Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 1

Public Business. - Mines and Quarries Bill, 1964: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I take it that some advance notice will be given under (2)?

Of the date of operation, certainly.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 13, inclusive, agreed to Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (3), page 13, line 43, after "Where" to insert ", in any excepted case,".

This section deals with the instructions given to a manager of a mine by or on behalf of an owner. The amendment is designed to make it clear that subsection (1) applies only to instructions given under subsection (2). It is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (5), page 14, line 11, after "individual" to insert "qualified for appointment as manager of such a mine".

I have had representations, as was to be expected, from the Irish Mining and Quarry Owners Association. Some of these representations dealt with the instructions a manager might be given by the owner of a mine, instructions with which the manager might not agree. The association suggest that in certain cases the manager should be entitled to require the owner to give written confirmation of any instructions given to him. They recommended strongly that an owner who was not qualified to be a manager should not be able to override the manager's decision on matters pertaining to safety merely by confirming his order in writing. This view has been accepted by me and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in such cases the owner must have the qualifications of a manager.

I intended to raise a matter on section 23 but this may be an appropriate moment now. A question has been raised with me with regard to the position of quarry managers. Apparently under existing legislation the person in charge is known as an agent. In practice, he may be no more than a foreman. It has been suggested to me that the use of the new title "manager" may involve a person having a status out of proportion to his qualifications. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be for the future a distinction between managers and agents or whether a manager will in future perform functions similar to those performed by an agent under existing legislation?

I do not object to anything in the Bill but there seem to me to be some omissions. The title is "Mines and Quarries Bill". I should like to point out that things have changed a great deal in the past few years and quarries have now become stone-crushing mills. There seems to me to be very grave laxity and that is due to negligence on the part of public authorities who are prepared to open up quarries and get the material out of them as quickly as possible, with, of course, no qualified person in charge. Because of the lack of proper supervision, particularly where stone-crushing operations are concerned, a problem of dust arises. There is no one to take any action in regard to this problem. If these men were working underground, the position would be entirely different. They would be properly looked after.

The provisions which apply to mines should also apply to quarries. It is unfair that the man who is better protected working underground should be in a privileged position vis-à-vis his fellow worker overground. Any type of machinery can apparently be used, without any proper supervision whatever. The workers have simply to take pot luck. The Minister should take drastic action in connection with the operation of quarries. It is grossly unfair that anybody should be able to cash in just by handing over a piece of ground to a public authority, a public authority who will send in all the machinery possible, to operate as rapidly as possible, under the worst possible conditions. I object very strongly to that.

We all know the adverse effects of dust on miners. The effects are the same where those working overground are concerned. In tightening up these regulations in regard to mines, the Minister should also tighten up in regard to quarries, particularly where the sole motive in operating the quarries is the profit motive. Similar provisions should be introduced to protect quarry workers.

Deputy Cosgrave asked whether, under this legislation, the situation whereby an agent would be responsible for the safe working of a mine would continue without ensuring that a competent person is responsible. The intention is that a competent person will be available as manager with qualifications to be prescribed by regulation, thereby ensuring that the person will be fixed with the statutory obligations of the Bill.

That will apply to both mines and quarries.

To both mines and quarries, but, lest I may mislead Deputy Leneghan, with regard to the right of a manager to seek written confirmation of an order given to him by the mine owner, in that case the mine owner must have qualifications sufficient to enable him to satisfy the mine manager that he is competent to give an order with which the manager does not agree. There is a distinction, as the Deputy will appreciate, between a man working underground and a man working overground. It is not intended that the owner of a quarry overground would be required to give the same kind of confirmation of an order as he would be required to give in the case of a mine.

I agree, but there should be a competent man in charge.

There will be, under this legislation.

Assuming an agent is competent and has performed the duties of a manager, is it the intention to confirm such an agent under this Bill in his new appointment as manager or would certain additional qualifications have to be laid down? Might it not follow that a person who is at present operating statutorily and in a competent manner as an agent might not be qualified for appointment as a manager?

Section 11, subsection (3) states:

Any person holding office or serving under or by virtue of an enactment repealed by this Act shall continue to hold office or to act or serve as if he had been appointed under the corresponding provision of this Act.

The regulations will be made subsequently and will apply to people already in these positions.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".

I would like to find out what the Minister has in mind under this section. Heretofore a definite standard was required under the 1911 Act, and in Britain, under the 1954 Act, there is a definite standard required before a man can be appointed as a mine manager. Under this section the matter is left wide open and it is said that the qualifications will be prescribed by regulation. There is some concern about the section and if some indication were given by the Minister as to the standards required it would put people's minds at ease.

As the Deputy is aware, the Bill provides for the establishment of an advisory council and it is proposed, before the regulations prescribing the qualifications of a mine manager are drafted, to consult that council. In that way we will be in a position to receive competent advice before the regulations are drafted and to ensure that they will provide for qualifications consistent with Irish mining activities as we know them. People who are now actively engaged in mining operations will have an opportunity of advising us.

Is it intended to have an examination? If a person applies for a position as mine manager, will he be examined as to his qualifications?

It is not intended that such a person would be called before the advisory council for examination but existing mine managers will continue to act. People as to whose qualifications to act as mine managers we are satisfied will continue to act.

There is a considerable amount of mining activity in this country from time to time. What provision will be made to ensure that anybody appointed to act as a mine manager will be competent to do so?

