On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the representatives of the National Coalminers Group, Mr. Gerard O'Connell, Mr. Seán Lyons, Mr. Charlie Hopkins, Mr. Joseph McEnery, Mr. Séamus Walshe and Mr. Peter Kealy. I also welcome their friends and spouses. Before we commence, I must inform them that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to them. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege for witnesses appearing before it. Under the salient rules of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Miners' Compensation: Discussion with National Coalminers Group.
Mr. Gerard O’Connell
We thank the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the National Coalminers Group on this pressing matter of public concern. Since we last spoke in June 2008, over 50 coalminers have lost their lives, the vast majority of them as a result of cardiovascular illness caused by excessive exposure to coal dust in the pursuit of their employment with the State working in coalmines. That cohort of fatalities constitutes about 20% of our overall membership. We hope to give the committee an indication of how pressing the issue is and how we must have some level of meaningful engagement arising from this meeting about how we can move to a settlement of the matter.
We appeared before the committee in June 2008, at which time we made a detailed submission on the various aspects of the case. The National Coalminers Group and its members have entered into the parliamentary process in good faith. Coalminers are aware of their legal rights. A thorough legal analysis has been carried out of the rights and responsibilities of all parties on the position of the men concerned, their widows and dependants. They are back at the committee to seek a solution to their problems via the parliamentary route. This should be acknowledged but, by the same token, the group wishes to assert its legal rights in whatever form necessary. Because the issue has become most pressing, it is a reasonable approach to take.
I am joined by five men who worked in mines over a period of 45 years. They represent the full gamut of operational coalfields throughout the 20th century. Mr. Séamus Walshe worked in the Castlecomer coalfield; Mr. Peter Kealy worked in the Rossmore coal field in County Laois; Mr. Charlie Hopkins worked in the Arigna coalfield in County Roscommon; while Mr. Seán Lyons and Mr. Joseph McEnery worked in the Slieveardagh coalfield in Ballingarry. To recap on what we said in June 2008, there is little doubt these men and the wider group of miners they represent have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of working in coalmines. They suffer inordinately from cardiovascular illness which, for their age cohort and given the fact that many of them do not smoke, can only be attributable to some level of abnormality in their environmental circumstances. At the last meeting we showed expert evidence from Professor Muiris Fitzgerald, a cardiovascular consultant at St. Vincent's Hospital, that there was a direct causal link between the excessive exposure of these men to coal dust and their adverse medical state. We remind the committee of this and refer members to the submission we made in June 2008. The analysis has not changed.
We stated at the time that it was our belief the State owed to coalminers a statutory duty of care arising under the Mines and Quarries Act 1965 which was in operation when all of the coalmines mentioned were being worked and the gentlemen with me were employed within them. That statutory duty of care, insofar as it affected these men, was twofold. They had a right to adequate ventilation while carrying out their duties in the relevant mine, as enshrined in section 56 of the 1965 Act. The second important element of that duty of care was that they also had a right not to be exposed to excessive amounts of coal dust, as stated in section 70(1) of the 1965 Act. Many have laboured under the misapprehension that it was a product of the legal culture at the time that adequate health and safety and welfare regulations were not in place, but that is not the case. We must impress upon the committee that the law on the Statute Book at the time acted to protect these men and offer a duty of care to them. We contend that responsibility ultimately lies with the State through the former mines and quarries inspectorate in that the State had a policing function with regard to mines and quarries regulations, as well as an inspectorate function, as enshrined in section 130 of the 1965 Act. While most of the coalfields in Ireland were operated by private enterprise, in the United Kingdom the position was markedly different. All mines in Ireland were operated under a State licence; therefore, an overarching regulatory function was vested in the State. In policing these two crucial elements of the duty of care, the right to proper ventilation and the right not to be exposed to excessive volumes of coal dust, it is our belief and contention that it was the responsibility of State inspectors to ensure these rights were adhered to. That is the reason we are appearing before the committee, noting that all mining and energy functions are still vested in the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
I shall introduce my colleagues, former miners, who will each speak for a few moments on the conditions they suffered underground, in particular the volumes of coal dust they experienced and had to live with on a daily basis, their adverse health and the fact that up until now the social welfare code has not dealt adequately with their problems. They have faced official obstruction and failed to have vindicated what they believe are their rights in this regard. They are suffering hardship. In the case of those whom we have lost, it is their widows and, in some cases, their dependants who are suffering continuing loss. With the Chairman's permission, I call on Mr. McEnery to speak.
