Special Committee Factories Bill, 1954 díospóireacht -
Friday, 11 Feb 1955

SECTION 83.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 56 :—

Before Section 83 to insert a new section as follows :—

83. —(1) Where, in any premises which are subject to inspection by or under the authority of any Minister of State, mechanical power is used and any manual labour is exercised for the purposes of instruction, in or incidental to the making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, washing, cleaning or adapting for sale, of any article, and the premises do not constitute a factory, the provisions of this Act hereinafter in this sub-section mentioned shall apply as if the premises were a factory and the persons having the control of the premises were the occupier of a factory, that is to say :

(a) the provisions of Part I;

(b) the provisions of Part II with respect to lighting;

(c) the provisions of Part III with respect to prime movers, transmission machinery, other machinery, safety devices, fencing of materials or articles, unfenced machinery, construction and maintenance of fencing and construction of machinery;

(d) the provisions of Part V with respect to removal of dust or fumes, protection of eyes in certain processes and special regulations for safety and health;

(e) the provisions of Part X with respect to powers and duties of inspectors and regulations, orders and certificates of the Minister;

(f) the provisions of Part XI;

(g) the provisions of Part XII;

(h) the provisions of Part XIII with respect to special regulations.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to premises referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 82 of this Act, but the said provisions shall have effect notwithstanding sub-section (3) of that section.

Representations have been made to us that the Bill should be applied to trade shops and technical schools. I am prepared to adopt such a proposal, the main argument in favour of it being the benefits which would accrue from associating future factory workers with ideas of safety in operating machinery at the very outset of their career. This new section, therefore, is limited to shops and technical schools where mechanical power is used. It gives the Minister's inspectors power to inspect and it gives the Minister power to enforce certain provisions of the Bill. The provisions selected for application to these premises are the provision of adequate light, the provisions of Part III relating to the fencing of machinery, the provisions of Part V regarding the removal of dust and fumes, the protection of the eyes, the application of certain safety regulations, wood-cutting machinery regulations and the necessary consequential administrative provisions.

Mr. Lemass

It is an improvement.

Mr. Larkin

I agree, except that I am not quite clear as to why it is proposed to proceed by this means of applying the provisions of certain parts with definite limitation, instead of applying the whole of the part of an Act and excluding those that clearly would not be applicable. I take the provisions under Part II. Under the section, only those provisions dealing with lighting would be applicable. It might well be that many of the other provisions of Part II would also be desirable. It would be preferable if the Minister had power to apply the whole of Part II, specially excluding certain matters if that were desirable.

Mr. Norton

The difficulty arises from applying these parts in full is the difficulty of finding accommodation in the technical schools. If we were to apply the provisions in full, we might put a number of these technical schools out of existence. The amendment here travels as far as we think it is possible to travel without running into that difficulty.

Mr. Lemass

I would be inclined to agree that the obligation to ensure cleanliness, prevent overcrowding and provide sanitary conveniences in technical schools should rest on the Minister for Education and it would cause difficulties if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had functions in that respect.

Mr. Norton

Besides that, the general intention is not so much to provide safeguards—the need for them is not as obvious as in an ordinary factory—it is very largely to familiarise students in the schools with the necessity for these safeguards when they ultimately go into private employment.

Mr. Larkin

I can see, at the same time, that some of the provisions of Part IV might well be considered, at least to encourage the students to adopt standards of cleanliness and tidiness in regard to washing, the care of clothing and things like that—which I doubt very much the Minister for Education is going to pay attention to. However, I am not pressing the matter.

Mr. Norton

What you would do there is to prescribe the school as a factory. It is still a school, with perhaps one classroom adapted to training students in the operation of mechanical appliances. To that extent it is possible for it to have some complexion of a factory, but it is still in a general setting a school, whereas Part IV is intended to deal very largely with the factory proper rather than the school which has a factory complex.

Mr. Larkin

So far as technical schools are concerned there is no particular complaint but it might be a good idea for children in national schools if we were to provide some of the regulations of the Factories Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 57 :—

In sub-section (1), before paragraph (b), to insert a new paragraph as follows :—

() the provisions of Part II with respect to sanitary conveniences.

