We finished Section 30. We will take Section 31, amendment No. 21. It is desirable to take amendments Nos. 26 and 27 as consequential amendments with amendment No. 21.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 21 :—
Before Section 31 to insert a new section as follows: —
31. (1) A person shall not work at any machine to which this sub-section applies unless he has been fully instructed as to the dangers arising in connection therewith and the precautions to be observed, and—
(a) has received a sufficient training in work at the machine, or
(b) is under adequate supervision by a person who has a thorough knowledge and experience of the machine.
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section applies to such machines as may be specified in regulations made by the Minister, being machines which in his opinion are of such a dangerous character that persons ought not to work at them unless the requirements of sub-section (1) of this section are complied with.
(3) In this section—
" machine " includes any steam boiler, steam receiver or air receiver;
any reference to working at a machine shall—
(a) in the case of a steam boiler, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the generation of steam from that boiler,
(b) in the case of a steam receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of steam in that receiver, and
(c) in the case of an air receiver, be construed as including a reference to working in connection with the use of compressed air in that receiver.
The position in this respect is that representations were made to me by a trade union catering for boilermen and firemen. They asked to have it provided in the Bill that only such persons as had been granted a certificate of competency should be allowed to attend steam boilers. They urged that there was grave danger of accidents and explosions if incompetent persons were allowed to operate steam boilers. I looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that it would be a big administrative task to examine and certificate all boiler attendants. In any case I do not think that is necessary. However, to go part of the way towards meeting the wishes of the boilermen's union I have tabled an amendment which in effect, redrafts Section 31, by first of all extending it to all persons—and that includes young persons—and secondly, by making it clear that as well as applying to dangerous machines, regulations can be made regarding private steam boilers or steam receivers or air receivers. If this amendment is accepted I would delete Section 31 of the Bill as drafted.
I take it that amendment No. 22 will be taken together with the ministerial amendment?
That is a matter for the Committee, but that was my own view, that you would be covering the same ground if you took them separately.
And perhaps No. 23 as well. I think amendment No. 21 would pretty well cover both of those amendments.
Substantially—the only difference is in respect of provisions in amendments Nos. 22 and 23 for the holding of a certificate in a prescribed form and this proposal has been the outcome of representations made by the union catering for the boilermen and I suppose it can be taken in conjunction with the ministerial amendment from this point of view that the provisions of the amendment moved by the Minister are in themselves quite satisfactory, except that there appears to me to be this weakness, that the new section provides that the person shall not work any of these machines unless he has received a sufficient training in work at the machine or be under adequate supervision by a person who has a thorough knowledge and experience of the machine. Up to the point of securing training there is in fact no divergence between the new section and my amendment, because quite clearly in order to obtain a certificate one must have had training, but the weakness in the new section is that there is no assurance of the same nature here that a person put on any of these machines has in fact received training. The section does not make it clear that the training shall be secured before the person goes on to the machine. Presumably there will be inspections at places where there are machines like that when it becomes known to the inspector that an accident has occurred the question would arise whether the person had received training. It would seem to be better to make provision to ensure he had the training before going on the machine. That can only be done by some form of certificate or notice of competency. I want either the employer or somebody else to be responsible for seeing that training has been secured. I do not see any difficulty in working out regulations in regard to the certificate if we accept that a person must have training. If he is trained in a particular works where these machines are or in some outside concern it only requires that after he has completed a specified period of training that some responsible person will then issue a very formal certificate merely indicating on that certificate that he has gone through the requisite period of training. I think it would be some assurance or some guarantee that a person would not be put on to a machine unless he has got the training. As it is, the section is fairly wide and seems to accept as desirable that this training should be given, but as far as I can see it cannot—unless the Minister would deal with it by regulation—give the assurance that the person had actually got the training before going on to the machine and then it could be discovered when an accident might occur.
