Safety in Industry Bill, 1978: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"‘competent person' means a person who possesses the qualifications and/or the experience prescribed by the Minister for the purpose of the particular function which that person is required to perform under this Act;".
The purpose of this amendment is to give a far more precise interpretation to help the exercise of this Bill. In a number of sections in the Bill, for instance in section 10 and section 31, reference is made to a competent person being engaged by the occupier of the premises or at the request of the Minister to carry out certain tests as they may arise. It is our contention that this interpretation of the words "competent person" in these sections is not precise or specific enough. We feel that the addition to section 2, the interpretation section, of the definition of what a competent person is would make far easier and expedite the exercise of any safety precaution or test that had to be carried out in pursuance of the exercise of the section. We are asking that the definition of "competent person" be written into section 2 so that the person who carries out the necessary tests or other work as required by the Act will possess the qualifications as prescribed by the Minister. In other words, we will know in advance the type of qualifications that a person must have to carry out any necessary tests.
It can happen that in a factory a person, one of the workers indeed, can be asked by the occupier of the premises to carry out a test on certain defective machinery or plant and as a result of the report from such a test the Minister may not be satisfied as to the competence of the person who was engaged by the occupier in the first instance. This leads to a delay which could well be avoided if a proper definition were written into the Act in the first instance. That is the basis of our amendment to section 2.
The term "competent person" is contained in section 10 (1) (a) in relation to the examination and testing of any plant which might have been the cause of an accident or dangerous occurrence, and in sections 31, 32 and 33 in relation to the examination of steam boilers, steam receivers and air receivers respectively.
This amendment is broadly similar in its intent to amendment No. 23a of section 10 of the Bill which was tabled by Deputy Mitchell on Committee Stage in the Dáil. He proposed that for the term "competent person" there should be substituted "a qualified person chosen from a list of assessors supplied by the Minister". The reason for not agreeing with Deputy Mitchell's amendment would obtain in the case of the Senator's amendment also. The amendment is unacceptable because it would have the effect of reversing what is felt to be the proper sequence of events. The prime responsibility for the safety of his employees should rest with the occupier, a responsibility which under section 10 could be shared with the owner of the plant. Therefore, if the plant in question might have caused an accident or dangerous occurrence, the Minister should be empowered to require the occupier or owner, as appropriate, to have the plant examined and tested where that is considered necessary. The right of the occupier or owner to select a competent person to carry out these examinations and tests should not be restricted to choosing a person on the basis of requirements imposed by the Minister. That would be tantamount to ministerial interference with the independence of the occupier or owner. Furthermore, it would remove the Minister's discretion to reject the report of the examinations and tests as inadequate. It is desirable that the occupier or owner should be free to make his own arrangements for the testing of any plant in the first place. The Minister should have to take the initiative only if and when he is not satisfied as to the adequacy of the subsequent report or the competence of the person undertaking the examinations and tests.
I might add some further points specifically in relation to the Senator's amendment. First, it might not always be possible to know in advance precisely which technical and practical qualifications would render a person competent in any particular case to carry out the functions required of him under the legislation. For example, the results of the examination and testing by a consultant engineer could indicate that metallurgical tests are needed also. In that event it is essential that the occupier would be free to seek the services of a metallurgist. Secondly, the equipment needed to carry out the examination and testing could have a bearing on the selection of the competent person. If the equipment were available only, for instance, in the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, then a person from that institute who was qualified to use and had experience in the use of that equipment would be the obvious choice. The universities are another source of competent persons. Finally, it would be a foolhardy occupier who would not envisage persons with the relevant qualifications and experience if for no other reason than that he would risk his insurance cover being withdrawn or his premium being raised considerably should the insurance company inspector become aware of what was going on.
In summary I believe that the inclusion of this definition in the Bill would be both unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. Having examined the general and specific implications of the Senator's amendment, I am satisfied that it would be better not to have the term "competent person" defined.
It is not beyond the capacity of the Minister's Department to produce guidelines which would be far more specific and more easily interpreted than the words "competent person". There is no doubt that there can be employers who may do a less than thorough job when it comes to carrying out any necessary testing operation on defective plant and equipment. I do not believe that any employer in the first instance is going to go deliberately out of his way to carry out what would be a wrong test. Speed is the essence in this matter of ensuring that there can be no future happenings which can endanger or possibly risk further accidents to workers in the factory. The employer, due to the pressures of the time, may rush into engaging a person less thoroughly equipped to carry out the necessary testing that he would choose if he were giving some thought to the matter. The Department by laying down certain guidelines in advance to the factory or industry could well ensure that there would not be any unnecessary delay as a result of testing carried out by a less than competent person.
An amendment on the lines I have suggested would improve this legislation. It would avoid any unnecessary delays due to less than competent persons being employed. The employer or the occupier when he is engaging such a person, may be acting with the best intent, but due to the circumstances of the time, perhaps pressures from the work force on the floor that tests should be carried out, he may feel that he should employ somebody straight away to do the job. He may not be giving it the necessary thought to ensure that he employs the best available person. If guidelines were laid down in a far more specific manner than they are in this Bill, the occupier of the premises would be in a better position to ensure that a competent person would be employed by him to do the necessary testing.
The amendment would help the Bill. It would not result in the employer taking advantage of a situation or finding that there would be undue ministerial interference in the operation of that plant. That would not be the situation. Since we are involved in this Bill with safety and prevention of further accidents, I would not regard as ministerial interference the laying down of the qualifications a person who carries out a test should have if it is going to result in better safety measures in future.
