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

SECTION 56.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 42 :—

Before Section 56 to insert a new section as follows :—

The Minister may, by regulation, prescribe as respects any class or description of factory or as respects the persons employed on any process, a standard of suitable protective clothing and clothing of such standard shall be provided by the occupier of that particular class or description of factory or by the employer of persons employed on such process without charge to the employee. The regulations may also prescribe for the maintenance of such protective clothing in a proper condition and for its renewal when necessary.

This amendment proposes the insertion of a new section to give power to the Minister to prescribe by regulation the provision of protective clothing in respect of any class or description of factory or in respect of persons employer in any process. This, I think, is desirable because in so far as the Minister has been given general powers in respect to the welfare of workers, it is recognised that there are types of factories any many processes in which it is essential that protective clothing should be provided—emphasising the work " protective ". As a matter of fact, more and more in regard to the relations between workers and employers and between employers and trade unions, this question of the provision of protective clothing has taken on added importance. While it is not mandatory on the Minister to set up any particular standard or prescribe the provision of clothing in respect to any particular person, it is desirable that he should be given these general powers. It is quite clear that there are many processes in regard to which it would be readily agreed that protective clothing should be made available.

Mr. Norton

This amendment appears to me to be unnecessary. If the Deputy will look at Section 56, he will see that a clause in regard to the provision of protective clothing has already been inserted. The amendment appears to be a rather detailed exposition of a provision which is already contained in the section.

Mr. Lemass

I understand that under Section 123 an employer may not charge for such protective clothing?

Mr. Norton

That is so.

Mr. Lemass

Then it appears the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Larkin

Except in regard to the question of the charge.

Mr. Norton

Perhaps the Deputy would look at Section 123 on page 70.

Mr. Larkin

If the Minister will also look at paragraph (c) of sub-section (3), Section 56, as far as I can see the Minister can permit a charge to be made in certain respects. The paragraph states:—

" No contribution shall be required from persons employed in any factory except for the purpose of providing additional or special benefits which in the opinion of the Minister could not be reasonably required to be provided by the employer alone."

Mr. Norton

This is in regard to the making of welfare regulations, but do you notice the majority you have to get before this could be done?

Mr. Larkin

The supply of protective clothing is covered by the phrase " welfare regulations". We are dealing with special protective clothing necessitated by the process and the type of working and, in so far as it is designedly associated with the safety of the worker, I think it should be quite clear that no charge will be made.

Mr. Norton

The position is that the employer is liable to pay unless 66 per cent. of the workers engaged in the factory agree that it would be unfair to ask the employer to pay. That would require such a gush of enthusiasm by the workers for the employer that I do not think that event is likely to be of frequent occurrence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 43 :—

Before Section 56 to insert a new section as follows :—

(1) In all factories a room, where meals may be taken, shall be provided which shall be adequate for that purpose. Such roof shall be completely separate from the workroom and reserved exclusively for the purpose of taking meals.

(2) Covered receptacles shall be provided for disposing of waste food and refuse, and such receptacles shall be emptied at least once each day.

(3) Where required, suitable and adequate facilities for preparing or heating meals, including the heating of water, shall be provided in such room or convenient to it.

I appreciate, in regard to the regulations which the Minister may make under Section 56, that he has power to prescribe regulations in respect to arrangements for preparing, heating, and taking meals. The amendment, however, tries to clarify the position further in respect to the actual taking of the meals, suggests the provision of a room in which the meals shall be taken and sets out that such room shall be separate from the workroom and reserved solely for the taking of meals. It also provides for covered receptacles for waste food and refuse and that such receptacles shall be emptied at least once each day. I am somewhat at a disadvantage because, while the Minister has power to make regulations, it is not clear what standards the regulations will be related to. Again, it seems to me a question of trying to set up for ourselves, so far as the Oireachtas is concerned, certain standards which we think are desirable. It may be argued that the amendment is too wide and will impose practical difficulties, but it seems to me again that if we are to deal with the question of meals we certainly should have some standards. At the moment I am not clear as to the type of standards we should aim at, but I think we should not leave the matter as it is baldly set out in the section and say that that is the end of it.