Mr. Joseph McEnery
I worked in the coalmine in Ballingarry for 15 years. I had to retire ten years ago, as I was unable to do my work, having contracted pneumoconiosis from inhaling dust in the mine. My health has been in a bad state for the past ten years. I have been hospitalised about 30 times during the past six years and 13 times in the space of 24 months. I develop chest infections owing to the dust in my lungs.
We have been seeking assistance from the State for many years. There are other families in the parish of Ballingarry, Casltecomer, and other mining areas in a similar position. We are not seeking something to which we are not entitled. We were not looked after in the mines in so far as inspectors did not examine conditions within them. We are ordinary working people who pay our taxes and PRSI and should be looked after.
Mr. Seán Lyons
I worked in the coalmine in Ballingarry for 36 years. When I went to have a hip replacement operation at Cappagh Hospital in 1982, I was told I was suffering from a marked degree of pneumoconiosis. That finished my mining career. At the time I was assessed by Professor Muiris Fitzgerald as having a 30% lung deficiency but only a figure of 20% was recognised, 10% was attributable to asthma. It was stated asthma was not a prescribed disease but Professor Fitzgerald said it was an industrial disease. I have been diagnosed with industrial asthma to a level of 80% but the Department of Social and Family Affairs still pays me based on a figure of 20%. I have been fighting this issuefor the past 20 years or more.We formed a committee with representatives from the four mining areas. Professor Fitzgerald assessed me as having industrial asthmas to a level of 80%, yet somebody else said the level was only 20%; that is very unfair. Not alone do the miners suffer from asthma and pneumoconiosis, they can suffer from heart trouble, as I did. I had three stents inserted, two of which were inserted one month ago; the other was inserted in 2004. One of our coalminer colleagues was laid to rest yesterday. He died following a heart attack, caused by pressure from coughing. I also suffer in that way.
We do not appear to be getting anywhere. If something is not done about us soon, it will be too late for many of us. There is a system in place, once known as workmen’s compensation but now known as disablement benefit. If we were paid under the system in place, it would be something. Some of us are paid at a figure of 10%, while others are paid at a figure of 20%, 30%, 40% or 60%.
There is no known cure for pneumoconiosis. If one acquires asthma, one can receive inhalers and a nebuliser, as I do, but it will not cure pneumoconiosis. Every miner appearing before the committee today can relate similar stories. He is on the same treatment. We all have inhalers and nebulisers and are on oxygen. The dust in our lungs will never be removed, except by an operation.
Professor Fitzgerald has said it is recognised all over the world that asthma is an industrial disease. According to him, this was proved in an American court five or six years ago. However, our system will not allow the payment of benefit in respect of asthma. If we had suffered from asthma prior to working in the mines, we would not have been allowed into them. When we were working in the mine in Ballingarry, we were X-rayed every two years. I started working in the mine in 1950 and the mobile X-ray unit called to the mine. The result was sent to the office. We called in one month later but were invariably told there was no result. The same happened the following week. No one ever knew the result. I did not know I had pneumoconiosis until I went to Cappagh Hospital for a hip replacement operation and had an X-ray done. The news came as a terrible shock.
Many of the miners are deaf and suffering from tinnitus. A few, including neighbours of mine, went blind as a result of the medication. No matter how much we complain — I have a pile of letters from Deputies, Ministers and Taoisigh — we appear to get nowhere. I hope that following this meeting some progress will be made, as the way we have been treated is not fair. Others have been treated fairly well for less, but if there is anything wrong with one's health, one is forgotten about.