I find myself in a dilemma, not a very major one. I can understand Senator Markey's concern about having the competent person described as to qualifications and so on. On the other hand, I have a lot of faith in the people who sit as trade union representatives on safety committees, and who are the safety representatives who initiate the cause for investigation because they get in touch with the Minister. Consequently if they are not satisfied that an inspector or somebody appointed to investigate is competent, an argument may start and then an industrial dispute may arise and the investigation does not go ahead.
It is fair to say that the Minister can, in fact, turn down the report. My interpretation of that is that someone would have to complain about the competence of the person and, therefore, in that respect we in the trade union movement would feel that we are covered in this area, that we have representatives on these safety committees who would initiate the cause of investigation. If you initiate a cause for something to be looked at you are going to make sure that it is done by a competent person. At the same time I can understand that Senator Markey would like to see it spelled out much more clearly, but the fellows there are fairly big boys who can look after themselves. Speaking from the trade union congress point of view we would be happy enough that with the section as it is we can deal with it.
I will have one or two things to say on other sections which will explain my attitude. A number of amendments from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been accepted by the Minister. I do not know whether this is one of them but I am trying to interpret the section on behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I find myself in this dilemma that I can see the need for the thing to be expressed in a proper way but on the other hand I can see that there is no danger that anybody who is not competent will be engaged.
There is some sense in the amendment proposed by Senator Markey. I accept that the person on a safety committee would be a competent person. There is no doubt about that because such a person would know what machinery was installed and a person who has worked with machinery should be competent enough to know whether that machinery is safe. A person holding a degree would not necessarily be a competent person but a person who is involved in seeing that machinery was safe would be. He or she could be a fitter or any person who would be on a safety committee and who would have inspected the factory. A person who installs machinery would probably put in the machinery without regard to anything other than the cost of installing it. There should be some person of competence there to safeguard the installation of machinery and the person on the safety committee could do that. Senator Markey's amendment is a good one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (1), page 5, to add the following new paragraphs:
"(xx) any premises or land in or on which people are employed in work of an agricultural or horticultural nature including fishfarms and the employees are not members of the owner's family,
(xxi) any premises which apart from this subsection is not a factory, in which a computer is operated, or in which machines or machinery ancillary to the working of an office are operated,
(xxii) any enclosed place of entertainment in which sound-reproducing equipment is operated,
(xxiii) any kitchen or other place in which food is prepared apart from a domestic kitchen in a private house,
(xxiv) any sewage plant, sewer, pipeline or manhole,
(xxv) any other premises specified in regulations made under this Act."
The Title of this Bill is a misnomer, apart from the extensive time it took from being introduced as the Safety in Industry Bill, 1978, and finishing up after today, it is hoped, as the Safety in Industry Act, 1980, which delay need not have arisen at all, as I have contended. The Minister in the course of his Second Stage speech to the Seanad made a statement that a certain case could be put that this legislation could be called an amendment to the Factories Act, 1955, and certainly it would so appear to me. The definition of "factory" as contained in the Factories Act, 1955, has been amended by section 3 of the present legislation to bring in the agricultural aspect, meat packaging and food processing factories.
If in 1980 we are talking about such an important aspect as safety in industry we should remember that industry now embraces a far wider and more comprehensive field than it did five or ten years ago. The amendment I have put to section 3 indicates the comprehensive field which now is covered by the title "industry". For instance, we hear of the hotel industry, the entertainment industry and the agricultural industry particularly. It is unsatisfactory that this Bill should have so few specific references to safety measures in the field of agriculture, to the work that goes on on land every day of the year where quite an extraordinary number of accidents, many of them fatal, occur. This Bill should be extended to embrace the categories I have indicated in my amendment, to take in the agricultural sphere, office work for instance which is the services industry, the entertainment industry, the catering industry and the other aspects I have mentioned. To make this legislation far more embracing than it is we should add the different spheres of occupational fields I have mentioned in my amendment.
I am beginning to be nervous. I do not know whether I am going to wear out my welcome in County Louth. I support the extension of the Bill to agricultural workers, offices and other areas as mentioned in the amendment. However, I am aware that this issue has been discussed extensively with both sides of industry, employers and trade unions. There is an agreement on a working party. I was going to put down amendments but having considered the matter I decided against doing so because I believe that the working party is important in this legislation. A lot more legislation has to come and all the needs will not be met within the next four or five years. The working party will be much more effective than the legislation itself, because it will lead to other things. Therefore, this working party on safety and health appeals to me. I welcome the fact that the Minister has acceded to the request of Congress on this.
I appeal to Senator Markey to allow this issue to be referred to the working party because a lot more is involved than agricultural lands and so on. I do not want to go outside the section. The field is so wide that, for example, when one is talking about the question of safety one has to go into the question of permits for work. The sooner the working party get down to work the better.
To some extent I support Senator Markey's amendment. Regarding paragraphs (xx) and (xxi) it may be very difficult to make these work because the monitoring of them may be very difficult indeed. Nevertheless, one should extend these definitions under the Factories Act as far as possible. I appreciate what Senator Harte has said about the working party, but working parties can go on from year to year. One has only to look at what happened to the Task Force on Child Care to see what can happen and how many years it may take before anything actually develops or any recommendations are made. In the meantime, one discovers from one's own legal experience, for instance, the number of industrial accidents and the number of people injured in various places of work. As an interim measure, in any case, the extension proposed by Senator Markey to places of entertainment where sound reproducing equipment is operated, to catering kitchens and sewage plants and so on, could very well be brought in, particularly his paragraph (xxv). I am not generally in favour of legislation by regulation in this way, whereby Ministers are given power to put in by regulation what is not covered by legislation, but in this area where industries and conditions in factories and places of employment can change so quickly, to give power to the Minister to add in other areas of employment is important. It would be worth while to extend these definitions to include, under (xxii), (xxiii), (xxiv) and (xxv), the proposals made by Senator Markey, even though, like Senator Harte, I hope that the working party will produce a final solution to the whole procedure. In the meantime, to protect employees in these areas it would be a good thing to bring in these extensions of the definition.
