It is my opinion that workers may be victimised. If the owner of a large factory with many employees takes on employees every year he may find it very expensive, and he may give preference to a person who already has a medical certificate. I will ask the Minister to consider paying the entire fees. Again an employee may suffer further, because even though under this section an employer has taken steps to pay the doctor he may, in fact, say to the employee : " I will take you on, but you will have to pay the medical fees yourself ". I think workers are going to suffer consequently in this, and I think also preference will be given to people with previous medical certificates.
SECTION 94.
Question proposed : " That Section 94 stand part of the Bill ".
This is an entirely new angle. The suggestion is that the State should pay instead of the occupier of the factory ?
The State pays in all other cases except in specific cases in relation to the fitness of a young person employed in the factory.
Under any other circumstances the Minister may.
Mr. Lemass
The principle is that the obligation is on the employer. It would be a considerable change in the principle to bring in anyone else on this question of payment for medical examination.
This principle of the employer paying has been enshrined in the 1901 Act. The decision is that there is no change contemplated in this Bill so far as the occupier of a factory is concerned. There seems to be a case for the medical examination of a young person for the medical provision imposed by regulations or orders. Cases in which a Minister will pay arise in Sections 77 and 93. This is where there is an investigation or report " caused by fumes or other noxious substances. . . ." Under Section 93, sub-section (5), " a certifying doctor shall if so directed by the Minister, make such special inquiry and examination of employed persons as may be directed ". Here we are following a beaten track. It was first laid down in 1901.
Question put and agreed to.