Mr. Charlie Hopkins
I worked for 26 years in Arigna Collieries Limited. I was assessed in 1992 as having a 30% lung deficiency, some 20% of which is supposed to be asthma related.On the conditions under which we worked, there was a lack of ventilation in the mine. The seam of coal on whichwe worked was 20 inches thick and we lay on our sides for eight hours a day. I did this for 26 years. Many of my colleagues have been diagnosed as having a 30% lung deficiency which has not been recognised. One of my colleagues attended a Dublin hospital for a heart bypass operation two years ago. While on the operating table the surgeon noticed that his lungs were like jelly. He died shortly afterwards. The surgeon told the son that if he had realised his father’s lungs were in such a bad condition, he would not have attempted to perform the operation. There was a lack of supervision of the mines. The inspectors who came to the mines were only brought to the good parts of them. We would have known of the inspector’s visit to the mine three or four weeks in advance. Some miners would have been detailed to do cover up work, to improve airways and to put up screen bags to direct the air on to the coal face. However, it was not viable to leave those screen bags up all of the time because they obstructed the work and blocked production. We did piecework and the more coal we mined the more we were paid. We took risks much of the time. We used explosives and the resultant dust remained in the mine all day because of the lack of proper ventilation. We had to work in that dust for five or six hours. The effect of it could be compared to being a smoke-filled room. We would have breathed that dust into our lungs.
I counted that some nine of my miner colleagues have died since the Oireachtas committee heard our submission two years ago. Therefore, something definitely needs to be done fairly fast because there will not be too many of us around in a few years' time.
Mr. Seamus Walshe
I worked in Castlecomer mines in the Deerpark mines for 13 years and in the Rossmore mines for three years after that. I remember starting work at 14 years of age and going down into the mines. I was like an illegal immigrant working underground. I was not insured until I was 16 years of age when I went into Castlecomer to get my insurance number, having worked for the previous two years and not having paid a stamp. That is the type of blackguarding that went on that time.
I hate to say this but we have come here with cap in hand; the miners always seem to have had to beg for a few bob. Many of those who worked in the mines down my way are on death row, so to speak. I wrote a book about the mines, In the Shadow of the Mines, and when I was researching it I visited the cemeteries in the area to find out the age at which miners had died. Many had died at 35 or 40 years of age. I am not talking about one or two but about hundreds of men who died of lung-related diseases who had nobody to speak up for them. I hope and pray that a Minister or someone will favourably consider our case because the miners do not deserve to be treated in the way they have been.
As Mr. Hopkins said, we knew when inspectors were coming to the Deerpark mines. We would have received strict orders from the foreman that there was to be no shot-firing that day because the inspectors were coming. One could have been working at a coal face. We worked in a place that was 18 inches high and when short-firing was done 100 yards up the road we would have had swallow all the resultant gelignite smoke. No wonder my lungs are in this condition; I feel as if a camel is walking across my chest. I cannot even cough; I have to get down on my hunkers if I want to cough, such is the state of my lungs.
I hope and pray that something good will come from this in recognition of the work the miners did and what they were about. That would mean a great deal to the miners. We are not looking for big fists of money, only to be recognised for what we did. Let us be amply compensated.
Mr. Peter Kealy
Like Mr. Walshe I started to work in the mines when I was 14 years of age. I began work in the Deerpark mines and finished up working the Rossmore mines. I was a union representative. Upon numerous occasions members of the union went to James Sinclair, the inspector of mines at the time, and asked him if he would visit the mine on the evening shift to examine the conditions in which we had to work. Core cutters worked during the evening shift and shot-firing was also carried out. I worked in conditions in which no man or woman in Europe would be allowed work today. Such were the conditions that one could not see one's own hand. We had no masks. However, we were very glad to have the work and were very upset when the mines closed. I was a union man and we had a few strikes in the Rossmore mines. I recall that it cost IR£6,000 to put in a new airway at the time. An airway would have been 200 yards behind where one worked. Because the company could not extract coal from an airway and could only gather stones from it to form a bank, it was always slow to put in an airway.
Willie Maher and I asked the inspector of mines on numerous occasions to inspect the mine on the evening shift but the inspector said "No" to that because he was not insured to come to the mine on an evening shift. Like Mr. Walshe, we knew when the inspector of mines was due to come to the mine because it was cleaned up. No shot-firing was done and the inspector was taken down to a road that was near an airway and everything would have looked cosy. We met the inspector at a committee and put it to him that instead of our striking for a few weeks and suffering the resultant lost of wages, that he — as the only man who could do so — could force the company to put in an airway in the mine. We said to him that one word from him, John Sinclair, and the company would have to do it, but there were no such words forthcoming from him and an airway was not put in.