It is not envisaged that there will be any lowering of standards under this Bill. When a new mine is opened and if a new manager appears from somewhere, whom we know nothing about, steps will be taken to ensure that he will have the qualifications prescribed by the regulations as advised by the advisory council. I do not think there will be any great difficulty about ascertaining these qualifications.

If he does not have the qualifications, you can refuse to allow him to act as mine manager?

We can refuse to allow him to act.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (1), page 14, line 28, after "mine" to insert "(and having such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed)".

This amendment provides that power be taken to prescribe the qualifications of a person who will have the temporary supervision of a mine during the temporary absence of the manager. At one time it was considered that such a person should have all the qualifications of a mine manager but we have to realise that so many qualified mine managers may not be around that a man who would be employed in a capacity of temporary supervision for from seven to ten days should be required to have the same qualifications. It will be necessary to have a man with somewhat lesser qualifications than those of a manager in temporary control of a mine. These qualifications will also be prescribed by regulation.

His term of control will be limited?

It will be limited to something under 75 days and may be extended if any particular cause is shown.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

I propose to delete this section.

Section 27 to be deleted.

Question put and declared lost.
Section 27 deleted.
Sections 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 5:

Before section 31 to insert a new section as follows:—

Provisions as to Appointments by Mine and Quarry Owners

(1) Where the manager of a mine or quarry dies, resigns or otherwise ceases to hold office, nothing in section 13 or 23 shall prevent the mine or quarry being worked at any time during a period not exceeding seventy-two days (or such longer period as an inspector may allow) until a successor is appointed, if at that time there is a person appointed by the owner to exercise and perform in the event of the manager's ceasing to hold office, his powers and duties until a successor is appointed.

(2) The person appointed shall, while so acting, be treated for the purpose of this Act in all respects as if he were the manager.

These amendments repair a defect in the Bill as it stands. In reply to Deputy Pattison a few minutes ago, I mentioned a period of 75 days as the maximum period for which a person with lesser qualifications could act as manager. The period is 72 days. I was wrong in that. Under the Bill as it stands no limit is placed on a period during which a person with lesser qualifications may act as manager. The amendments provide for a limited period during which a person may act and provide for qualifications for such a person.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 31.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 18, line 33, before "quarry" to insert "mine or".

This amendment provides for something else that is obviously desirable— the notification to inspectors of appointments made by mine owners. This is a provision already in the Bill in relation to quarry owners. It is obvious that the appointment of mine managers should be notified to inspectors.

I assume that the Minister has been in touch with local authorities about the effect this will have on them.

The Bill was widely circulated and local authorities were aware of all its provisions and were entitled to make any necessary representations.

The Minister must concede that quarry managers under local authority jurisdiction will have to be paid adequate rates of wages.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37.

I move amendment No. 7:

In subsection (2), page 21, line 17, to delete "section" and substitute "subsection".

The section provides for a minimum height of 5 foot 6 inches in the case of every travelling road in a mine. It has been represented to my Department that to comply with this minimum requirement at this stage would have a serious effect on the economy and viability of some existing Irish mines. It has been suggested that in many cases it would not be necessary to have a minimum height of 5 foot 6 inches in the case of some of the travelling roads.

I am not completely convinced about this point but, nevertheless, I am prepared to go into it to see whether an exemption might be made in the case of this minimum requirement. Therefore, I propose to provide that an exemption may be made pending a closer examination. I do not wish create insurmountable difficulties certain mine owners. It might not only close mines but might put men out of employment and put certain mines out of operation for all time.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 38 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 44.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 24, between lines 16 and 17, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(3) An inspector may by notice served on the manager of a mine exempt any apparatus from subsection (2)."

The section, as it stands, provides that in a mechanically or gravity operated winding apparatus at a shaft a competent person who is at least 21 years of age must be employed. It has been represented to me by the Irish Mining and Quarrying Association that certain operations, particularly the gravity operated winding apparatus which brings up minerals rather than human beings, would not require the attention of a person of 21 years of age. It is also suggested this is a useful way of bringing young people to work at, if not in, mines so that they will become accustomed to the atmosphere of mines. I agree to the case made in regard to this limited sphere of operations and that it is not necessary to have a person of 21 years of age in charge of gravity operated apparatus bringing minerals to the surface. The proposed new subsection provides that an inspector be given power to exempt.

While I agree with a good deal of what the Minister has said on the section, I should like to feel that these exemptions would not be granted unless the inspector is first quite sure the person who is appointed would be of a certain age. There should be some age mentioned in the regulations which, I submit, should not be left wide open.

I did not mention that subsection (2) applies a minimum age of 18 years.

The inspector can, by notice, give exemption in respect of a person who is 15 or 16 years to work one of those machines. In my constituency a young chap was killed a few years ago when he was caught in one of those machines which he was working. I would stress the point about the granting of these exemptions. I hope the insertion of this new subsection will not encourage getting jobs done cheaply by having young fellows on duty at these machines rather than adults.

I am not so naive as to think that the representations made to me did not envisage getting a simple operation done cheaply but I was also impressed by the other part of the argument — that it was useful to accustom young people to activities at mines who would later be given jobs of greater responsibility. I am not familiar with the case mentioned by the Deputy but I can assure him it will be the function of the inspector to ensure that as far as possible exemptions will not be given where there might be a particular danger to a person under the age of 18 years.