I support Senator Markey and Senator McGuinness. I have great respect for Senator Harte, but if we are to wait for a working party to come up with a solution to this we could be waiting for a long time. We were waiting for a long time for this Bill, which was intrduced over two years ago and we are finalising it now.
We must provide for the monitoring of noise levels. It is not a big job and we have the instrument to do that. We should ensure that there would be some legislation regarding that. Computers can create a lot of noise, especially in confined areas. In places of entertainment also where people are working in very confined areas playing musical instruments there could be a noise level problem. The Minister should accept amendment No. 2 to section 3.
The text of this amendment is similar to that of amendment No. 10a which was tabled by Deputy Mitchell on Committee Stage in the other House. The reasons why that was rejected at that time still apply. The Safety in Industry Bill was framed for the limited but very desirable purpose of updating the Factories Act, 1955 and it is not the appropriate vehicle for achieving what the Senator is seeking. Secondly, the responsibility of the Department of Labour does not extend at present to the kind of premises listed in the amendment. Thirdly, it is doubtful whether the amendment of itself would be sufficient to attain fully the objective behind it. The suitability of various parts of the Bill and of the 1955 Act would need to be examined carefully, as well as the feasibility of enforcing the Acts outside the context for which they were originally drafted.
In my speech on Second Stage in this House I referred to the fact that arrangements had been set in train to establish the working party for the purpose of giving due consideration to occupational safety and health in a broader context than that of industry alone. I said also that discussions would be taking place with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the FUE in relation to its composition and terms of reference. It seems that the working party would be the appropriate forum for examination of, and recommendation on, issues such as those contained in the Senator's amendment. In this connection the Senator will recall that I said here in my reply to the discussion on Second Stage that I would arrange for copies of the parliamentary debates on the Bill to be supplied to the working party. We would have in mind putting a limitation on the length of time that the working party would be given to come up with recommendations. At this stage I cannot accept this amendment.
The Minister's reply indicates the sad situation we have got into with this legislation. It indicates what might have been. Had safety in industry been tackled in a comprehensive manner from the outset two years ago we could have been in the position whereby the measures that I am now asking to have added to the Bill could well have been included as a piece of a normal statutory instrument covering safety in industry. We are dealing with half measures. The Minister says that what this Bill amounts to is an amendment to the Factories Act of 1955. If that is what it is let it be so titled and not be called something which it cannot cover by definition. If safety in industry means anything to me, it means that it covers the safety aspects in every sphere of what is called industry nowadays and that covers the fields of catering, agriculture, entertainment in all aspects, where people are employed and are occupied on a day-to-day basis. What we are left with is a Bill which has only half-tackled the problem and which by leaving out what it is leaving out is perhaps more defective than what it should be.
We could never have a situation where we could expect that any Safety in Industry Bill would cover every aspect. That is why the last paragraph, No. (xxv), of my amendment covers "any other premises specified in regulations". This indicates that the Minister must always be there to publish a regulation covering new fields of industry and employment and occupation which were not there even one year before that. We have had this sort of situation evolving over the past decade because there have been such tremendous strides in the technological and industrial fields. People are employed in spheres of industry which were unheard of a decade ago and to find that after two years of hard enterprise we finish up with a Bill which does more than merely amend—and improve in certain respects, I will admit—the Factories Act of 1955, but which still leaves out the more crucial part, namely, to cover safety in every sphere of employment is very disappointing. What good is this Bill going to be to a person working on a farm next week who suffers a serious accident as a result of some defective piece of equipment? What recourse can be had to manufacturers under this Bill as regards that piece of agricultural equipment if the field of agriculture is not covered? We are finishing up with a Bill which is far more defective than it should be after the lengthy gestation period it has had. I suggest that the Minister should in all seriousness consider the amendment that I have put down here. If it is accepted it will result in an Act going into the Statute Book which is far more embracing and far more purposeful and will be far more helpful to people employed from day to day.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I am most reluctant to withdraw it but conscious of the length of time that it has taken to get this far and accepting what the Minister has stated in regard to the working party—which unfortunately came along as a rather belated contribution by the Minister when the Bill was going through the other House—I do not wish to delay this Bill going into the Statute Book. It is not as comprehensive as I would wish it to be but I would ask the Minister to give some indication to us as to when he would hope to have further legislation—I do not want some vague promise saying two or three years or something like that. When can we hope to have this working party complete their work? There must be certain submissions in the Department that were received in the course of this Bill going through the Houses which will facilitate the work of the working party. When can we hope to have legislation which will embrace all fields of employment and industry that I indicated in my amendment?