I met Mr. John Clinton, who came before the committee on the last occasion, last night and he cried as he talked to me. After talking to me for two or three minutes, he had to put an oxygen mask and put his head down. He said to me a few times that he hoped to God he would die soon because he dreads the summer when he will have to cope with the change from damp weather to hot weather. He is breathing with the aid of an oxygen mask.
I remember I was one of the men picked 25 years ago in Newtown to go to Portlaoise to bring back one's week's oxygen supply for the miners. I recall going to a colleague of mine, Stephen, on a summer's day and when he saw me the tears ran down his face as he gasped for breath. There were many men who went into the coffin with black hair; they did not live long enough to have grey hair. I was in a mine when an explosion occurred as a result of which I perforated my eardrum and have a buzzing sound in my head but my lungs are all right. Only approximately 400 miners remain and every year there will be probably 50 fewer. It would not cost the State a fortune to compensate them.
I regret that we did not video the conditions in the mines to show young people the work the miners did, on which they paid tax, to provide fuel for the country when it needed anthracite. All we are seeking, as Mr. Walshe said, is fair play for the last few miners. They are definitely entitled to that, of that there is no doubt. I thank the committee for its time.
I thank the delegates for their evidence. As Deputy Coonan has to leave early, I will ask him to contribute first.
I thank the Chairman and my colleagues for allowing me to speak first, as I have leave for another appointment. I thank the Chairman for allowing the National Coalminers Group, who came before the committee in June 2008, to come before it again. On the last occasion the representatives did not have adequate time to contribute due to the pressure of time and space. I acknowledge the Chairman's role in facilitating this discussion.
I welcome the members of the National Coalminers Group. They have given us a passionate and heart-rending address. One could not but be impressed and saddened by what they have had to endure. At a time when the country was not anything like as well off as it is now, in terms of the work the miners did, they were probably the backbone of our economic recovery. The time for talking is long since past. Action is needed now. I have no doubt that colleagues on every side will support a motion that a fund be set up to adequately compensate the miners, late in the day as it is.
I hope the miners will draw some comfort from the recent announcement in the North that a fund will be provided to compensate the victims of the thalidomide drug following their campaign for compensation over many years. If that can happen in the North, I cannot see any reason it cannot happen down here in recognition of the miners' work and commitment.
I have seen at first hand the suffering endured by miners in my constituency of north Tipperary in the Slieveardagh area. One could not but be overcome by what has happened and the way miners have been treated. In effect, it is another national scandal that people in inspectorate and regulatory authorities overlooked the plight of workers, as a consequence of which the miners have been made suffer. I understand that compensation was granted to the British coal miners. The thinking behind that compensation award, as representatives will clarify, is that the mines there were nationally owned. The reason the representatives here have not been compensated, as we have been told by officials and various people in the Department, is that the mines here were privately owned; nevertheless, their operations were subject to the granting of licences. Therefore, there was a duty of care under those licences to protect the workers and to put adequate health and safety measures in place. This did not happen, and I understand from my research that records from that period have disappeared. Perhaps the delegates will confirm that the records, which are so important in this case, can no longer be made available.
Last June, the delegates said there were approximately 230 miners, widows and their dependants affected by this and at the rate people have passed away since then — somebody mentioned 50, plus nine elsewhere — the figure must be below 200 now. However, at least it is a definite, concise and clearly defined figure which can be calculated into appropriate compensation. It gives us an idea of the figure for the compensation. It is certainly a limited number; it is not as if will open up a can that has no end to it. It is definite and concise.
I believe Mr. Joseph McEnery said that he gave up work in the mines after several years. Can he confirm that once one worked in the mines, it was not possible to get a job elsewhere? If one sought a job elsewhere, one was subject to a medical examination and nobody has ever passed that after working for any amount of time in the mines. Once one worked in the mines and gave up that job, it was impossible to get work elsewhere.
When Mr. Lyons spoke about compensation he said he was assessed at a percentage point, be it 20%, 30% or 40%. What exactly does that mean? Another difficulty I have experienced, and I am sure the delegates will confirm it, is that the bureaucracy will suggest this issue is not a matter for this committee but is a social welfare issue. This committee should make a strong recommendation that a compensation fund be set up immediately to alleviate the suffering these people have had to endure throughout their lives. It should happen immediately before it is too late for them.