Mr. Norton

It seems to me that the amendment imposes a rather sweeping obligation to provide this accommodation. I am wondering whether it is a wise approach from the standpoint of what the Deputy desires to achieve. A number of workers may live reasonably close to their place of employment, particularly in small towns and villages where factories may be opened. They may prefer to go home to their meals. In these cases, there would be no canteen facilities because the need would not arise for them owing to the workers living close to their place of employment. If they live in towns, with the aid of bicycles they may prefer to go home to their meals. In other words, there would not be any need to provide canteen facilities of the kind sought by the Deputy. In seeking to provide these facilities the new section does not take cognisance of what might be described as the natural habits of the workers employed in the factory, namely, the disposition to go home instead of having to eat whatever they can prepare in the factory or bring with them to the factory. I think it is again a problem which probably could best be solved by negotiations between the employers and the representatives of the workers, so as to determine whether canteen facilities should be provided or whether the practice in the factory is such that the workers prefer to abandon the canteen and go home. I have had personal experience of factories which have provided canteens for workers but which find that the bulk of the workers prefer to go home, and the canteens are sometimes very rarely used indeed, nearly always inadequately used and therefore run most uneconomically because they are only used by a small number of persons. There is power, should it be necessary, to require the provision of proper facilities under welfare regulations and these regulations can be made under Section 56 of the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Larkin's amendment does not relate to the provision of canteen facilities ; it relates to the provision of a room where a meal may be taken and I think that perhaps Section 58 would be the proper section ; under it the Minister can prohibit the taking of meals in any case where it is dangerous to the health of the workers and, in such case as I read sub-section (3), a separate room must be provided and that is as far as we should go in the matter.

Mr. Larkin

There are two separate questions. Section 58 deals with the question of taking meals in a room where there is direct danger because of any materials used in any particular processes. I think there would be no difference of opinion in regard to that. The other question is in relation to the ordinary hygienic standards which should govern the taking of meals and the facilities provided to take such meals away from the actual workshop. The more I listen to the Minister the more doubtful I become as to what the regulations would be. The Minister has argued that in relation to the smaller towns practically all the workers go home. He must be equally aware of many factories down through the country where, if the workers did go home, they would have to travel anything up to 20 miles ; that is quite a common practice now and therefore one cannot get a uniform pattern in that regard in town or city now. It is a matter for the individual worker. It is not alone related to distance ; it is also related to home conditions and personal preferences. Very often the reason why workers go home is because of the place they would have to take their meal in the factory. I would not have any hesitation in leaving the matter stand if I felt there was any clear line in the Minister's or the Department's mind as to the standards that should be prescribed. Having listened to the Minister, it seems to me that, in fact, we may continue putting in something in the way of pious resolutions without being clear ourselves as to what we should require. For the sake of argument, when we talk of preparing meals, are we thinking in terms of proper cooking facilities or of the more common experience of a fire made of sticks out in a corner of the yard? When we talk about heating, what facilities have we in mind ? When we talk about taking meals, does it mean, as is often the case, sitting on top of sacks and spreading one's lunch out on a piece of newspaper ? All these questions arise.

If we hold that welfare includes the provision of facilities for the taking of meals, what kind of welfare have we in mind ? If we have any standard at all it seems to me to be only reasonable that the standard should require that where there are to be any provisions at all there should be reasonable cooking facilities and reasonable facilities for the disposal of waste food and refuse, if only for the sake of the employer, because lack of such facilities is one of the best ways of attracting vermin around a place. Finally, there should be some reasonable facilities for sitting down and for having somewhere convenient to put one's food. All these things are notoriously absent in most places except in the most modern factories. In so far as regulations can be applied to a particular factory there can be no argument that we intend to impose general regulations all round which may be impracticable in their application to a whole class of factories because of no allowance for individual difficulties.

Mr. Norton

I do not think you can apply this in a kind of standardised way. Probably the abnormal cases could be dealt with by way of negotiation between the employer on the one hand and the workers on the other. Where we take power in Section 56 to apply welfare regulations we set down certain standards. The section applies to the arrangements for the preparing, heating and taking of meals. I think it goes without question that, having put a section of this kind into the Bill, the object of any Minister would be to ensure that the Bill is given effect to by the implementation of regulations through the medium of the signposts which are set out in Section 56. In any case, these regulations are special regulations. They require the customary consultation. Presumably they will go to the advisory committee and that committee will have an opportunity of gleaning the reaction of the workers on the one hand and the employers on the other to the proposed regulations with a with a view to evolving something suitable. I want to aim at a high standard in this matter. An advisory committee would be a body of immeasurable assistance in that regard. That committee will be consulted. I think we can get this one best by regulation and/or direct negotiation between workers and employers.

Mr. Donegan

What would be the position in relation to small factories and workshops where the space involved might be very important? That would apply particularly in the City of Dublin. There are factories in which the provision of a room for the taking of meals might mean the difference between five more people in employment or unemployed. That is a difficulty I see in relation to the general application of a section of this kind.