The Minister must agree the particular work might result in extreme danger to persons working underneath. As it is now, the provision is wide open: anybody at all will be allowed to operate those machines. Is there not a danger that persons in the mines beneath, even though they are not travelling up or down, might be threatened by the possibility of the machine falling down on top of them thus causing fatalities or serious injury? It is playing with fire to suggest there should not be any age limit in respect of persons operating those machines. The ages of 18 and 21 years have been mentioned. That makes it worse because nobody under 18 can operate such machines according to the Bill. Now the Minister says there can be a dispensation for people under those ages. We assume that will mean what Deputy Pattison referred to — that there can be youngsters of 15 years of age or younger. The Minister should have another look at this. It is not something which can be accepted by the House too easily.

I would not like the Deputy to suggest there is something of grave danger involved here. This is mechanical rope haulage of minerals along the ground and involves low horsepower capacity. It is not a question of people being in a cage or anything like that, or materials being hauled in a dangerous way.

The section says:

No mechanically or gravity operated winding apparatus at a shaft or staple-pit shall be operated on an occasion when no persons are carried by means thereof except by, or under the constant supervision of, a competent male person who is at least twenty-one years of age.

The amendment does not refer to that subsection at all. It refers to subsection (2):

Yes, but subsection (2) says:

No mechanically or gravity operated rope haulage apparatus at a mine shall be operated on any such occasion except by, or under the constant supervision of, a competent male person who is at least eighteen years of age.

I do not know how the Minister can say there is no question of danger. I am sure the Minister is well aware that in such circumstances there could be grave danger, if somebody were unable to control it, whether it was being hauled by rope or gravity. If it is not under control, it could run back. People have been killed in that way.

All I am doing here is giving the inspector power to exempt in certain cases. The section will provide that no person can engage in this operation who may be under 18 years of age unless the inspector, in his wisdom and knowledge, recommends an exemption. No carte blanche is being given to people to employ anybody under 18 years unless exemption is granted by the inspector, who certifies that the operation is capable of being done by a person under the statutory age.

Where the exemption is given it would apply only to material being hauled and not to individuals?

Even though it applies only to materials, individuals behind could be hurt. I do not want to delay the House but it cannot be stressed too much that we are trying to avoid the employment of child labour, which can take place under this. A child of 16 could be in charge of these machines and could cause an accident resulting in death or serious injury.

(South Tipperary): Would the Minister explain what is the difference between a mechanically or gravity operated winding apparatus and a rope haulage apparatus?

You would nearly want notice of that?

Yes. I answered my own questions in the way I was asked. The gravity winding apparatus is a vertical wind up and down with a cage. Rope haulage means what it implies— the thing is pulled along.

The Minister was very adamant a few minutes ago that no cage was involved.

In the first subsection, there is a cage, but that does not apply to the second subsection.

Why? The first is a vertical cage moving up and down. The other is where it must be brought up from the ground to the top. Naturally, there would have to be a cage.

If I see any problem arising, I will ensure this will be changed between now and the time it reaches the Seanad.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 70.

I move amendment No. 9:

In subsection (1), page 33, line 33, to delete "is minimised" and to substitute "is suppressed at source".

I feel that the section as it stands, which only requires that dust be minimised, is not sufficient. By substituting "suppressed at source" it would be much stronger and would help to keep down the incidence of pneumoconiosis and other diseases caused by dust. In the absence of a proper scheme of compensation, this is very serious for workers. The injuries which dust causes to the health of workers cannot be overstressed. Everything possible should be done to suppress at the source rather than allow it to be created and then try to remedy it. It could be argued that a mine owner had minimised the dust as required by section 70 but the dust could still be at a level that would be dangerous to the health of the workers. The words "is suppressed at source" would place a far greater obligation on mine owners to deal with this problem. I do not think the words "is minimised" would serve the purpose.

The use of the word "minimised" recognises the practicality of the situation. In mining operations underground dust can arise at a number of points. An obligation to suppress this dust or gas at source would, of course, be the ideal situation but it is not realistic to suggest that that ideal situation can be achieved. Therefore, the word "minimised" is used rather than the words "suppressed at source", suggested by the Deputy, because I am advised that this would be impractical in the circumstances.

However, the obligation imposed by the section as it stands to minimise any dust that is inflammable and dust of such character and in such quantity as to be likely to be injurious to the persons employed will have to be carried out in accordance with certain prescribed regulations and, naturally, these regulations will go as far as is practicable to impose the obligation on the persons responsible for the working of the mine. It would be impossible to fix them with the responsibility of suppressing all these things at source. It would not be practicable.

I notice the section confines the duty to workings of minerals below ground. Can the Minister say if there is any provision anywhere to prevent or to minimise dust overground?

If the Deputy reads the first three lines of subsection (2) he will see that it is provided for.

There is an obligation?

There is an obligation in respect of operations above ground also. Of course, the regulations in respect of operations above ground can be more particular.

Would not the Minister agree that it is possible for a manager of a mine to comply with this section while at the same time the dust in the mine could be at a dangerous level, he having tried to do something about it?

