in small factories, where the extension of cubic capacity provided by this section would involve some difficulty of a financial kind which would not be easily met and that it would be in his view unwise to reduce the period from five years to three years. It would be better to give these people time in which to organise themselves to effect the changes rather than to risk putting them out of business or curtailing the extent of their operations in too short a period. The Deputy is not here and I think that view should be expressed. Personally I cannot see any strong objection to the reduction of the period in subsection (4) to three years.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (8), line 46, to delete " Unless the Minister otherwise allows ".

Frankly I am at a loss to understand the purpose of the sub-section because it only refers to keeping in each workroom a notice specifying the number of persons who may be employed in the workroom.

Mr. Norton

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Dockrell

What is the idea behind the Minister's being given power of exemption.

Mr. Norton

This appears to be a carry-over from the 1901 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

On the section. Sub-section (3) reads as follows:—

" If the Minister is satisfied that, owing to the special conditions under which the work is carried on in any workroom in which explosive materials are manufactured or handled, the application of sub-section (2) of this section to the workroom would be inappropriate or unnecessary, he may by certificate except the workroom from that sub-section subject to any conditions specified in the certificate."

Sub-section (2) reads as follows:—

" Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, a factory shall be deemed to be so over-crowded as to cause risk of injury to the health of persons employed therein if the number of persons employed at the time in any workroom is such that the amount of cubic space allowed for every person employed in a room is less than 400 cubic feet."

There are cases where that requirement in relation to 400 cubic feet per person would be unnecessary, but if it is unnecessary then what the Minister can do there would hardly appear to be relevant. In fact, I do not know why that possibility is only in connection with workrooms where explosive materials are manufactured or handled.

Mr. Larkin

One would imagine it would be the opposite way.

Mr. Norton

I understand that the reason is that, in dealing with the manufacture of explosive materials, the space considerations which operate might be found to be inappropriate for safety reasons. That is supposed to be the origin of the section and provision is made that the exemption is subject to any conditions specified in the certificate.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister can make more onerous conditions apply to that type of workroom. I can understand a proposal in relation to workrooms where explosive materials are handled that he would have the power to make more stringent regulations than apply to factories generally but, as it stands, it seems to me that if he does not regard them as appropriate for that type of work the only thing he can do is to exempt the workroom altogether.

Mr. Norton

That is provided for and safeguarded here. I do not think it is open to the objection that you may impose more onerous conditions.

Mr. Larkin

I think the present wording is dangerous from the viewpoint of the Minister's argument. If it is argued, in relation to existing conditions, that under the provisions of subsection (2) they are inappropriate or unnecessary, it will be somewhat difficult to justify the requirement to make even more onerous conditions. Perhaps the word " inappropriate " might be substituted by " inadequate "

Mr. Lemass

" Unnecessary " is the word that I have in mind.

Mr. Norton

This is a borrowed section and the explanation for it is that in the manufacture of explosives it is desirable to keep people closely together for the operation so as to limit the risk. The power taken here is a power, if that is done, to do it under whatever conditions best make the working conditions as congenial as possible to the people concerned.

Mr. Lemass

In relation to workrooms where explosive materials are handled, " unnecessary" there applies.

Mr. Norton

We will have to look at it. I am told there is a separate Explosives Act. This is probably intended in some measure not to cut across the provisions of the Explosives Act.

Mr. Lemass

It might be said that other such legislation would have priority. Another point occurs to me in connection with sub-section (4) which reads as follows:—

" As respects any room used as a workroom at the date of the passing of this Act, sub-section (2) of this section shall, for the period of five years after that date and, if before the expiration of that period effective and suitable mechanical ventilation has been provided in the room for a further period of five years, have effect as if for the reference therein to 400 cubic feet there were substituted a reference to 250 cubic feet."

" . . . at the date of the passing of this Act, . . ." I do not know whether it is the date of the passing of the Act or the date of the coming into operation of the Act. The Act will be passed some time before it comes into operation. It is not clear which is intended.

Mr. Norton

It is hardly unreasonable to leave " passing " there.

Mr. Lemass

No, except that most factory owners will not become aware that the Act has been passed until the inspector tells them.

Mr. Hilliard

You have a limited period of from five to three years.

Mr. Larkin

I find it difficult to argue against it. If you take power to put the Act into operation on different dates I do not see how you can discriminate against one section.

Mr. Norton

Shall we make the amendment now, that is, to delete " passing " in sub-section (4) and substitute " of the coming into operation "?

Mr. Lemass

The parliamentary draftsman might like to have a look at that.

Chairman

Do you think it would be preferable if the Minister would look into it?

Mr. Lemass

I think it would be.

Mr. Norton

Very well.

Section, as amended, agreed.