Mr. Larkin

I notice that under the existing Act the Minister has, in fact, much the same powers. If we are to test the application of these powers to make welfare regulations by what is the practice to-day in many factories then it is quite clear that the position is not satisfactory and will not be made satisfactory by these general powers unless we take it that the intention will change and that what could have been done hitherto will be done in future. Much the same powers lay with the Minister before but when one looks at some of the factories and sees where the employees have to take their meals it is obvious that there might as well be no power to make welfare regulations. One of the difficulties I see is that the making of welfare regulations is related to specific factories. That, in itself, creates difficulties because it is a tremendous undertaking to make regulations in relation to a particular factory.

Mr. Lemass

They do not have to be specified.

Mr. Larkin

Not necessarily, but that apparently is the basis on which we have operated up to the present.

Mr. Norton

The tendency has been to provide canteen facilities in factories situated in large centres of population. It has, of course, been difficult to get those facilities in the smaller centres of population where the practice is to take in lunch and make tea. That is the common pattern in the smaller areas. This Bill seeks to set higher standards and aim at the provision of facilities in relation to which there is power to compel compliance. I take it that since there is power to make these regulations there will be sufficient activity generated from time to time by the representatives of the workers to ensure that the Minister avails of his powers under the section. In the long run I think it turns on the spirit governing the operation of the Bill and the regulations. I think we have to give hostages to fortune and hope that the responsible Minister will use his powers under the Bill to do what the Oireachtas intended should be done. If that is not done, there is, of course, a way of making the Minister amenable for his sins of omission.

Mr. Larkin

Of course all that has applied over the years and it is a very good thing to base your expectations on your own experience.

Mr. Norton

What does the Committee feel about it?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that all factories should be required to provide a room in which meals can be taken. This Bill extends the regulation to cover any premises where industrial work is carried on. Under the old legislation only factories of a certain size were covered. I know factories employing 10, 15 or 20 persons where it would be completely unreasonable to require the erection of a dining room and where even if it were erected, it would not be used except in very exceptional circumstances. Where regulations are made prohibiting the taking of meals in factory premises, the owner is required to provide a place where meals can be taken under Section 58. I understand that is the purpose of Section 58. In practice it is true to say that where factories are away from centres of population it is in the interests of the occupier to provide canteen facilities. Factories in the centre of a city within reasonable distance of the workers' homes do not require such facilities because in most cases the workers prefer to go home for their meals.

Mr. Norton

Would Deputy Larkin think the matter over in the light of this discussion and consider perhaps whether he wishes to pursue his point in some other form on the next Stage?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 44 :—

In sub-section (1), to delete all words from and including " owing " in line 46, down to and including " on " in line 48.

The purpose of this amendment is largely to widen the powers of the Minister under sub-section (1). The suggestion is that it should be left generally open to the Minister to make these regulations without any of the restricting conditions contained in the lines that are proposed to be deleted. As we are proposing to give power to the Minister to make regulations I think we should give him as wide a power as possible.

Mr. Lemass

It does not seem to me to make the slightest difference whether these words are in or out.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Larkin and Deputy Lemass seem to express opposite viewpoints. Putting in the words " owing to the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the processes carried on " gives the representatives of the workers an opportunity of saying to the Minister that these are special reasons why he should do certain things. If those words are deleted the power is left completely in the hands of the Minister and he can at his own sweet will decide to make a provision or regulation or not to make it. I do not know whether it would be better if the words were left in or if they were deleted.

Mr. Larkin

Our view of the matter is that the welfare provisions set out that the Minister can make regulations and of such a nature that they can be made applicable to all workers regardless of the actual conditions of the process. Those words indicate that it is only in respect of such circumstances of employment that these provisions do operate. My view is that the provisions should be the general practice. That being so, the only question then is what would be the most practical approach to the problem in relation to factories in general.

Mr. Norton

As far as I am concerned I am quite agreeable to delete the words.

Amendment No. 44 agreed to.

Question proposed: " That Section 56 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

On the section, I notice that sub-section (3) sites factories in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there. I do not think there is a definition of " family " in the Bill. Does the Committee not feel that such a definition is required? I feel sure that if we do get a definition of " family " it would not be necessary to limit it to members dwelling on the premises.

Mr. Larkin

I think it is in the 1916 Act. I think that is where it came from.

Mr. Lemass

I feel it would be better to define what constitutes a family.

Question put and agreed to.