I would like to assure Senators that this Bill is a beginning rather than an end. It is really a start and we certainly will be having some discussions immediately with Congress and the FUE in connection with the establishment of the working party and be getting down to work. I would be thinking of putting very tight limitations of time on the working party to come up with recommendations for us. I do not think that the amendment proposed here is suitable. Certainly, we could not accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I should just like to make a point on this section in connection with the aspect of noise which this section covers. I would associate it with section 13 of the Bill. I am a bit confused as regards which section is going to have the greater relevance and the greater priority in regard to the implementation of the safety aspects of this Bill. I know we are dealing with section 5, but section 13 also covers the same aspect of noise. Section 5 appears to be a little bit stronger in the amendment of the Principal Act that is written in here than section 13 in regard to this noise problem. I shall speak further on that point when we come to section 13 but I would like some indication from the Minister in regard to which section will have priority as regards implementation and effect for people as regards this noise problem. The wording is less satisfactory in one of the sections than it is in the other and yet both are covering the same thing.
Special regulations may be made under section 5 and the ordinary ones under section 13.
Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but I would seek some clarification as to the difference between special regulations in a specific manner and ordinary regulations on this point about noise.
Would special regulations be likely to cover the actual technical level of the noise involved? The way in which noise is described here is slightly vague. It is perfectly possible to monitor noise levels and this has been frequently done by scientists in various areas. Regulations of some kind would be necessary to actually monitor the levels of noise.
"Special regulations" mean that a draft is published before a regulation is made; it has to be published.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This is just a change in wording from the 1955 Act. In subsection (1) paragraph (c) the wording is "he shall not intentionally interfere with..." The wording in the 1955 Act is "he shall not wilfully..." I wonder what has been the experience of the Department when they change the wording like that. By and large, this is a far stronger section than anything contained in the 1955 Act and I accept it and welcome it. It places an obligation on the employee which was not there in the 1955 Act. If it was there, it was more or less only implied rather than specifically spelt out. It is a far stronger section than anything that applied in the 1955 Act. I would ask the Minister why did he change his wording?
Again, on the advice of the drafting people it is a drafting change made on their advice.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), page 8, line 40, to delete "forthwith" and substitute "within five days".
What I would like to see operating under this section is a time limit for the result of the test to be available to be submitted to the Department and to be acted upon. This is important if we are to have a situation whereby danger of future accidents occurring can be avoided and reduced in the meantime. I am asking that the word "forthwith" be deleted and substituted by "within five days". I think the word "forthwith" is far too vague. I think we should put a time limit on the testing.
The provision does not require the plant to be examined and tested there and then because obviously that would not always be possible. What the provision does in effect require is that as soon as he can the occupier or owner must have the necessary arrangements made for the examination and testing of the plant. There is every reason to feel confident that these arrangements will be made forthwith. On the one hand the occupier would be anxious to have it ascertained whether or not there might have been statutory negligence on his part, in which case legal proceedings could be taken against him, or whether or not in the event of a fatal accident, for instance, there might have been contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, the occupiers' insurance company would be pressing to have it ascertained whether or not, for example, it was the design that was at fault, in which case there might not be grounds on which to bring proceedings to court to recover damages against the occupier. That is the first point I would like to make.
Secondly, as I understand it, the Senator is proposing that the examination and tests can be done within five days. I could not accommodate him here because in fact, depending on the examination and tests which the competent person considers appropriate for the particular case, it could take longer than five days to carry them out effectively. For example, where a control unit was concerned it might be necessary to build a replica of it to simulate the action of dangerous currents. Another example would be where the examination and tests carried out by a consulting engineer might not alone be sufficient and a metallurgist would need to be called in for further tests. These are just two examples to show how a limit of five days could be too restrictive, and in view of these reasons I would not be prepared to accept the amendment.
I contend that the Minister in saying that the occupier would carry out the tests as soon as he can is leaving a certain vagueness in the matter. As I indicated earlier, the owner of the factory can be under certain pressures at a particular time and it is something that he may just decide to leave for a while. We do not want that to happen. The purpose of this amendment is to get the tests under way. I accept that the test, if it started might take two days or even a week; complications may occur, but the whole purpose of the amendment is to get the test under way within five days. That five-day period is sufficient time for the occupier of the factory to get himself organised and straightened out after the accident and to make whatever arrangements have to be made to get tests done by a competent person.
I do not believe that writing in "within five days" takes away freedom of the person in any instance nor would it inhibit in any way the operations of the insurance company. Insurance companies, in my experience of them, sometimes do not seem to act with that great haste that one would like in these matters and I do not think we should expect them, in the sphere of industry, to act more quickly than they would in other spheres. I believe that giving a limitation period to this section of five days would ensure that, first of all, the plant-owner must get himself organised straight away. He has a period; five days is an adequate and reasonable period of time for him to get over the accident and to make arrangements for testing and it is not inhibiting in any way the insurance company from acting. It can be done in a shorter period than five days if they so wish, but at least it prevents a test being deferred for more than that period, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
I certainly see nothing wrong with the five days for the purpose of this Bill, but when I was speaking earlier I mentioned how broad were the implications of the whole question of safety. I said that I did not think it would embrace all that is necessary adequately to cover safety and health under one piece of legislation. Take this section. Whilst I can agree with the five days, five days would not satisfy me unless legislation emerges arising out of this particular section to provide that somebody in the plant would sign a document to the effect that the plant or machinery was not to be worked once a major accident happened, for example, if someone was killed or injured. That is the type and the extent of the question of safety and health we have to think about. I agree with the five days for the purpose of this legislation, but since you cannot get the other major provision into this type of legislation without further in-depth study of exactly how we should go about it, I have no great quibble over the seven days but I would support the idea of five days. I cannot see that either of the two makes any difference. To me the major thing is that you can get the legislation on to the Statute Book and get on to the type of legislation that will emerge from this legislation to halt the working of the plant or machinery involved in a serious or fatal accident.
