As you will see from the Bill——
SECTION 1.
It appears that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 could be taken together as No. 2 is consequential on No. 1.
Agreed to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I move amendment No.1:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following section:—
" (2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister appoints by order."
The idea of this amendment is that it is proposed to change the time of coming into operation of the Act from the first date to a date to be fixed by Order. That allows for greater flexibility in making the necessary arrangements. It does not of course follow that there will be delay in the introduction of the Bill; in fact, in some respects it might allow of the earlier application of the Bill if the necessary administrative procedure of the drafting of orders has been completed.
The only point I am a bit puzzled about is why is there this change in attitude at present? Surely the question of when it should come into operation would have been considered when the Bill was drafted. We had a definite date fixed here and now it is suggested that it be put on an indefinite basis in order to provide flexibility. What has happened in the meantime to make it necessary to seek this change?
As you know the thing was originally intended to come into operation on the 1st January, 1955, and 1956 is suggested now but it might just be possible that we might not assemble it by 1956—assemble the necessary procedural arrangements for its operation by January, 1956—and it was thought that, generally speaking, it might be better to proceed by fixing the date by Order for the application of the Act. It is customary and has been the practice.
I take it that so far as the date would be concerned that the periods would be related to the original periods set down in the draft of the Bill—in other words the Bill was intended to come into operation approximately about nine months after it was introduced in the Dáil and we could expect that it could be working within that limit?
That is the general intention. It is desirable to leave some gap between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation so as to enable factory proprietors to become familiar with their new obligations.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), page 6, to delete in lines 23 and 24 " 1st day of January, 1956 " and substitute " day appointed under sub-section (2) of this section " and to delete in lines 27 and 28 " 1st day of January, 1958 " and substitute " two years after the day appointed under sub-section (2) of this section."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Lemass
On the section, it seems the Minister has power under this section to make an Order under which one factory would be exempt in one particular locality from the provisions of the Act while another factory elsewhere but in the same business would not. I think the desirability of having a passibility of discrimination on the basis of location as provided in this section should be reconsidered. Another point, if a factory is exempted by Order temporarily from the provisions of the Act it is contemplated that the provisions of existing legislation, even though that legislation is repealed on the passing of this Bill, shall apply. The word used there is " may " and I know there are legal views that the word " may " should be read to mean " shall ", but I think there should be no doubt whatever if there is a temporary exemption given to any factory from this Act that the existing law will continue to apply.
On the second part, we can put that right immediately by substituting " shall " for " may ". On the other questions, the power of exemption here is for any " class or description of factory " and there does not seem to be any provision here for localities.
Mr. Lemass
It is in the definition section on top of page 7—"‘ class or description ', in relation to factories, includes a group of factories described by reference to locality ".
There is a group there——
Mr. Lemass
There is a possibility that circumstances might justify the temporary exemption of a factory from the provisions of the Act even on the basis of locality, and even though another factory in the same business was required to comply. That would be very exceptional and would probably arouse considerable objection from the proprietors of the other factories if they were forced to comply while one of their competitors was exempted. I do not want to make the Bill too water-tight in that respect but I think it is a point which should be looked into. The possibility of a temporary exemption was provided because of the possibility of difficulties arising in making changes which the Bill requires in regard to a class of factories generally rather than in regard to a factory in any locality.
I think you will agree if you had these powers they would be of a character which would be likely to involve you in considerable difficulty, because if you are going to put the obligation of this Act on all factory owners, generally, to exclude a particular factory is going to put that particular factory in an advantageous position vis-a-vis its competitors and it may also be suggested that somebody got at somebody in order to get this exemption.
Mr. Lemass
That is the power which you have at the moment under Section 1 (3), and it is the desirability of taking that power that I am questioning. In effect, you may exempt any class or description of factory, and that means a group of factories described by reference to locality, because of some special consideration, for a period of time from the provisions of this Act. I think the phraseology could be worded to cover only special difficulties relating to factories of any type rather than factories in a particular locality because I cannot see such difficulties arising for factories in one area which would not apply to factories in other areas also.
Is it your view that we should take powers to exempt the particular factory in a particular locality?
Mr. Lemass
My view is that you have that power under Section 1 (3). I do not think it is desirable and the desirability of having it should be re-examined.
It might be possible to have it looked at not merely in relation to the provisions of Section 1 (3) but also in the definition in relation to definition section and class 2.
Mr. Lemass
You will appreciate the position of a manufacturer in Dublin seeing the risk that he may be required to make alterations to conform with the Act when somebody elsewhere would not be so required.
We will look at Section 1 in relation to the definition section.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.