In respect of Section 83, dealing with the application of various provisions of the section to docks, wharves, quays and warehouses, there are a number of omissions and I am not entirely convinced that these should be left out. Amendment No. 57 provides for the inclusion of those provisions of Part II with respect to sanitary conveniences. It may be argued that in so far as we are dealing with docks, wharves, quays and warehouses that the provision of sanitary conveniences should be more a matter for the sanitary authority, but along the docks there is a great deal of private property but that does not necessarily mean that the obligation of providing sanitary conveniences should devolve on the private owners. This matter has started to attract a good deal of attention among trade unions and their representatives and a growing demand is being made for the application of many of the provisions that are now accepted as quite normal in indoor factory employment.

Mr. Lynch

I think the Minister could go a little further than saying there should be special regulations for safety and health. It could also include shelter. I have seen dockers who have to stand in sanitary conveniences while waiting to go to work because no shelter is provided. I have noticed this in Cork, Waterford and Dublin—a crowd of them waiting for a boat to come in and although the weather might be bad and cold, they have to stand in the open. They do not mind when they are working because their work is of a kind that would keep men warm in any case. I always thought there should be some kind of shelter and I have seen such shelters in Bristol and Liverpool docks.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Larkin's amendment is in respect of sanitary conveniences and the effect of the amendment would be to apply to the docks the sanitary provisions of Section 16 of the Bill. This section was not applied in this case because it was not thought necessary—not because it was not thought to be desirable—but because it was thought this power could be better exercised under regulation. In factories generally there are only two responsible authorities to be dealt with, namely, the occupier of the factory and sometimes the owner of the factory, but in the docks the responsible authority could be the port authority, the harbour authority, the occupier of a section of the docks, the owner of a ship which is discharging or the local sanitary authority. The latter comes into the picture because many docks although under the control of the port authority are semi-public highways or at least areas to which the public have unrestricted access. We think, therefore, it was not sufficient simply to apply Section 16 to the docks, and then these difficulties prevent the matter being dealt with in that way. I agree there is a problem to be dealt with and if the Deputy will agree I will have the matter examined between now and Report Stage to see what particular statutory provisions could be used to require the provision of suitable sanitary conveniences.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister referred to the possibility of dealing with this by regulation. I am not quite clear as to where the Minister will secure power in this respect because so far as welfare generally is concerned the power is under Section 56 in Part IV of the Bill and I do not notice in that particular powers in regard to the question of sanitary conveniences.

Mr. Norton

A further combination will include them.

Mr. Lemass

The main thing is to pin-point the responsibility on some persons.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 58 :—

In sub-section (1), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows :—

"() the provisions of sections 32, 33 and 34 of Part III".

This is a question of the same nature. It is again a question of dealing with the exclusion of certain other main provisions of the Bill under this section where it deals with the provisions in respect of Sections 32, 33 and 34 and Section 3 which is dealing with the question of hoists, lifts, chains, ropes and lifting tackle. As far as I understand—we have often used them in court cases—there are regulations made by the Minister in regard to these but sometimes it is just as well to be a bit stupid and I will ask, therefore, what is the position.

Mr. Norton

The effect of the amendment would be to add to the provisions applied to docks the provisions of Part III, that is the part relating to hoists, lifts, chains, ropes and lifting tackle generally. The docks regulations of 1928 contain many provisions about the safety of chains, hoists, and cranes at the docks. No such provisions have been applied to factories generally, but they are now being applied by virtue of Sections 33 and 34 of this Bill. It was not thought necessary to apply those sections to docks in Section 18 because of the existence of dock regulations. These regulations of 1928 continue in force under the provisions of this Bill and of course, they can be replaced or revised by new and improved regulations at any time in the future. We think it is better to maintain the present flexibility of control by regulation rather than doing the thing in a rigid kind of way and running into difficulties which rigidity causes in a situation of this kind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move :—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (d), lines 47 and 48, to delete "with respect to welfare regulations" and substitute "other than section 54".