You know the organisation which sent in this amendment. As a matter of fact it was first offered as a revenue raising expedient—that those passed would get certificates for which they should pay a fee. Frankly I was suspicious of the willingness to pay fees in order to get certificates and it seemed to me that the intentions claimed by the union can be implemented only if I set up some kind of an organisation to tutor people in the acquisition of competency in tending these machines or exercise such a power over any organisation set up for the purpose of imparting competency as to make me virtually the only person who can give this certificate or put me in the position of really taking control of the people to be employed in undertakings of this kind. Alternatively you hand over to a union complete responsibility for issuing certificates and then these certificates run, as it were, as court writs and only persons who have these certificates can get employment in looking after these machines. I think these are two extreme points which could be reached if you did attempt to give effect to the claim made up by the Union. I think the amendment is a more balanced approach to the problem. It declares that a person shall not work at any machine to which the sub-section applies unless he has been fully instructed as to the dangers arising in connection therewith. That puts on the owner of the machine the employer, the responsibility for ensuring that the person has this training. In any case, it is the employer's machine for which I assume he has paid a substantial sum of money and I take it that as a matter of self preservation he will make sure that the person employed to operate the machine will have the requisite skill. The amendment puts on the employer the responsibility for ensuring that the person has been fully instructed whereas the device suggested by the trade union is that somebody should issue certificates and that that certificate should be the passport to competency. So long as you had hold of a certificate or it was issued in the first place everything was all right. The certificate was there and if the boiler burst—well "he had a certificate it was just too bad." All the time I would prefer to put the obligation on the employer to discharge. The obligation would be on the employer of seeing that the person was fully trained and competent to do the job.
That may be so, but I think we should look at the principle under which we approach the whole question of this type of machine. A later section—Section 39 I think—deals with the actual boilers themselves. We not only propose to put the onus on the employer or the owner of the machine, but require a certificate for the boiler and provide that an inspection can be made by a boiler inspecting company or association. Quite clearly you can have a very safe boiler and a very unsafe boilerman and obviously you have to take the two together. Not merely is it requisite that the boiler should be safe and that it has been inspected and passed but that there should be a certificate showing this has been done in so far as the machine is concerned.
It should be equally necessary that we should have some assurance that the person who was going to work the boiler is competent because there would be just as much danger as if the boiler were defective if the boilerman had not also been properly trained. In addition to the employer having the onus as in the case of the boiler itself there should be the same provision in respect of the attendants to ensure that they have also obtained the necessary training in the same way as we require the boiler itself to be certified. I think the two things should be taken together and I do not think there would be any great practical difficulties.
I think one of the weaknesses as regards the certificate is that it would be said : " Oh, well, the man had a certificate, that exonerates me from any further liability in the matter." I think it is important that the test of competency should remain there all the time rather than that the issue of a certificate should be a passport to the employee in terms that he is competent to do this job and have the employer to say: " He had a certificate. It is too bad the boiler burst and people lost their lives."
Surely the same principle applies in regard to the certificate on the boiler itself?
Mr. Lemass
There is not any question, as I understand it, here as to the desirability of having a worker properly trained. The question is whether the obligation to ensure that a worker is properly trained should rest upon the employer or upon some certificate issuing authority and on the whole I think it is far better to keep the responsibility fairly and squarely on the employer rather than on some authority yet to be established which presumably would set an examination, prescribe tests and issue certificates.
If the approach to this is that, if a worker is injured by a boiler explosion, it is to be said that it is the employer's responsibility, that he did not comply with the regulations and he can now be dealt with, why do we not do the same with regard to the boiler itself?
Again Section 39 puts on the employer an obligation to see that these things are done.
Yes, plus a certificate.
The certificate is the only guarantee that it has been done.
That is all I am asking for in regard to the training of the worker.
We must advert to the administrative difficulties—who is to recruit him ; who is to train him ; who is to give the certificate ; is it to be a certificate for all time or is it to be renewed from time to time ? Where are you going to get that kind of administrative machinery built up ?
There is a pattern in America, in the State of New York, where certificates are required. I think it is done by the local authority, who have examiners. I think the certificate is given for a period of five years which can be renewed for a further period of five years, or for such shorter period as may be thought necessary.
Mr. Lemass
Might I direct Deputy Larkin's attention to Section 100, which provides that if a worker is killed or injured by reason of the default of the employer in relation to any provision of the Act, a payment can be made on the direction of the court by the employer to the dependents of the worker? If the employer's obligation under the Act is merely to employ a worker with a certificate, it seems to me that he may escape any liability under that section if a worker is killed or injured, but if his obligation is to ensure that a competent man is in charge of machinery, that is the issue that will be determined in the court—not whether he had a certificate but whether he was competent to operate the machine.