Again, we will have the advice of the inspector in this case and also of the men working in the mines. If they regard the incidence of dust to be beyond what is tolerable I should expect that they would bring that first of all, to the attention of the mine manager or his immediate subordinates or to the mine owner but certainly to the mine inspector. They would have means of conveying the presence of any undue amount of dust or other obnoxious substances. The inspector, of course, will be available at all times to ensure that as far as possible these dangers will be eliminated and, certainly, minimised according to the regulations that will be prescribed and, I hope, enforced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 70 agreed to.
Section 71 agreed to.
SECTION 72.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 72 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to know what steps will be required in order to obtain the information that this section demands should be obtained. The section prescribes that it shall be the duty of mine owners and of managers to ascertain the thickness of strata between working and surface water. Under the 1911 Act certain borings ahead were required to be made. Such provision is not contained in this Bill. We feel that there should be some definite method laid down by which this information should be ascertained. It has been proved in the past that plans of mines have been not too accurate. It could mean a great deal if certain plans were just a few yards out. It is quite easy for plans to be even up to 20 yards out.

Section 71 requires the owner or the manager of the mine to seek evidence of the proximity of disused workings, water bearing strata, and so on. So that, there is in section 71 the obligation to ensure that the ground around is surveyed to ascertain whether there is water or some other dangerous substance that might affect the safe working of the mine. Section 73, then, requires the manager to take precautions against inrushes of water where it is reasonably ascertained that these dangers are possible. The Deputy did not move his amendment because as a result of his consultation with the officials dealing with this matter in my Department he was satisfied with the explanations they gave him. I take it that he is still satisfied.

Yes; it is covered.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 73 to 88, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 89.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 39, line 4, to delete "may require" and to substitute "will ensure".

The section provides that regulations may require the provision and maintenance, for the use of persons employed at mines, of certain facilities for hygiene, health and the welfare of the workers. We feel that the wording of the section is not sufficiently strong; that it should be provided that regulations "will ensure" the provision of these amenities. These amenities are not provided in certain mines in this country at the moment and, consequently, men have to return to their homes covered with dust and coal and sometimes soaking wet. We feel the time has come when owners should be compelled to provide these amenities. As the section stands it might be a considerable time before the amenities would be provided. We feel that they should be provided without further delay. They should have been in existence many years ago. It is unfortunate that we have to legislate to compel people to provide these amenities. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I regret it is not possible for me to accept the amendment as proposed. In the first place, the substitution of the words "will ensure" for "may require" would take out of the hands of the Minister any discretion he might have in this matter and would also amount to a statement as to what the future will be in the case of all these mines. I realise, as I am sure all Members of the House realise, that there are certain minimum conditions, sanitary and toilet conditions, that we ought to require at mines, but the type of conditions would vary from mine to mine. There are mines where people have to travel a long distance from the pithead before they get home over rough and possibly not very dry ground. In such circumstances, it is desirable that there should be washing and drying facilities as near as possible to the minehead. Then there are cases where a mining operation will be quite convenient to existing facilities, for example, in a village, and it might not be necessary to have the same type of regulations in relation to that mine as to the one to which I have just referred. Therefore, I think it would be more realistic to follow the usual pattern in these cases which is that the Minister may require the provision and maintenance of these facilities.

Again, I shall have in this case the advice of the advisory council available to me. As the Deputy is aware, this council will be representative of workers as well as employers. Thus, we shall have the advice of those people who are immediately affected. It is better rather than to have a blanket provision to cover all cases that this usual form should be applied leaving certain discretion to the Minister as a result of the advice he gets. Again—and this is an important but not the most important point — the insistence on certain standards of requirements at one mine might be impossible to attain because of the marginal nature of the operations there—marginal economically—so that it is better that discretion be given to the Minister, especially when he will have not only the advice of the advisory council but also the initiative of that council to guide him, if necessary.

(South Tipperary): Surely an advisory council is not needed in order that basic needs are supplied. Surely the Minister could ensure, for instance, that a supply of drinking water would be made available at every mine in the country. That is not an alarming facility to ask for.

No, but this section provides for a variety of things.

This is a good section, a section which ought to be implemented. I do not see what the Minister is worried about when he says he should have a certain amount of discretion. I do not see what he is worried about when he says he will consult with an advisory committee. The Minister will need discretion as far as subsection (c) is concerned because nobody wants him to insist that canteens or accommodation facilities for enabling such persons to partake of meals should be provided. That may not be necessary in certain mines but surely this House is entitled to give the Minister power to say that washing facilities, including soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning and drying, would be provided. I am convinced that the Minister will ensure these facilities will be provided. Therefore, what he should do is to subdivide the whole section so that we at the Committee Stage can say: "We have effected one thing as far as mines and quarries are concerned" and that we—not the Minister at his discretion, not any advisory group — as public representatives have decided that under paragraph (a) there will be washing facilities, under paragraph (b) accommodation for changing clothing, etc., and under (d) there will be a supply of wholesome drinking water.

There should be a special provision which will ensure that the ordinary basic facilities will be provided for miners. I am sure it is not in the Minister's mind that, if I am a miner and I come up dirty and dust-ridden, because my house is half a mile away I should go there to clean myself. The Minister is well aware that particularly in these villages the smaller proportion of houses have baths or showers. There should be an assurance from the House that such facilities will be provided by regulation of the Minister.

I can assure Deputy Corish that I want to see the day and see it soon when a man can walk away from a mine, building site or a foundry and if he wishes to be dressed sufficiently well to meet his girl friend——

Carrying his working clothes in his brief case as the continentals do. Good for you.