Chairman

I am advised that the view is that amendments Nos. 62 and 65 are cognate to amendment No. 59 and that we should take Nos. 59, 62 and 65. If necessary, if you want separate decisions that can be arranged if the Committee agrees.

Mr. Larkin

In view of what the Minister has said in regard to reviewing this question in respect of the application of the general power to make welfare regulations in respect of docks I would be prepared to withdraw those three amendments because they are all aiming at the same purpose.

Amendment No. 59 withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 60 :—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (g), lines 52 and 53, to delete " so, however, that the said provisions shall apply in the case of warehouses only."

This is again to eliminate a limiting qualification which appears to limit the effect of the section in respect of warehouses only. Again it is tied up with the point I have already raised, the general application of the welfare power to the docks.

Mr. Norton

The effect of the amendment would be to apply to employment in the docks generally the provisions of Section 78 relating to medical examination of young persons under 18 years of age. As drafted the section applies Section 78 only to persons employed in warehouses. It is difficult to see how a provision about medical examination can be effectively applied where the nature of the employment is so largely casual. That is why in the Bill application is limited to warehouses where there is a greater continuity in terms of employment. The casual nature of the employment at the docks, the in-and-out business might necessitate a person being examined every time.

Mr. Lemass

We can only apply these regulations to persons who are in more or less permanent employment, with the same employer. It would be a bit difficult to apply them in cases where employment is casual.

Mr. Norton

The corresponding legislation on this point elsewhere also excludes employment on the docks presumably for the same reason—I am sorry, it is the other way about. The British have applied it to the docks employment but whether that is due to the fact that they probably have other measures I am not quite clear.

Mr. Lemass

If an employer took on a young person for a job lasting more than a week or so, he would be required to ask the person to undergo a medical examination and it would be an added complication which would probably be resented very much.

Mr. Norton

Very often a person goes to the docks in the morning looking for a job and not knowing whether he is going to get it or not and if somebody says : " We will take you on to-day," is he to go and get a medical examination then ? If he is, he might not get the job, but if he does and he works, it seems it will be necessary to have an inspector on the spot.

Mr. Lynch

The majority of the dockers are on the union list and very few men who are off that list are taken on. The majority of the dockers taken on are usually called under such and such a stevedore and taken on by him. That is the system they apply in England and that is the system applied in Waterford.

Mr. Lemass

He can be employed for ten days.

Mr. Larkin

The only point of course is that this is dealing with young persons under 18 and so far as the purely casual character of the work—that is the actual loading and discharging—I think it is almost certain that they would not employ people under 18. They just would not be able. But a young person under 18 might well be employed in or around the docks, in actual warehouses. That would be more permanent and stabilised employment.

Mr. Lemass

On industrial work ?

Mr. Larkin

Yes. All right, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 61 not moved.

Question proposed : " That Section 83 stand part of the Bill ".

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is aware that one of the Dublin dockyards is perturbed as to the possible consequences of extending the provisions of the section to the coaling of any ship in any dock, harbour or canal. A dockyard only coals a ship for purposes of occasional trials and it was thought unreasonable to extend the section to a wet dock or harbour merely because of the possibility of coal being loaded on a ship for a trial of that kind. I am not quite clear that there is much substance in the objection because the whole of the provisions of the Bill apply to shipyards and dry docks, but it is a matter that might be looked into, if it has not already been examined in the Department.

Mr. Norton

I understand that representations were made to the Department by the dockyard people about this matter, but it appeared to the Department that they were under a misapprehension as to the precise provisions of the Bill. The position was explained to the company and the Department felt that they had put them right in respect of the misunderstanding and they have not come back yet, but if Deputy Lemass thinks the matter needs further examination——

Mr. Lemass

I was not quite clear that there was any point in their objection because I understand the whole Act applies to shipyards and dockyards.

Question put and agreed to.

Chairman

At this stage, I should mention that I have had a letter from Deputy Maurice Dockrell stating that he was on the Continent during the week and would be home early to-day or last night and that he might not be able to be present. He is not here and I should like to record that he has explained why he is absent.