Here we have " a woman or young person." Section 30 prescribes that a woman or young person shall not clean any part of a prime mover or of any transmission machinery while it is in motion, where by doing so, it may incur danger. I think that should be " any person."
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: " That Section 30 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lemass
I think so.
Mr. Lemass
Whether young or old, male or female. Is the Minister prepared to look into it? The assumption here is that only a woman or young person would be foolish enough to get themselves into danger when cleaning machinery.
This section is really a carry-over of Section 13 of the 1901 Act. The present law prohibits the cleaning of dangerous parts of machinery whilst in motion by any person and the cleaning of transmission machinery while in motion by a woman or young person. The point of view of the Committee is that nobody should clean transmission machinery while in motion?
Mr. Lemass
Shall not clean any part of any machine that would expose the person to risk of injury. If there is risk of injury no person shall be asked to clean while in motion. There are two legs to this provision : no prime mover or transmission machinery must be cleaned whilst in motion ; and no part of any machine should be cleaned whilst in motion if there is a risk in doing so. It seems to me that in both cases that should apply generally not merely to a woman and young person.
Does not the section really mean that a young person or a woman is not as likely to be careful? There is much more risk of danger in the case of a young person or woman. Is not that the view of the section? There are machines which are dangerous and cleaning of which must be done. Some machines need oiling and cannot be stopped and the point seems to be that it should not be done by a young person or a woman.
If you amend the section in such a way as to say that no person shall do these particular operations you might well be causing a considerable difficulty because there is a good deal of machinery which has to be cleaned whilst in motion.
Mr. Lemass
What is more, " cleaning a prime mover " is a very wide term. You cannot go into a boiler house without seeing an operator polishing up the brasses. That would be cleaning the machinery without any risk whatever even to a woman or young person.
Then there are three shift factories where the machinery has to be cleaned and oiled during operation. The idea was to take away the woman or young person because they would not be familiar with the mechanism in the same way as a male would be.
That argument would hold good if we deal with the first part of the section, that is, the cleaning of the prime mover or transmission machinery. In the second portion we speak of actual risk of injury, in other words, that the cleaning would expose the young person or woman to risk of injury. The greatest risk is familiarity with machinery. In the case of an adult man, if the risk of injury is there, it means here that it is quite all right for him to expose himself to the risk of injury but that we are going to protect the adult woman from the same risk.
I suppose it is just the language method of expressing the difficulty. I think the underlying theory is that the man is naturally more familiar with mechanical apparatus and that, therefore, he would take precautions that you do not normally expect from a woman or young person.
A good deal of it arises from the dress worn. Women's clothing are more liable to be caught in machinery.
Would it not be desirable to consider amending the section so as to provide that a person shall not clean any part of a machine which would expose him to risk of injury?
Mr. Lemass
Prohibiting persons being exposed to risk is the primary purpose of legislation. We have cases of cotton spinning plant where keeping the machine clean is 90 per cent. of the efficiency but the risk of injury is practically nil. I suppose a person could harm himself if he set out to do it.
If the cleaning thereof would expose them to risk of injury—if it did not expose them to it, that section would not apply.
And it would still give protection to a woman or young person.
Mr. Lemass
That is right.
What is the view of the committee? Do you want it reconsidered?
Mr. Lemass
It might be reconsidered on that basis.
Do you want to cover people against the possibility of even remote risks?
Mr. Lemass
No.
Some operations are ones in which risk is inevitable. If you are dealing with molten metal, the very fact that you are in the factory at all is a risk, as someone may bump into you.
Mr. Lemass
Or even cleaning a motor car.
These are inevitable risks. We will look into it and come back again.
The risk incidental to operating a machine is one thing. That is something that can be known and against which you can take precautions. No one could say what the risk is that is incidental to cleaning a machine, particularly when it is in motion. That is really the kernel of the problem.
The remedy is to say you cannot clean a machine unless it is stopped.
If there is a risk of injury.
What is the risk to be? I suppose there is inevitably some risk but there is a difference between 1 per cent. risk and 50 per cent. risk. Some machinery would have to be turned and operated in order to get at the parts to be cleaned. Some of them would have to be spun in order to be oiled.
The question is whether it is regarded as a dangerous machine. It is a question of practice. I do not think we could stand over the cleaning of a machine while it is in motion if there is a risk of injury, whether it is a young person or an adult. I think we should look at it in any case and see what can be done.
Section 30 agreed to.
The Committee adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 3rd February, 1955.