For example, one of my own experiences in dealing with people as a trade union official was that a person just walked into a tunnel, a pipe went right through his eye and killed him. Immediately, arrangements were made to shut off that plant. Unless you have some protection like that and some written provision many employers will not do that. Therefore, the question of the five or seven days is to me not of tremendous importance; it is what will emerge eventually from it that I look for. I support the five days provision. I cannot see anything wrong with it.
I do not see how the section and the Minister can be helped by specifying a brief period like five days. It seems to me the real power of this section lies in subsection (1) itself, that where there is an accident—and it may be a major one or it may be a minor one—it does give the Minister power to issue notice in writing requiring, as is stated in paragraph (a), that the area or equipment be tested forthwith. The issuing of that notice is the real power in this, because the owner or occupier and indeed the insurance company are both under notice once that notice is issued. I do not think it is necessary to tie it down to five days or seven days as Senator Harte said. The provision contained there seems to me to be adequate.
The occupier has a legal duty put on him under section 10 to have these arrangements carried out straight away. As I have already explained, the test or testing could take more than five days, and certainly "forthwith" is a very strong term, according to our legal advice.
I do not see that the insertion of four or five days or any specified number of days is of any great consequence at all. It all hinges on the meaning of the word "forthwith". "Forthwith" to my mind means as soon as can be humanly possible to do it, and I do not think we could have a better word there than "forthwith". It is far stronger as it is than by specifying any number of days.
If the word "forthwith" is accepted as being strong enough I wonder why there has not been written into the section in subsection (3) for instance, some grounds on which the Minister can act if there is any delay in the submission of the report to him. Subsection (3) refers to the adequacy of the report, the competence of the person, the adequacy of the examination, but it does not refer at all to any delay in the test being carried out, and if it is requested "forthwith", how long is one to wait for the Minister to chase after the plant-owner to make sure that the test has been carried out and the report submitted? I would accept that the word "forthwith" would be strong enough if there was a provision in the section whereby the Minister would be able to chase after the plant-owner within a certain period of time if there has not been any action in the meantime.
Under paragraph (c) he would have to report within seven days.
Yes, but that is for the receipt of the test report. That is not the actual carrying out of the test in the first instance. In other words, if the test was not carried out until 30 days after the accident, the Minister would have to have it within seven days of then.
If we are not satisfied with that report they can get it changed.
That refers to the contents of the report. I am referring to the carrying out of the test in the first instance, not to what the test report may contain. I am referring to the plant-owner actually carrying out the test and ensuring that it is carried out within a reasonable length of time from being asked to do so.
Under subsection (3) if the Minister is not satisfied that the person was competent——
I would not accept that. It is quite clear what the Minister would be concerned about. The "adequacy" of the report relates to the content of the report. Under that subsection he would be concerned about the competence of the person employed to carry out that test or even the adequacy of the examination or test itself. But it does not refer at all to a delay in the test being initiated or commenced.
Does not subsection (4) refer to a notice served on him—that a person who fails to comply will be guilty of an offence?
It does, but again it hinges on the meaning of the word "forthwith" and how strong that can be, and what basis there will be for the Minister to take any action under subsection (4). I am just trying to strengthen the section and strengthen the Minister's hand.
We are advised that it is one of the strongest possible forms which could be used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (3), page 10, line 53, to delete "two" and substitute "three".
Subsection (3) was not in the first Bill presented by the Minister. It was an addition somewhere along the line. I would like the Minister to indicate why he has brought in this amendment to the section that was already introduced by him.
Section 37 of the Factories Act, 1955, deals with safe means of access and safe place of employment. As Senator Markey will have seen, the purpose of section 12 of the Bill is to improve on the existing provisions in this regard, by the addition of more stringent requirements. For example, it will now be necessary to have a safe means of egress from as well as a safe means of access to, every place at which any person has at any time to work. When consultations with both sides of industry took place between Second Stage and Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, the Irish Employers' Confederation made the point that, in some cases, effective compliance with that new requirement could entail having to make physical alterations to premises, and that planning permission could therefore be involved. If there was any delay in getting the requisite planning permission occupiers could as a consequence, and through no fault of their own, be in breach of statutory obligations placed on them by section 12. There was a valid point here; so, after seeking legal advice on how best to deal with it, subsection (3) was added to section 12 at Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil. This subsection will, effectively, give occupiers two years—after section 12 is brought into force—in which to comply with its requirements, since during those two years legal proceedings will not be taken against an occupier for failure to comply with them. The period of two years was felt to be sufficient by the employers' side, and the trade union side did not raise any objections.
This is the background to section 12 subsection (3).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Who determines in this instance the sound levels to ensure that noise in the factory is such as not to be likely to injure the hearing or otherwise adversely affect the health of persons employed? I would prefer far stronger wording on this, something on the lines of what is in section 5, whereby a particular level would be indicated or written into this section. In other words, any factory owner would have to know in advance that a particular level of noise pertained to his factory and it was his business to ensure that that particular level would not be exceeded. The wording of section 13, as it is, is too weak in that it does not seem to indicate who determines the level of noise under the section. Is it left to the discretion and judgment of the occupier of the plant or factory himself? Does he just say: "I do not think the noise is excessive"? We know in regard to this problem of noise that it is a very particular and individualistic matter. What is not noise to one person is excessive noise to another person. I would prefer if this section included stronger wording whereby a particular level of noise would be appropriate to a particular factory.