I welcome the representatives. This is not the first time I have spoken to a number of them. Deputy Coonan organised a meeting between me and a group of miners in north Tipperary in Mary Willies Pub. This issue has been ongoing for some time. It has been raised in this committee several times, not just the last time a presentation was made. It was also raised before that. It has been raised with the Department through parliamentary questions and in private conversations.
I clearly recall that on becoming my party spokesperson in this area I went to the Department, as other spokespeople have done, to meet the officials in charge of various areas. They asked me what the issues of concern were and this was one that I and others raised. The consistent line from the Department has been that it is not an issue for the Department as it did not own the mines. It considers it an issue for the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. People have the opportunity to have their health assessed, and there are social welfare consequences to that assessment.
We will talk bluntly because the representatives are not here for crocodile tears from the committee. They have probably got them over the years. They are here to establish whether the committee can move this issue forward before many of their friends pass away. I was struck by Mr. Seamus Walshe's comment that they are not here for a fistful of money in compensation, but that they want recognition that what happened should not have happened and that there is redress or compensation due to them for that. That is a reflection of the dignity of most people who worked in the mines. They feel angry that there is no recognition of fault on the part of the State and that the fault is being passed on to companies that no longer exist, which is very convenient. They feel their health concerns are being treated like a disability other people might have.
Our job is to try to convince the line Minister that this is an area for which the Department has a responsibility because it has a responsibility for mines. To be honest, to date we have failed to win that argument. There is precedent for the State taking responsibility for areas where it did not have direct ownership, for example, the redress legislation to deal with child abuse in industrial schools. Many of those schools were not State property and were not run by the State but the State had a supervisory role. The State has made a significant contribution towards redress in those cases. I am slow to make any parallels between child abuse and damage caused by negligent inspection of workplaces but in some cases that did involve children working at the age of 14 and 15 years in a very dangerous work environment.
To echo the point made by Deputy Coonan, we are talking about a relatively small number of people and families who have lost fathers and husbands as a direct consequence of clear breaches of legislation in this area, which, as Mr. O'Connell said, is measurable in health terms. The State must take some responsibility, although not all. In my view, and I am not just saying this because the representatives are here, there must be either a compensation or redress fund. Redress might be the more appropriate legal term if the State is concerned about issues of culpability and so forth. There must be financial recognition that what happened should not have happened and at this late stage the State, even in difficult economic circumstances, should be willing to make a contribution to the families and victims who are still with us and accept some level of responsibility. We will continue to make that case. I have not been making it as strongly recently as perhaps I should have, but this meeting will spur us to try to make the case strongly again.
The representatives have given very powerful testimony. I recall the presentation that was made in 2008. In fact, subsequently, I visited the Arigna mining centre. I had read about mining and the damage to people's health. Professor Muiris Fitzgerald was able to outline the damage it did to people's health so it was unequivocal. At Arigna I listened to miners and I was struck by how recently all of this occurred. Some of the miners are relatively young, yet the damage has been severe. We tend to take health and safety legislation for granted now and nowadays conditions are very different. However, the fundamental point the representatives have made is that the law was already in place to protect workers, but that it was flouted. Mine owners found ways to avoid showing the true conditions under which people worked. That is something for which the State must take responsibility. That needs to be brought home to the Department in question, and the more often the better.
The same example struck me, as Deputy Coveney said, concerning how the State approached the industrial schools issue when it arose — there was an acceptance of culpability. The redress is partly paid by the State and partly by the church. In this case, it seems as if the State is simply waiting for people to die, but we cannot have such a situation. That is insupportable because the State is there to protect all of us. When one considers the damage done and the impact on people who are providing an essential service, the State must take on its own responsibilities. We must pursue this matter.
I support the proposal for a fund but we need to do more. If we can ensure that the Department shifts on this we will have done a good day's work. At present if we table parliamentary questions everything is sent to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. That is a handy way to absolve the Department and the Minister of any responsibility. I propose that we write to the Minister but we should also meet the departmental officials and go through the legal points that have been made. I presume the statute bar has an impact on this matter but that is irrelevant in my view because the Department is not living up to its responsibility. It is up to us to ensure that responsibility is somehow taken on. It may not be taken on fully, but at least if it is taken on in part that would be a big step forward.
