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

SECTION 14.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 16:—

In sub-section (4), line 38, to delete " so far as practicable ".

I can see at the moment no good reason why, if windows and skylights are provided, there should not be an obligation placed on the employer to keep them clean and I cannot conceive any great practical difficulties to make that possible. If there are practical difficulties they can be overcome. To allow exemption from that sub-section on the ground of practicability, is to leave a very wide loophole. From the point of view of safety, lighting is very important. We try to get natural daylight if we can and the least we should ensure is that windows and skylights are kept clean. I am at a loss to understand why this limiting clause has been put in.

Mr. Norton

I agree that it is desirable that we should as far as practicable require factory owners to comply with the provisions of the section, but there are certain practical difficulties that arise in the implementation of it. For instance some of these windows will be found in factories which are extremely lofty and the cleaning of the windows might involve the erection of some staging or scaffolding in order to get up to the very high portions of these windows. Is it desirable to say that these windows must be cleaned frequently? Probably the windows would have to be cleaned every fortnight or every month. That would involve the movement in and out of the factory of this scaffolding or staging every fortnight or every month. Is that a reasonable requirement?

Mr. Larkin

It might not be a reasonable requirement if it were a question or erecting scaffolding. I do not think it would be necessary anyway.

Mr. Lemass

My disposition would be in favour of some safeguard of that kind. I was more worried about the use of the words " windows and skylights used for the lighting of workrooms ". I presume that it would be a good defence for any employer, charged with an offence under this section, to say that the particular window was not in fact being used for the lighting of the workroom. I think that the sub-section should read: " all glazed windows and sky lights shall, as far as is practicable, be kept clean " because the use of the phrase " used for the lighting of workrooms " creates possibilities of argument as to whether the window or skylight was required for the lighting of a workroom.

Mr. Larkin

It does indicate a distinction between a workroom and a passage-way. It is equally important to have good lighting in a passage-way.

Mr. Norton

The question at issue is whether it is wise to delete the words " as far as practicable". If you delete them, you may find yourself in a situation where for reasons of physical difficulty you may not be able to implement this section. Then the situation would have to be met by conniving at a contravention of the section.

Mr. M. E. Dockrell

There is such an infinite variety of detail in this Bill and such an infinite variety of circumstances can arise in all types of factories and workshops, that we could not possibly workshops, that we could not possibly know what particular parts should be excluded. To give the Minister, and in fact to give the Department, power to exclude factories where it would be impracticable to do this work seems to me to a very wide provision. It is all very technical. We are not sufficiently equipped to know all the technical difficulties which might arise under this section.

Mr. Larkin

That could be met by the Minister excluding them but it is a different matter to put into this section a possibility of exclusion which could be widely applied without the Minister examining the situation at all. It could be said that it was not practicable to clean them.

Mr. Norton

I have an open mind in the matter.

Mr. Lemass

In my view the most dangerous words in the section are " used for the lighting of workrooms ". I think the sub-section should read " all glazed windows and skylights shall so far as practicable be kept clean ".

Mr. Norton

I do not know how the window in the dome of the Dáil Chamber is cleaned. If you can conceive a place like that in a factory there would be practical difficulties.

Mr. M. E. Dockrell

I presume they put planks across.

Mr. Norton

We shall look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 17:—

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

(6) (a) Wherever possible natural lighting shall be used.

(b) Where artificial lighting is required it shall be of a uniform level, widely distributed to avoid harsh shadows or strong contrasts and be free from direct or reflected glare.

(c) Sources of artificial light shall be so placed and installed so that during work the light does not shine directly or indirectly in the workers eyes.

This amendment seeks to provide some basis for the standard of lighting that would be required. I think I am right in saying that it is largely taken from the proposal of the International Labour Office, to try to secure a proper standard of artificial lighting and to ensure that, wherever possible, natural lighting should be used. In the words of the amendment, where artificial lighting is required it is proposed that it shall be of a uniform level, and widely distributed so as to avoid harsh shadows or strong contrasts, which, in any case where machinery is working, could be a great source of danger. I agree that it may be placing a big burden on the Department to operate the section on this basis, but at the same time we should try to set up some standard for ourselves to which we would expect them to conform.

Mr. Norton

The difficulty about the amendment is that while some of the things suggested in it would in the ordinary course find their place in regulations made by the Minister under sub-section (2) of the section, the provision as set out here in this amendment is a little too rigid. For instance it makes no provision for concentrated lighting required for fine work. On the whole I think it would be better to leave it to regulations to make provision for the proper lighting of premises.

Mr. Lemass

The principle of the section is to secure that provision shall be made for maintaining sufficient and suitable lighting. I think it is wiser to leave it without more precise definition because precise definition tends to limit rather than to extend the power of the Minister. It would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with by ministerial regulations than by exact definition.

Mr. Larkin

I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment if it was understood that in the framing of the regulations regard would be had to modern lighting standards. We should try by means of the regulations gradually to bring up the standards that are in force in our industrial concerns.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: " That section 14 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Lemass

On the section I have considerable doubts as to the wisdom of including sub-section (3). The sub-section debars the Minister from prescribing any particular form of artificial lighting. Again the whole purpose of the section is to secure sufficient and suitable lighting. I have heard the suggestion—I do not know whether it is true or not—that certain types of Neon lighting are detrimental to workers' eyes, and that in certain instances it should be shaded. I do not know whether the sub-section would prevent the Minister from prohibiting the use of certain types of Neon tube lighting. If the Minister had power to prescribe suitable lighting, that power could be exercised in consultation with the Minister for Health. He should be allowed to make regulations in that respect.

Mr. Norton

I think it is a novelty in the section. I understand the reason for its introduction was to prevent the Minister having power to give a monopoly to any particular type of illuminant. In other words, the Minister could not say: " You must have gas lighting, calor gas or candles." The purpose was to prevent the Minister conferring monopolies on those providing lighting.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is an undesirable provision.

Mr. Norton

I have no special affection for it. It could be left over to next stage.

Question put and agreed to.