Noise is, in fact, becoming a very major problem and industrialists in general and employers have not been taking it seriously for very long. There have been from the trade union point of view generally very effective arguments at plant level trying to find out what is the most effective way of reducing noise levels at work. Obviously the best way to tackle it is at source, particularly where you are dealing with noisy machines such as generators and so on. There are ways of reducing it: you can have soundproof shields, absorbant lined booths fitted near the offending machines and, of course, there is the question of ear muffs. It does not begin and end at that. All of those things are negotiable or arguable under the protective clothing provision when you are discussing the conditions of employment.
The whole question is a very serious one. One argument is that 90 decibels is the limit one can endure; there is the question of the deafening range, the risk range, the safety range and the silent range. It is a very wide field. Then there is the question of the type of offenders or the type of protection against noise, the type of offenders to the health of the person or the type of defenders against noise. So it is a very extensive area that needed examination. The section itself merely deals with the question of what has already taken place at industrial level, but it does give more effect to the people who have to go in and argue from the trade union point of view at least. It does give them certain support, and we welcome this section.
Again it does not go far enough. As I said on the early sections, it is very necessary to start working as quickly as possible to get into these other areas where, in fact, we can have a good look at the whole extent of the problem of noise alone. It might be necessary in the final analysis in view of developments and effects on people's hearing to introduce some sort of legislation. I am not suggesting for one moment that rock groups are going to be put under the Factories Act or anything like that, but, when you are working in an atmosphere all day with a lot of noise sometimes it is not very tolerable to wear ear muffs and it is not very comfortable for somebody who has to do very arduous work. So the section is acceptable to us in the way it is framed because it gives us a little bit more muscle in arguing with the employer to bring in those protections that I mentioned but it is not the end of the legislation. It is the beginning of it in this area of noise. It may well be necessary to have some specific legislation in this area but for the moment I welcome the section and look forward to the question being thrown into the area of the working party as quickly as possible.
I welcome this section in relation to noise and noise levels. We must face up to noise in the modern world. It is a dreadful thing. The volume of noise is measured in decibels and the human ear can take so many decibels of sound. Not alone is excessive noise injurious to the eardrums and to the hearing but it also has a very dangerous effect on many human beings. Excessive noise causes what I might call a sort of drunkenness and recklessness. Proof of that existed before this noise problem occurred at all. We all know of certain parts of Africa where local tribes, before going to war, beat their tom-toms. In places not quite as far away as Africa tom-toms are beaten too on a certain day in July.
In the first line of section 13 the words mentioned are "the occupier of a factory or specified premises". I wonder could we include under the heading "specified premises" many dancehalls and discotheques because the noise level in those places is even in excess of what we would have in the worst run factory. I would be very pleased to hear that this section would take in dancehalls and discotheques where the noise is so often at such an intolerable level with very injurious effects to the people who are condemned to listen to it.
This section underlines the importance of the safety committee and the fact that a medical representative should be a member of the safety committee. There is such a variation in opinions on noise levels but obviously a medical doctor attached to an industry would have a feed-back on the human problems within the factory. Therefore there should always be a medical representative on the safety committee.
The special regulations on noise have already been made under section 71 of the Factories Act, 1955. There are some doubts as to the Minister's powers to make regulations under section 71 of the 1955 Act and as to the effectiveness of the regulations themselves. If either of those doubts prove to be justified then fresh regulations could be made under section 13 of this Bill. The level of decibels was at 90 when the regulation was made in 1975. At the same time we will keep the position under review. Depending on the outcome of research the 90 decibles could be lowered later by further regulations under section 13. Because the decibel levels could be changed it is better to make provisions by regulations rather than to put some specific standard in the Act.
I know there is a certain weakness in the present legislation in regard to the implementation of noise regulations. I certainly would ask the Minister to pay special attention to this and to regard it as a short-term rather than as a long-term measure. This is an aspect which is causing considerable inconvenience in factories and indeed it is harmful to health. I believe the wording in section 13 could have been stronger than it is but I am prepared to accept it.
We are keeping it constantly under review.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
The Factories Act, 1955, is amended to include either a supply of hot and cold water or a supply of warm water, a rather mundane matter in relation to cleanliness and safety measures in a factory. But it creates a certain doubt in my mind that the inclusion of this may well mean the exclusion of something else. It is necessary first of all to read section 53 (1) of the Factories Act, 1955, which reads:
There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying,
So far, so good. The addition of provision for either a supply of hot and cold water or a supply of warm water might not be regarded as necessary if the word "soap" is used as in the 1955 Act. But there are certain cleansing creams which are available and which can be used in certain jobs and factories. I wonder whether the inclusion of the words "hot and cold water or a supply of warm water" may mean that the facility of a cleansing cream alone might be excluded. I would like some assurance that it does not so mean.
The purpose of section 16 of the Bill is to amend section 53 (1) of the 1955 Act by providing that the washing facilities mentioned in section 53 (1) will now have to include either a supply of hot and cold water or a supply of warm water. This additional requirement is not considered unreasonable but should there be cases where it might prove to be so exceptions from the requirements of section 53 may be provided for by way of regulations made by the Minister for Labour under subsection (3) of that section.
Would the Minister look to see whether regulations have been issued where only cleansing cream is available? Cleansing cream can do the job just as well as soap and hot and cold water and there are quite a lot of places where cleansing creams are available but not hot and cold water because it may be rather inconvenient to supply hot and cold water in certain places. I suggest that the Minister should have a look at that.
Would the Minister confirm that if the means or the energy for providing hot water are not available it would not be an offence on the part of the factory owner?