That is the situation I should like to see and I hope there are certain types of employers I can encourage to provide these facilities. However, there are, as Deputy Corish said, certain minimal facilities we ought to provide. I thought it was better to include all these things that were desiderata under the one provision but there may be something in Deputy Corish's point in regard to separating the minimal requirements from the desirable ones which might be left to certain discretion. I shall have another look at that.

Do I take it the Minister's case is that some of these firms are so uneconomic that the provision of these facilities would be an unfair burden?

For instance, the point isolated by Deputy Corish in regard to the provision of canteens, if I made a regulation with all these four points.

I think the Minister should take out the washing facilities.

That was the suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 89 agreed to.
SECTION 90.

I move amendment No. 12.

In subsection (3), page 39, line 29, to delete "this section" and substitute "subsection (2)”.

This section has certain provisions to secure safe methods of working at quarries and in certain circumstances, if an inspector is satisfied, as in subsection (3) about the nature and conditions of the minerals and so on that the requirements imposed by the section are unnecessary, he may exempt that requirement. I think it is reasonable to include "mine" in the facility for exemption and that is the purpose of the amendment.

I take it this means there will be no exemption in subsection (1) but there will be exemption in subsections (2) and (3).

Yes, that is it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 90, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 91.
Question proposed: "That section 91 stand part of the Bill".

Is there any definition of "safe means of access"?

There is no definition of safe means of access but if the owner and the inspector cannot agree as to the safety, it would be a matter for a court of law to decide.

At some part of the Bill, the inspector has the right to deem what is described as an access to be unsafe?

I am advised that is not so.

Section 90 merely says:

It shall be the duty of the manager of every quarry to secure that quarrying operations are so carried on as to avoid danger from falls whether within or outside the quarry and whether of the minerals worked

or any other substance.

Surely there must be some place in the Bill where the inspector is given power to inspect an access and say whether or not it is safe.

Most quarries are opencast and there will be an entrance through which vehicles can pass. Surely that should be easy enough to deal with?

Deputies probably have in mind the power of inspection under the Factories Acts where, if an inspector regards a piece of machinery as dangerous, he says whether it should be shielded or not. Unless the factory owner complies with this direction, he is liable to prosecution. You cannot say that in the case of access to such a place as a quarry——

Is a quarry not a factory within the meaning of the Act?

Yes, but an "access" is a different matter.

But if there is a broken step at the door which results in somebody being injured, is that not covered by the Factories Acts?

It is not capable of precise decision like that. It is a question of fact on which the mine owner, perhaps, would be entitled to challenge the judgment of the inspectors.

But surely we must give the inspector power. We are discussing this in terms of general access to quarries but one goes into quarries and can see men working at various levels. Suppose the foreman says: "Get up on that cliff face or whatever it is and break it open", there must be access to it and the inspector must be satisfied that it is safe.

That would probably be covered by the previous section.

That is what I want, that the inspector should have the right to go in and deem the access to any portion of the quarry unsafe.

I can see many quarries closing down because in 99 cases out of 100, men have to climb into all sorts of almost inaccessible places.

There is a distinction between what we are discussing now and what we discussed a while ago, about the requirements for safety within the mine or quarry itself. Deputy Corish is now suggesting there might be a means of access to part of the quarry or mine that might not be safe.

That is what the section says: "...to every place at a quarry at which any person has at any time to work". Apart from details, what I am concerned about is this: Is there any place in the Bill where it says the inspector has the right to go in and examine the quarry?

There is, in section 83. It says:

There shall be provided and maintained safe means of access to every place in or on a building or structure on the surface of a mine, being a place at which any person has at any time to work.

That is applied to quarries under section 96, a later section than the one we are discussing.

Is there any place where a penalty is provided or is it merely a pious intention?

I am assured that the inspector has power. If he deems a certain place is not safe and the employer disagrees, naturally it will be a question of fact that a judge will decide. If the inspector feels strongly enough about it, he will prosecute the owner and the judge will decide whether the access or the system is safe. There is a section providing for prosecution. I misunderstood the Deputy's argument. You could say that you had a certain thickness of wall or a certain type of surface but the inspector can say: `I do not think this is safe and I do not care what kind of a wall is there." Then it must go to court for the judge to decide.

Must inspectors have particular qualifications?

Yes, they are technically qualified.

I am thinking of quarries where men are working at various levels and it may be possible to arrange to push a man on to a ledge which, to an ordinary individual, is not safe but that is the system they work under. My trade union is concerned with many quarries and I can see questions arising from time to time if it becomes generally known that there must be safe access to every place a man may be working. I should like to have the whole thing clarified so that we can know exactly what we are talking about and that this is not just a pious proposition that cannot be carried out or one which will cause a lot of complications at a later stage.

There is a general provision in section 82 which could not, I think, be clearer: "All buildings and structures on the surface of a mine shall be kept in safe condition." Section 83 provides:

(1) There shall be provided and maintained safe means of access to every place in or on a building or structure on the surface of a mine, being a place at which any person has at any time to work.

(2) Where a person is to work at any such place from which he will be liable to fall a distance of more than ten feet, then, unless the place is one which affords secure foothold and, where necessary, secure handhold, means shall be provided by fencing or otherwise for ensuring his safety.

As I said before, these provisions apply to quarries under section 96.

