Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Factories Bill, 1954 debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1955

SECTION 44.

I move amendment No. 30 :—

In sub-section (2), line 49, to delete " five " and substitute " ten ".

This amendment concerns a matter to which I referred the last day, namely, the question of penalties. The amendment is to increase the penalty from £5 to £10 in respect of each day on which the offence is continued as laid down in the section. It seems to me that there is very little argument required for the amendment except to mention the danger of putting down certain fines and finding the Courts do not follow the objective set out by the Oireachtas in framing the Bills. We should try to emphasise the seriousness of these offences. I have in mind a report in the last issue of the Trade Journal which deals with the case of a person who was prosecuted for serious breaches of regulations in respect of the protection of persons against fire where cellulose was used. If there had been a fire, there could have been a very serious situation. The person was found guilty and fined 40/-. In relation to present-day money values, a fine of 40/- is neither here nor there. While the sum of £5 does represent some advance, I think that £10 is the very minimum fine when we recall that we are dealing with a section of the Bill laying down the statutory provisions in respect of the means of escape from fire. These provisions are directly allied to the question of the protection of human life. Where there are continuing breaches, such as we are dealing with in this case, a fine of £10 per day is not too great to enforce not merely the law but to enforce the safety of persons working in factories who are dependent on the enforcement of these regulations for their safety.

I am prepared to accept the amendment if the Committee are prepared to agree.

Mr. Lemass

It is a £50 fine plus £5 per day. I think there is usually a relationship between the initial and the continuing penalty. If you are going to make it £10 per day for a continuing offence you may have to consider the amount of the initial penalty.

It seems to me that the continuing offence is more serious.

Mr. Lemass

In practice, a maximum fine does not mean anything.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 31 :—

In sub-section (18), paragraph (a), line 6, to delete " twenty " and substitute " five ".

This is to provide that the section should apply to factories where five or more persons are employed instead of 20 as provided for in the Bill. Again, it occurs to me that where we are dealing with the question of protection against fire we should make the unit a respect of which we are going to apply the regulations as small as we possibly can, subject to ordinary practical considerations. While it may be argued that there are so many places where five to 20 persons are employed and that it would create great practical difficulties, I am not altogether convinced of that at the moment. I am moving the amendment to see what argument can be made against it. So long as the regulations are considered necessary and desirable, they are just as desirable and necessary in respect of five to 20 as they are in respect of 20 or more if we can find it practicable to enforce them.

This sub-section of Section 44 specifies the factories to which the provisions in the Bill are to apply. The first category mentioned is factories in which more than 20 persons are employed. This amendment would change the number to five instead of 20 but other parts of sub-section (18) provide that the Bill will apply to any building in which more than ten persons are employed above the ground floor, or to any building irrespective of the number of employed in which explosives or highly inflammable materials are stored. While this provision of the section has been made on the existing limitation, which stops factories which employ more than 40 persons, I want to ask the Committee whether they think it is going a bit far, so quickly, to reduce the number from 20 to five in present circumstances.

Mr. Lemass

The risk of danger through fire, in the case of a factory employing less than 20 persons, all employed on the ground floor, where no explosives or inflammable materials are stored, is very slight. It is not desirable to push that too far, and to require all workshops in the country employing five or six persons to go through this process of inspection by the sanitary inspector for certification. On the whole, I think that the danger involved in employing 20 persons on ground level very slight.

From practical experience, I think the greatest danger of fire seems to lie in the small factory, because the large factory, in their own interests, take reasonable precautions to prevent outbreaks of fire. I know of cases where people have been injured even in the small back-room factories. Consequently, the very fact that they are so numerous, and difficult to get at, has made that possible. I am not altogether convinced that we should not proceed too fast, because I am satisfied that, in fact, there is greater need for these regulations in respect of small factories than in the case of large-scale factories which employ hundreds of people. The very fact that the small factory is employing only five or six persons means that it can be easily located in a tenement house where there are no facilities; yet it is clear that a factory employing 500 or 600 people can avail of those facilities. My amendment is designed for the protection of the people.

I have an open and flexible mind on that. I want to ask the Committee if it is advisable, at this stage, to bring down the number from 40 to 20, and cover everybody above ten, if they are employed above the ground floor, for which no further amendment is called. If the Committee feels that it is still desirable to go further under this section, I would have an open mind on the subject.

Mr. Lemass

The alternative to altering the limit in the section is to take the power by regulation to alter the limit in cases where the inspector thinks there are special risks of fire, whether or not associated with the use of explosives or inflammable materials.

The Minister has no powers under sub-section (16). Again, it is limited by a provision of sub-section (18) as far as the definition of a factory is concerned.

Mr. Lemass

I think that his powers relate only to factories as defined in sub-section (18).

Would it meet Deputy Larkin's point if I reduced the number of persons from ten to five?

Mr. Lemass

On the first floor?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

May we insert the alternative amendment now?

I move:—

In sub-section (18), page 33, in line 10 and line 15, to delete " 10 " and substitute " five ".

Mr. Lemass

I do not know if this question of tenement factories should be raised on this section or in respect of Section 63. Deputy Larkin referred to factories in the basements of tenement houses occupied by families as dwellings. I have had representations from citizens who expressed their anxiety, because of the nature of factory operations carried on in the basement of houses in which they live. I have always felt that it is desirable to have special precautions in these cases. This section relates only to fire arrangements where ten or more persons are employed above the ground floor, and I am not sure, whether it is desirable to amend this section, so as to make it apply to premises where ten or more persons reside, as well as employed, above the ground floor. This question may arise more properly under Section 63, but if we leave the section as it stands, it does not seem to me that there is any power in the Minister to impose special precautions in premises where factory operations are carried on, and in which the people ordinarily reside.

The sanitary authority in cases such as this has to issue a certificate, and presumably there would be an obligation on that authority to take note of the location of the factory, and the circumstances in which it was operated.

Mr. Lemass

I think you will find, in the records of the Department of Industry and Commerce, where persistent representations were made by families residing in premises in Dominick Street, Dublin, in which novelties and Christmas decorations were manufactured on the ground floor, where the families lived in constant fear of fire. My recollection is that the Minister has not got power, nor have the local authority got power, to impose special safeguards or prohibit these operations on premises used as dwellings.

As far as I can see, under the section, powers given to the sanitary authority are limited in respect of persons employed in the factory, and not residing in the house. There are many cases where the occupiers of houses objected very considerably to industrial operations being carried on in the house in which they resided. Apparently there is no power to stop it, so long as the factory complies with the regulations in respect of its own employees. I am aware of cases where the sanitary authority raised objections in reference to dance halls being licensed. If they had been merely residential houses, I think they would not have been able to interfere.

Perhaps we would look into the matter under section 63.

Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 agreed to.
Top
Share