Arising out of the number of cases where employees suffer from industrial dermatitis from the use of, say, cement, or other items like this, what Senator Markey says is in relation not so much to cleansing creams as to protective creams that are available to employees. To refer just to hot and cold water or warm water is perhaps a primitive way of looking at it. There are certain technical preparations that can protect people against these forms of dermatitis which may later give rise to actions against their employers. Perhaps in framing a section like this we should allow for the provision of protective or cleansing creams as well as hot and cold or warm water because in some cases hot or cold water is not sufficient to protect against the kind of dermatitis that arises in these industries.
There have been specific regulations to deal with specific cases where certain chemicals may be used. This is really to provide that hot and cold water will be provided. There are specific regulations covering particular cases.
We have all made points on this matter. I suggest to the Minister that new legislation covering all fields of industry will, hopefully, come along. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at the wording of the 1955 Act and this Bill and include both protective and cleansing creams.
The point is that we have got to have hot and cold water, and this is what must be made quite clear in this.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
This refers to training and supervision of persons working at machines. This is training in one particular area of the matter. There are other sections in the Bill which I hope to speak on later which deal with training. But I would like to emphasise here the absolute importance of training of all personnel involved in safety in industry, because there is really no point in us setting up a Bill which provides for safety committees and safety representatives and so on if the safety representatives are not sufficiently trained in the area in which they are working to understand what exactly they are supposed to be carrying out and what exactly they are supposed to be guarding against. On this section I would simply like to emphasise that the training of the people working at machines is very important, but the training of all personnel involved in this area is equally important.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
I notice a change in the wording here. I suppose, depending on the angle one takes, it could be a very important or not so important change. Section 31 states that a woman or young person shall not clean any part of a prime mover, and so on. This has now been changed and the word "woman" has been omitted. I would like some indication from the Minister about the omission of the word "woman". There is now a prohibition here about a young person not doing certain work. Now, by leaving out the word "woman" we are authorising the employer of a factory to have a woman do certain work as far as I can see and yet it is work which can be dangerous. It depends on the angle one takes, but perhaps we should have some indication from the Minister about the thinking behind that.
It would have been discriminatory as it stood.
It depends on the way one looks at it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Is there a historical explanation for the limit of 10 people where so many people, and only so many people, can be employed in a room? Nowadays, due to smaller plants and smaller machinery taking up a much smaller amount of space, there could be a bigger number of people doing the same operation than, say, 20 years ago; this might apply in the production of clothes. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what the background to this limit is?
This is a very serious section from the point of view of escape routes and so on in industry. There is a certain amount of protection for people in industry in the sense that they have organisations to function through. I would like to take up a point that was made earlier on by one of the other Senators. The Act is described as an Act for securing further provisions for the safety, health and welfare of persons at work. Does a rock performer come under this definition of a person at work? Let us look at it. I risked going into one of these places on one occasion—but never again. People are actually crowded five and six abreast across a small room where there is no escape route whatever. That is something that we must keep seriously in mind. The means of escape should be covered. If it is not possible to do so in this legislation, we should appoint another working party towards that area, because it is a very dangerous situation. In fact there is one place on the north side of the city which has gone on fire twice. I do not know whether anyone was hurt, but it is a very dangerous place and I am sure if an examination was made of quite a lot more of these places it would be found that a lot of teenagers are at risk.
Under this section there is mention of certificates given in relation to fire escapes and methods of egress from premises in the case of fire. I understand that one of the problems arising in this area is that it can take a very long time to get one of these certificates. I understand that both the factory inspectors and indeed the FUE, if I may mention them in the presence of Senator Harte, are worried about this situation where it can take quite a long time to get a certificate about the method of escape in case of fire. Generally it is because the fire service is undermanned and they simply have not time to deal with these applications as quickly as they might. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that where a premises has proper methods of escape and methods of egress in case of fire that they can get a certificate in a reasonable amount of time.
The delay is something we could take up with the Minister for the Environment.
I do not think that there is any scientific or historic reason for the figure 10. It just seems to me to be a reasonable figure.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
Are overhead cranes used for loading on to ships covered?
Is there need, as on a ship, for a log book in respect of overhead cranes that are working on the dock sides?
Yes, and there is a register of examinations.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 16, line 44, to delete "three" and substitute "two".
Three years is a rather lengthy term to give before this measure comes into effect. Is it going to take that length of time to carry out certain technical alterations? It would appear that three years is far too long for what is an important matter, and it should certainly be possible to do it within three years.
We must recognise that in some instances it may take some time for a person to be in a position to be able to comply effectively with the requirements.
One can build a factory in a year-and-a-half or a year. I have seen factories being built in a year, and giving three years to carry out what is only certain internal work and adjustments, no matter what is involved, seems to be unduly long. I would imagine one year would be enough but I have hit on the medium by asking that two years be allowed.
A lot of arrangements for the critical examination of the construction materials and the engineering might be necessary there, so a reasonable time would have to be allowed.
Was this a request from the Irish Confederation of Employers?
As in the case of 12(3) the period of time given is acceptable to the employer's side and the trade union side does not object to it. For this reason I think it is reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (7), page 25, line 32, to delete "two months" and substitute "month".
What I am asking for here is that the meeting of the safety committee and the occupier be held every month. It is a necessary part of the exercise of safety education as well as the safety operations in any industry that there should be regular and frequent meetings. As I indicated on the Second Stage the experience of the 1955 Act in relation to the setting up and the operation of safety committees was that so few of them were actually instituted and functioning. In many instances the employer may not be unduly enthusiastic about the continued functioning of the safety committees. While this Bill does impose on employees an obligation to be far more conscious and sensitive to safety measures in their own place of work than hitherto I believe that, unless there is a certain compulsion on the safety committees to meet on a far more regular basis than six times a year—it might only be five times a year allowing for summer holidays and so on—the momentum which it is hoped this Bill will introduce into the safety field could well be lost. I submit that safety committee meetings should be held once every month. That is not unduly excessive as to the time lost from the place of work.