This could mean that where a man was required heretofore to get up on another man's shoulders to lay a charge, or be toted up by some of his companions, the inspector will now require the employers to provide a ladder, or something like that.

Yes, and possibly hand railings in some cases.

How often do inspectors visit these mines?

We have not so many of them.

Mines or inspectors?

I am afraid I should want notice of that question.

Are these inspectors distinct from the factory and work-shops inspectors?

They are. There are two of them. They go around very frequently. I have been with them myself and they are obviously very busy men.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 92 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 101.
Question proposed: "That section 101 stand part of the Bill."

This section, as I understand it, requires that a mine or quarry in which an accident occurs be immobilised for a period of three days to facilitate an official inspection. It is suggested that this period is unduly long in the light of modern facilities for communication and that, instead of three days, 24 hours would be sufficient. I wonder has the Minister considered that aspect of it. Some apprehension is felt by mine and quarry owners that this requirement may temporarily paralyse operations whereas it should be comparatively easy with modern communications to arrange for an inspection within a shorter period.

Not exceeding three days might answer the problem.

Subsection (2) solves the problem, I think. "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the doing of anything by or with the consent of an inspector." That consent might be given within the three days and operations could then proceed.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 102 agreed to.
SECTION 103.
Question proposed: "That section 103 stand part of the Bill".

An investigation of this character would be by a qualified inspector?

It would not be by an inspector in this case. It would be by someone with suitable qualification.

Someone from outside. Would he have the right to have a legal assessor?

Not necessarily legal — a mining assessor.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 104 to 110, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 111.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 47, line 47, to delete "employed or"; and in line 49 to insert "commencement of" before "employment".—

This section gives the Minister power to make regulations compelling workers to submit themselves at frequent intervals for medical examination. I agree there should be a medical examination in the case of those seeking employment, but this provision might have very serious consequences for those already in employment. As the Minister knows, there is no proper compensation for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. They must be proved to be 100 per cent incapacitated before they can get compensation. If the percentage is anything lower than that, they get nothing. Under this provision, workers found to be suffering slightly from pneumoconiosis would not receive any compensation. Of course, other disabilities are also covered in this section, such as physical and mental disabilities.

There is no obligation on mine managers to submit themselves for examination. If such regulations are to apply to workers it is equally important that they should apply to managers, who may well suffer from mental or physical disabilities. In the absence of any provision for compensation or for retraining, we cannot agree to the section. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I would support the section because I think it is a good section if there were proper provision for compensation for those whose health might be in any way impaired. As the section stands, if mine owners find some workers suffering from a slight touch of pneumoconiosis, they are free to dispense with their services and they are under no obligation to pay these workers compensation.

This section cannot be taken alone in relation to the last portion of the Deputy's submission. The section provides regulations requiring men to undergo examination at particular times. I can well understand the reluctance of persons who have been working at mining for a considerable period or even for a short period and who, for all they know, may have contracted pneumoconiosis, to undergo such examination. If they are diagnosed as having this disease, they may be disemployed and our mining operations here are not on such a scale as to ensure that they can be employed more safely in an aboveground capacity. I believe they have such a scheme in Britain.

I believe it is desirable that there should be this prior examination of people who seek employment in mines and it is equally desirable that persons who contract pneumoconiosis should be diagnosed at the very earliest stage in order to ensure that they would get such treatment as might cure them. It is wrong to continue to allow a man to work underground if he has contracted pneumoconiosis and is possibly getting worse. There is always the fear that the man may lose his job but under section 119, which gives me power to make regulations regarding this examination, I have to consult with the owner of the mine and with any associations appearing to me to be representative of the employees. Naturally, I would want to create a situation in which the men would be allowed to keep on working and the consultations I would have with the mine owners and with the trade unions representing the men would have regard to the possibility of alternative employment being found for such men as might not be able to continue working underground. I cannot guarantee that such employment would be found but there is no question of the desirability of having the examination. A man should not be permitted to work himself to death in a mine. The regulation might well provide for doing something for such men other than cutting them off work completely.

Would the Minister have in mind something other than workmen's compensation?

Workmen's compensation will be dealt with in another way in legislation which the Minister for Social Welfare will bring before the House. Workmen's compensation itself is not pertinent to this Bill.

This is an unusual section in legislation like this. There is similar legislation for those employed in other State companies, particularly CIE. I wonder if the Minister has had regard to that.

It goes back to 1901.

If a man is found incapacitated due to his work, there is a scheme of compensation for him. Has the Minister examined any of those schemes which might be applied in the case of those people who work in mines?

I have not examined a scheme in relation to compensation but I have been impressed by provisions in Britain whereby they can find alternative employment for a man above ground. Of course, the British mining operations are on a far greater scale than ours but this is an aspect of the matter to which I would have regard in making regulations.

The Minister would be reluctant to make a regulation to which one side or the other might have violent objections.

Naturally.

We all know of cases of men who have been working with Bord na Móna or CIE and who have got hurt. If any of these men has been foolish enough to try to obtain workmen's compensation the next thing we find is that the employers refuse to take him back. It is well known that they do that. There is also the case of the man who may have been working in a quarry and the same thing could happen. A man working in a mine may get some form of lung disease. It is discovered; he is treated for it and cured and when he tries to get back to work he will not be taken. I wonder if the Minister would take some powers to himself to ensure that such people would be treated fairly.