Up to now, there has been a blanket refusal to answer any questions that I and other Deputies have tabled. We have all raised this issue but essentially we have received a brush-off, which is not good enough. It would be helpful if we could support the idea of a fund on an all-party basis. We should pursue this matter, however, by inviting departmental officials and raising it with the Minister. We should go through in detail the evidence that has been given here by Mr. O'Connell, in particular concerning the legislation. That is a strong weapon. I commend him on coming here and speaking in a way that is unusual for us to hear. His honesty and directness are very much appreciated.
I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome the National Coalminers Group. With your permission, Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions. I thank the delegation for the presentation. I was also here on the last occasion the group appeared before the committee. I am pleased that the delegation has more time today to put its case clearly to us. We want to support the miners in every possible way. Mr. O'Connell said the State introduced laws to protect workers, and he also referred to the right to adequate ventilation in order to avoid exposure to coal dust. I would like to know more about the group's investigation in that regard. Does Mr. O'Connell have evidence to show that the ventilation may have been adequate as far as the law stood at that time, or did it not live up to the legal requirements? I would like to know more about the group's findings on that issue. He also said that miners had a right not to be exposed to excessive amounts of coal dust, but what does "excessive" mean in this context? What were the quantities involved and was there any means of measuring them? Does he have evidence that will support the group's case? It is a strong case but we need to have evidence in order to be of assistance. I would be interested to know what that evidence is.
We are addressing this matter now, but the Department is familiar with having to rectify past wrongs. I am speaking with particular reference to the rehabilitation of the Silvermines area, which is at the other end of the constituency of North Tipperary. In that case, the Government provided funds to rehabilitate the Gortmore tailings ponds. The committee was very helpful at the time in securing that money. That was when environmental regulations were not firmly in place and were certainly not up to the standards which removed public safety hazards. It was resolved when the Government stepped in and the State took responsibility for the matter, even on privately-owned sites in order to make them safe. Environmental regulations were not adequate at the time.
We have another case before us today, except we are talking about human lives. Damage has clearly been done and we want to help in every possible way. I want to assure the delegation of my support in this regard.
I, too, welcome the National Coalminers Group. It is not the first time it has appeared before the committee. I thank Mr. Joseph McEnery, Mr. Seán Lyons and their colleagues for making such a passionate plea. It is unfair that they have had to come here repeatedly to make such a plea. The damage that was done to their health has been clearly illustrated. A number of their comrades have died and, in addition, the number of ex-miners is getting smaller as time goes on. It is incumbent upon us therefore to get the officials of both Departments together in order to sort this matter out once and for all. They may say a mine was privately owned, but the inspections were clearly inadequate. The inspectorate did not carry out its legal obligations on health and safety as it was employed to do. Apart from the three-week notice of attendance, the inspectors cannot have inspected all shifts in the mines. In addition, they only inspected in certain months of the year. There was negligence and huge risks were involved so it is incumbent upon us to sort this out. We should convene a joint meeting of this committee and the Committee on Social and Family Affairs to be attended by Ministers and officials. We must ensure that a compensation fund is set up.
I compliment the National Coalminers Group and its supporters. Councillor John Fahey who is with them and who is from my area has been championing the miners' cause. We must ensure that this matter is satisfactorily resolved.
I welcome the group and thank them for their presentation. I had an opportunity to visit the Arigna mines with Mr. Charlie Hopkins, a former miner. I saw at first hand the tight conditions under which people had to work over the years. Mr. O'Connell's presentation highlighted the ventilation issues involved. From this, one can get an idea of the impact such conditions had on miners' lives over the generations. I have a number of questions, but I will not go over the specific ones that have already been raised by other members. I would be glad if Mr. O'Connell could provide clarity on a few issues, however. Even though private companies were involved, either the inspectors or someone within the Department at that time made it clear to the employers that the inspector was on his way or was planning to come. We are referring here to a different era when this situation arose not just in the mines but across many other workplaces.