I support Senator Markey on this. Under a previous Act where works committees existed it was possible for them to act as safety committees. The general practice in industry is that where works committees function they actually meet once a month. It should be possible for the Minister to accept this because, in the final analysis, it is not the Minister who will have to make it work. If he lays down that they should meet, the agreement to meet can be worked out by the employers and the trade unions. Depending on the type of employment, it might be nececsary in some cases for the employers to agree to the meetings taking place much more frequently. But once a month should be sufficient for them to meet. I would support Senator Markey on this. They are safety committees, after all. They are there to police the safety regulations in the company, and if anything happens in the interim two months between meetings it can be very awkward to come to some kind of arrangement which would be satisfactory. If the Minister could accept the one month regulation it would ease the burden on industry and on safety committees.
The purpose of the section is to lay down conditions which must be satisfied before safety committee meetings may be held during normal working hours without loss of remuneration to members of those committees. One of these conditions is that, except in the case of emergency, safety committee meetings shall not be held more frequently than once every two months. However, it is important to note that all the conditions specified in subsection (7) are subject to the terms of any agreement between the relevant occupier and safety committee. In other words it will be possible for agreements to be made which improve on conditions laid down in subsection (7). In this connection subsection (6) requires the relevant occupier to consult with the safety committee once the safety committee has requested him to do so with the object of reaching agreement concerning various matters, including the frequency of meetings of the safety committee.
I am sure the Irish Confederation of Employers will be advising its member companies to agree to the holding of safety committee meetings more frequently than once every two months where the need arises or where circumstances warrant it. In my Second Stage speech I mentioned Part III of the Bill to which section 36 belongs. In its present revised form joint proposals were put forward by the ICTU and ICE and subsequently approved by the Government. Both sides of industry are therefore committed to having Part III implemented successfully. The logical and inevitable consequence of this approach will be for them to ensure that no obstacle is put in the way of safety committees meeting as frequently as individual employers dictate.
I will accept what the Minister states as long as both employers and trade unions are advised that it is perfectly within their function to have meetings on a monthly basis under the section instead of on a two monthly basis as laid down.
I notice in paragraph (b) that the duration of such meetings shall not exceed two hours. We are too restrictive in that regard. Particularly where meetings are only held every two months there is a certain imbalance there as to the frequency of the meetings and the time given at those meetings towards safety measures. I would certainly hope that both trade unions and employers will seek to have written into their agreement that meetings be held every month rather than every two months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to speak on the subject of training personnel. I mentioned on an earlier section that it was not sufficient just to train people who were in charge of machinery. The whole purpose of this Bill is the establishment and appointment of more safety committees and safety representatives who have obviously to some extent, failed under the 1955 Act. We know from the Second Stage debate and from other information about this that we have about 270 safety committees out of 18,000 industries that could have them. We are not concerned only with the establishment of safety committees which can meet statutorily every two months, but with the knowledge of the people on the safety committees, whether they know what they are doing and understand how to provide for safety in their own industries.
In certain industries, for instance, it has been found possible to train everyone, all the personnel in the industry, whether production personnel or sales personnel, in the safe operation of any instrument or any kind of machinery involved in their industry. This is the kind of high standard which should be set before all industries. Perhaps this is not something which can be brought about by the Bill as now drafted but the proposed working committee should look carefully into the qualifications of the people who serve on safety committees. They should not be statutorily appointed and then we say: "There are x workers and x representatives of management on the safety committee. They must meet every two months. We have fulfilled our obligations under the Act." To provide a real safeguard for workers in the industry, and indeed also a real safeguard for employers against actions taken by workers employed by them, all the people involved in safety committees and as safety representatives should be trained properly in the whole operation of their industries so that they know what they are talking about and are not just there to fulfil their obligations under the Act, that they will really protect their fellow workers.
There has been some concern about the length of time during which we can get the working committee to play their part. On Second Stage one Senator mentioned the great need for a massive education programme on health and safety. It will be difficult enough to inculcate the disciplines arising out of this Bill in the people involved in industry. We need more education regarding health and safety, particularly in regard to the dangers of electricity and the danger someone mentioned of alcohol and the effect it can have on people's alertness.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now 4 o'clock, the time set for item No. 5. Would the Senator like to report progress?
I move to report progress.
It will not take very long as far as I am concerned to conclude this Bill. Another 15 minutes would be sufficient.
There is a motion to be taken.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is entirely a matter for the House.
Could we get an assurance that we will complete the Bill?
Could it be resumed after the motion is dealt with?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is it agreed that the House will continue on this Bill for 15 minutes?
Agreed.
The urgency of proceeding with a massive educational programme on general health and safety is obvious. Individuals should be taught their responsibilities so that when they go into the factory they will realise they have an individual responsibility regarding health and safety which emanates from their home and from all aspects in which they are involved. I do not think we should just wait for the working party, but proceed with a massive education programme on all aspects of health and safety.
An education programme is very necessary indeed. We need safety films, and so on. We need some good useful publications. Possibly when the working party get down to work, one thing which might be considered is whether, under the levy system which applies to AnCO, something extra could be thought of so that money could be donated to safety training in the form of films, useful publications, and so on.
I agree fully ubout the importance of training and I understand Congress are organising training courses. We also gave £300,000 to the ICTU for education in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 40 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.