If the Minister does not know that this position obtains. I know it and so do other Deputies. It is grossly unfair but the fact remains that mine owners, quarry owners and company magnates do not want to give these people a second chance. They are most reluctant to take them back and in most cases they do not do so. Far from depriving the Minister of any of his powers, I would like him to take all the powers he can to ensure that this type of gangster employer will be properly dealt with and that they will be compelled to deal reasonably with their employees when they return to look for work. This state of affairs applies to local authorities and is common practice with Bord na Móna, the ESB and other State companies. Once a man makes a claim against them they will not take him back and the Minister should ensure that that does not happen.

This is a very old problem and it is much greater than the context in which we are discussing it. I know from my days at practice at the Bar that people who got compensation under the workmen's compensation code frequently found themselves, when a lump sum settlement was made, without any employment. Lawyers making such settlements have often tried to build into them some provision whereby the employee could get back to work. The fact is that nowadays more and more men are seeking compensation at common law rather than under the workmen's compensation code. Common law provides that damages can be assessed not only on loss of earnings but because of hurt, disturbance and also because of loss of opportunity of employment. Under the workmen's compensation code damages can only be assessed on lack of earning capacity and as soon as a judge decides that a man is fit to work and the man seeks to resume employment, the employer may not take him back, even though the judge decides he is fit for work. I think that is a defect in the system which should be remedied. I hope it will be possible to take it up in the revised workmen's compensation code now being discussed by the Minister for Social Welfare.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 47, line 48, after "mines" to insert "or quarries" and in line 49 after "mine" to insert "or "quarry".

This applies to quarries as well as mines. It relates to medical examination of persons employed in quarries.

I said earlier that in a changing world quarries are becoming a major source of employment. There is a grave lack of supervision in regard to quarries, many of which are operated by public authorities—county councils, the Special Employment Schemes Office, the Land Commission and others. It is past time they were brought within the ambit of the regulations attaching to mines. It seems impossible to me that a man working in a quarry at the moment could escape getting lung disease from the dust that is allowed to fly, uncontrolled, all over the place. Nobody has been made responsible. Therefore, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his effort to cry halt to this lack of control in quarries.

(South Tipperary): Can the Minister tell me if any industrial diseases have arisen here? I can understand the incidence of lung disease and other respiratory ailments as a result of employment in mines.

I have no proof that lung disease can occur as a result of the inhalation of dust in quarries, but, as Deputy Leneghan has said, the quarry industry is becoming so widespread, so much employment is being given, and so many minerals are being processed because, obviously, it is profitable, that I should like to ensure that if something does arise in the future, if some lung disease is diagnosed as a result of the inhalation of dust in quarries, I shall be able to take steps to remedy it. As I said at the outset, I do not know that any form of lung disease arises from the inhalation of dust in quarries but if it can be proved that it does, I should like to be in a position to control it.

(South Tipperary): I can understand the Minister providing that people be medically examined before entering a mine or quarry and I can further understand the point of having periodic examinations of people working in mines, but, is the Minister not anticipating too much when he acquires power to have persons employed in quarries—not those seeking employment — subjected to periodic medical examination before he is able to state categorically that lung diseases do arise from employment in quarries?

I took counsel with the Minister for Health in this matter and the Minister's advisers suggested it is better that we should provide for this kind of examination because of the danger of pneumoconiosis.

Everyone shares Deputy Leneghan's anxiety about quarry workers because their problem has become a much wider one than heretofore. I assume slightly different standards would apply to mines than to quarries. I do not think they would be comparable in regard to the degree of danger to health. I do not know whether one can contract lung disease from the dust in quarries or in factories, but I suspect one can. I have no positive evidence, but I believe that a person working in a flour mill must, by the inhalation of tiny dust particles day in, day out, be exposed to dangers to health.

We can only depend on the doctors' opinion in this matter. There may be a fear that on the slightest pretext a doctor will say to a quarry worker: "You are not fit to work in a quarry." The danger can be more easily evident in a mine, but in a quarry it may be different. There are two questions I should like to put to the Minister. Has he ever contemplated making regulations for the introduction of safety devices? The Deputy from South Tipperary might be able to advise us here.

I am amazed that in employment where a lot of dust flies around, workers do not wear what I would call filter masks. I am told some workers do not bother to use them. I know the Minister and his officials must have taken pains in introducing this Bill but did they ever contemplate the introduction of regulations that employers would have to provide and employees would have to wear filter masks to ensure that dust is not inhaled? Secondly, in the matter of medical examination, who would pay the fee— it might be only 15/ or £1? Would it be the applicant, the employer or the employee?

I feel sure the Minister understands my attitude in this matter. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not expect the same standards to be applied to mines and quarries. On the other hand, up to now quarries have been lacking even the most elementary forms of control. As the law stands, anybody can open any kind of quarry anywhere and operate it under whatsoever conditions the owner wishes. That is intolerable. I see that lack of control as I travel throughout my part of the country. I do not see mines because there are none in my constituency. I cannot allow ordinary county council workers to be smothered in dust because they are afraid to protest to the local authority for fear of losing their jobs.

That is where I want the Minister to come in. I do not want him to introduce the same stringent regulations as for mines. I want him to ensure that in future the quarries will be operated under proper supervision, that the workers will be treated as human beings and not as bits of blotting paper expected to mop up the dust. That is what has been happening. I am glad the Minister has taken steps to cry halt and that he will bring these regulations into operation as soon as possible.