Was the fact that preparation was done in advance of the inspector arriving brought to the attention of the Department at the time? Some of the witnesses were union representatives. Did their unions bring this to the attention of the Department? Were senior officials in the Department made aware of the fact that preparation was done in advance of the inspector's arrival and that the company knew the inspector was coming? How frequently did the inspector arrive on site? Was it an annual inspection or did the inspector arrive more frequently?
To come back to the establishment of a compensation fund in regard to which the witnesses are appearing before the committee, are they looking for something to be put in place along the lines of what was done in the UK in regard to the levels of compensation envisaged? The difference between here and the UK was the ownership of the mines. The state owned the mines in the UK.
There is no doubt that in this situation, the State has a responsibility. Do the witnesses believe the State has the same level of responsibility as in the UK? Proportionately, what level of responsibility do they believe the State has in regard to its negligence in this issue?
In regard to the social welfare code, a number of those who gave evidence said that a differentiation was made. Mr. Hopkins made the point that he was determined to have had a 30% disability and that 10% was reduced from that on the basis that he had asthma. Mr. O'Connell made the point that this was industrial asthma as a direct result of working in the mines. What has been the response of the Department to that, because I am sure they have put it to the Department and that it has gone through the appeals process? If the Department accepted that argument on asthma, would it open a floodgate in regard to other workplaces? For example, I have been dealing with the case of a person who worked directly with asbestos over the years and who has a percentage disability. While a compensation fund would be very tight and would only cover those involved in the mines, would changes to the social welfare code have bigger implications for the State?
The witnesses put their case very well. There is no doubt but that there was a statutory duty on the State to provide a level of care to miners which it ignored down through the years. I have heard it said before that preparation was done weeks in advance of the inspector arriving which supports the witnesses case. Again, I thank the witnesses for their presentations.
I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their sincere and personal recollections of their time spent in the mines. There are four different mine areas, namely, Ballingarry, Castlecomer, Rossmore and my home area of Arigna. I had a business not too far from Arigna and had first-hand knowledge of what people went through in the mines. My colleague, Charlie Hopkins, an ex-miner, has articulated the situation in Arigna over the years. I had the pleasure of meeting witnesses in Keadue and I have been at a few of the meetings in Portlaoise.
This has gone far enough and the witnesses want recognition. There has been denial over the years. I would not call it a cover-up but this issue has not be responded to. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has not responded to the people's needs.
These mines were licensed by the State but it failed to protect the workers, whether by way of inspection or otherwise. It was typical of old Ireland where there was one rule for one and other rules for others. People like the witnesses have been forgotten.
Why did the records disappear? Surely, there was a statutory requirement that the records of safety officers would be placed in the Oireachtas Library. This needs to be investigated because these are tools which the witnesses need to prove their point. I find it very disturbing that these records have disappeared.
As was said, there is a precedent but the witnesses have said they are going from Billy to Jack. There is only a small number of miners involved and the issue needs to be dealt with immediately.
Governments can respond to flooding and other issues. A compensation tribunal would be appropriate to deal with this issue. We are talking about financial compensation. In terms of recognition of the work they did, the State has done a disservice to those who effectively worked at the coalface for many years.
Mr. Gerard O’Connell
I thank the Chairman and members for their contributions. A whole suite of comments were made which require response. Deputy Coonan spoke about the UK situation. We would regard how the first Blair Government in 1997 dealt with the issue of miner compensation to be a Rolls Royce response to the issue. A full compensation tribunal was established. A legal mechanism, called the handling agreement scheme, was put in place. Once a claimant had been medically assessed in regard to the quantum of their loss, that effectively became the benchmark for their award. The greatest success of the UK scheme can be shown by the fact that 90% of claimants accepted their awards without further recourse to the courts.
We need to go back a little further in time in the UK situation and look at two cases which were taken before the English High Court, one involving a Welsh miner by the name of Griffiths who took proceedings against British Coal for negligence. It was one of the test cases which influenced the Blair Government to establish the compensation tribunal in Britain. That case turned on the whole concept of exposure to dust. The English High Court found that the Welsh miners suffered a tortious exposure to dust which is exactly what the committee heard today in testimony from five miners. There is no difference in real terms in what happened to the five miners here and to our membership and what happened in Britain in terms of exposure to dust. That is the lesson learned from the UK.