Let us take it a little further in regard to the onus on the employer. The requirement in the new section is that a person shall have been fully instructed and shall have received sufficient training. If a man offers himself for a job and if he is questioned and says that he has worked as a boilerman for five years and the employer accepts his statement——
Mr. Lemass
That does not release him from his obligation, as I see it.
Suppose he walked into an employer with a certificate got by some method which did not indicate that he was as competent for the discharge of these duties as this Bill puts on the employer to ensure, have you not got the same situation ? The person to give the certificate to anybody will have to be somebody other than the employer. He clearly could not issue a certificate to his own employee. Clearly, a man could not issue a certificate to himself and I do not think that even a union could. If there is going to be any question about a certificate, how are you going to get the machinery for certificating that man? In addition, do we think that in the circumstances existing here this is a problem that requires the construction of that elaborate type of administrative machine for the purpose of grinding out certificates because a certificate may not necessarily mean efficiency?. The certificate in any case will have to be a certificate in broad outline and the particular employer might require a man with a specialised training for a particular type of machine operated in a particular way.
Mr. Lemass
That is a point I was going to stress. The obligation on the employer under the amendment is to instruct the worker in the dangers arising in connection with the particular machine he is going to work and the precautions to be observed in relation to that machine. These are more useful instructions than the general type of tuition that might be required preliminary to the issue of a certificate.
I have no authority to say this, but it occurs to me that you might well deal with the certification through the machinery already provided in respect of the boiler inspectors of the insurance companies. They go to examine a boiler and, being experts, they can quite readily determine whether a man has a proper working knowledge of the machine and that could be part of the general certification. I do not know whether that would appeal to the union or not. I have had no consultation with them ; but again the point in substance is that we only find out that a man has not had the training after something occurs. My recollection of boiler explosions over recent years is that in most cases it turned out that there was some defect on the part of the man and not so much a defect in the boiler. Take again the question of his training. There are all types of boilers. Every day of the week the unions catering for boiler men are asked to supply men and the question immediately arises : What type of boiler are they used to ? We have had men claiming rates of wages for boiler men who have been working on small heater boilers. They may have been at it for ten or 15 years. One of these applies for a job and he says: " There is my experience " and unless you check back to find out what work he was on, you have no assurance that he has the experience and has got the training.
Is it not better to put the obligation on the employer to ensure that the man has the requisite skill and that surely implies, if it is before the courts, that there was an obligation on him to check back on the man's qualifications? In any case, I still think you have to recognise that as far as the employer is concerned, the machine is his. He has paid for it and he will be anxious that it should be operated economically and for that purpose will endeavour to secure the services of a trained and experienced person. All that obligation on the employer under Section 31 is probably a better guarantee than the possession of a certificate. From what source a certificate should issue, I cannot say at the moment, without the construction of an elaborate piece of administrative machinery, the value of which in the long run might be highly doubtful.
Mr. Lemass
As the adoption of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 31, there is an observation I should like to make in that regard. The new section is an improvement on the original section which was confined in its scope to young persons. The new section is not so confined, but it occurred to me that circumstances might arise in which it might be desirable to take power to make regulations relating to young persons because one can contemplate a type of machine upon which it might be desirable to prohibit the employment of young persons. Perhaps the Minister would look into that and see whether it is not desirable to go further and take power not merely to make the regulations prescribed in sub-section (2) but specific regulations relating to young persons.
With particular advertance to Section 31 or generally?
Mr. Lemass
As it stands, it says that a person shall not work on any machine on which he had not been fully instructed and power is taken to enable regulations to be made to apply that section to all machines which, in the opinion of the Minister, are of such a dangerous character that persons ought not to work them until they have been instructed in their use and are under supervision. It might be desirable to take that power in two parts—power to make regulations relating to machines where adults or young persons work them and power to make regulations which would apply only in the case of young persons and not in the case of adults.
It was thought that the power in sub-section (2) would be sufficiently wide to do what the Deputy has in mind, but we can have another look at it to see whether any amplification is necessary to cover the point made by the Deputy.
Question—" That new section stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.
Section 31 deleted.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved?
I reserve the right to look at the new section on report.