Previous sections referred to safety requirements in quarries generally. We are now dealing with safety from dust. Section 94, subsection (3), provides that regulations may be made for the use of prescribed apparatus. When these regulations are made the apparatus will be prescribed and their use will be compulsory.

That would include what I have been talking about?

Has the Minister power to compel county councils to use sprinklers in any quarries producing chips?

Yes, under the section I have just referred to it would appear we have power to require apparatus to be used.

Who pays for the medical examination?

That has yet to be decided.

I just want to point out that the normal fellow looking for a job in a mine will not be able to afford £1.

Could the Minister say if under the regulations there would be any system of appeal to another doctor if one doctor found the health of a man to be only slightly impaired but pronounced him unfit?

As I said earlier, the section provides for the making of regulations which can be made only after consulation with the representatives of the men and of the mine owners. Therefore, that will be something that will be taken into account by the representatives of the men. If they put forward the necessity of having an appeal to another doctor, it will be considered.

Is there any provision for reference to a specialist in cases of doubt?

There are no provisions at all yet, but we will be making regulations.

Would you not think it would be fair in cases of doubt to refer to a specialist?

I think it would be fair.

This causes a lot of trouble under the Social Welfare Acts.

I assume that the two sides the Minister will consult may decide there will be a specialist or nominated doctor?

I would not like to anticipate the consultations that will be had with these people. However, it is just as well that these points are being made. I do not want to say "yes" to them all because I would not like to tie the hands of those people.

In a sizeable quarry, surely there would have to be a standard? I do not doubt that every doctor does his job conscientiously, but every doctor might not have the exact same standard as to whether or not my chest was such as to allow me work in a mine.

Your hands might not anyway.

They are big enough but perhaps not hard enough.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 111, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I want to stress to the Minister that this section could be used by employers as an escape out of their obligation to pay compensation. Under existing legislation there is an obligation to pay compensation only when 100 per cent disability is proved. Where there is anything short of 100 per cent, there is no obligation to pay compensation. Under this section a mine owner will be free to dismiss those workers. The Minister has made the point that this is far better than that they should kill themselves working. What it amounts to is that they have a choice of either starving to death or working to death. If they do not get compensation, they will starve to death. If the Minister could use his influence with the Minister for Social Welfare to introduce some scheme of partial compensation, it would allay the fears expressed on this section.

I hope it will be possible to provide for compensation as well as the other matter I mentioned, the possibility of alternative employment.

Or partial compensation?

Compensation applies to one field of legislation and alternative employment applies to another. However, I hope it will be possible to deal with these problems. I know they exist.

Deputy Pattison's fear is that a man may be dismissed as unfit to work in a mine but could be deemed fit to work elsewhere. Consequently, he might not get sufficient compensation. This would be a problem especially with men aged from 55 to 60 years. However, this will be a problem for the regulations.

And for future legislation and its interpretation.

Does the section provide that mine managers have to submit themselves for medical examination?

Yes, all persons employed.

Section 15 deals with that. The conditions required of a mine manager under that section could include health conditions.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 112.

I move amendment No. 15:

In subsection (2), page 48, line 12, after "mine" to insert "of coal, stratified ironstone, shale or fireclay".

The section as drafted applies the existing limit of hours of work below ground in mines to all classes of mines. I am introducing an amendment to exclude all classes and to revert to the status quo that existed under the Coalmines (Regulation) Act, 1908, to limit the number of hours as worked to coal, etc. mines only and to give power under regulations to extend the type of mines to other types, for example, metalliferous mines. The effect of the two amendments, Nos. 15 and 17, is to confine the provisions of section 112 to the mines which come within the scope of the 1908 Act and to take power to apply the section, modified as necessary, to any other classes of mines. In other words, if persons can negotiate reductions in work, it is a matter for application then by regulation to the type of mine in which these persons work.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In subsection (2), page 48, lines 13 and 14, to delete all words after "than" and to insert the following "seven and one half hours during any five consecutive twenty four hours and for more than four hours on the sixth consecutive period of twenty four hours".

This amendment has been prompted by the fact that coal miners in my part of the country have been for the past 30 years working a 7½ hour day on five days of the week and five hours on Saturday. We feel that it is a retrograde step to specify an eight hour day. Many people may not be conscious of the fact that miners are not entitled under existing legislation to a half-day. I put down the amendment to highlight the fact that while practically all other workers are entitled under the Conditions of Employment Act to a half-day in the week, miners are not. We feel it is time to legislate to give miners a half-day.

I move to report progress.

When will the Committee Stage of the Bill be resumed?

After Private Members' Business.

If that does not finish tonight?

It was arranged that three hours of Government time will be made available at 7.30 to dispose of No. 7.

No. 27 and the motion to annul certain Local Government regulations will take until 10.30 tonight.

No arrangement has been made about tomorrow.

The Mines and Quarries Bill will not be resumed tonight, then?

If the motion starting at 7.30 concluded before 10.30 p.m., it could be resumed.

You mean, if that happened to collapse?

It will not. Supposing it did not, when do you want us to take this Bill again?

I should like it tomorrow.

At 10.30. Of course, I am in the hands of the Whips because we have not discussed the matter.

So am I, but, between ourselves, 10.30 is possible?

That is what I should like.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share