In Britain, British Coal was established. It was a Crown corporation and had state involvement. That function was then transferred to the UK Department of Trade and Industry in or around the time Tony Blair became Prime Minister, so it landed on the doorstep of the British Cabinet by way of responsibility. However, the key lesson in the UK was that it was about dust exposure — end of story. That is exactly the same as the position in Rossmore, Castlecomer, Arigna and Ballingarry.
Deputies Coonan and Feighan raised the issue of records. It is not for us to make any allegations in regard to the maintenance of records. All we can say is that we have asked Members of the Oireachtas to inquire as whether the annual reports of the inspectors of mines and quarries are available through the Oireachtas Library. A statutory function was established under the Mines and Quarries Act which required a report to be sent to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and then be laid before the Houses of Oireachtas. There does not appear to be any physical evidence that such happened.
Which years are the miners looking for?
Mr. Gerard O’Connell
The years 1965 to 1991. I suppose it would really be up until 1989 because the Health and Safety Authority took over following one of the health and safety Acts, which was passed in 1989.
We have an issue with access to those records but I would not like it to be said that we are alleging that records have been destroyed. I do not know that, but when we sought access to them we could not get it. We then wrote to the Health and Safety Authority and were told no such mining inspection records were held by the authority, even though it acknowledged that the inspectorate role that would have been held by mines and quarries inspectors is now vested in the Health and Safety Authority. We were told to then inquire of the Geological Survey of Ireland. A bit of a merry-go-round was created and, essentially, we left it at that. I assure the committee that exhaustive attempts were made on our behalf by Members of this Oireachtas to try to locate these records, and every obstacle was put in our way. That is all I will say on that point.
Deputy Coonan also raised the issue of a limited class of persons, and Deputy Naughten referred to it as well. There is a very limited class of persons involved. Although I do not wish to put a figure on it that would perhaps prejudice matters in the future, at best, one is speaking about in the region of 300 to 400 persons who are ex-miners and surviving spouses, and in some very marginal cases, dependent children. They are clearly identified persons. Terms of reference to establish who would quality for compensation could be put in place quickly and easily. These persons do not require the FBI to figure out who they are. There is a clearly identified and limited class of persons. I appreciate that the State, and the Oireachtas Members, certainly in these times of financial turmoil, have a duty to the Oireachtas not to be too flaithiúlach in terms of funding a process, but let no member of this committee be in any doubt that it is dealing with a very limited class of person.
On Deputy Naughten's point about the social welfare code, there are two difficulties with the social welfare code as it treats the matter. Essentially, the occupational injuries benefit scheme is defective for the purposes of adequately compensating miners and there have been reams of parliamentary questions on this point over the past 20 years.
There are two issues with that scheme to which I draw the attention of the committee. One is the question of assessment. We cannot understand how an eminent cardiologist such as Professor Fitzgerald can assess one claimant at 80% to 90% disability and then that Mr. Patrick Grant who is no stranger to these proceedings because his medical records were tendered to the committee at the June 2008 hearing, was assessed as having 1% disability on inspection by the social welfare doctor. Mr. Grant has been through the appeals process three times and he has been told repeatedly that his condition is not getting any worse, but the benchmark or assessment for his condition remains at 1% even though one of the leading cardiologists in Europe assesses him in the region of 80%. At the time he was assessed compensation for a 1% level of disability would not have bought Mr. Grant a daily newspaper. When Professor Fitzgerald was told that — he has gone on the record and we laid it before the committee at the previous meeting — he said he regarded the treatment of Mr. Grant at the Department of Social and Family Affairs as bordering on obscenity. That is the first difficulty. The entire assessment process is deeply flawed.
The second issue is that there is a defect in what constitutes a qualifying injury for the purposes of this scheme. We have gone through that and Mr. Lyons has spoken about the fact that there is industrial asthma and occupational asthma, and that more chronic forms of industrial asthma associated with exposure to coal dust are not covered under that scheme.
It is not our job here today to attack the Department of Social and Family Affairs, but the committee can imagine our reaction when people speak of this perhaps needing to be in the realm of social welfare. These men have had exhaustive dealings with the social welfare code and it does not work. It is profoundly defective, particularly in the area of assessment. When a social welfare doctor grants somebody the price of a daily newspaper in recompense for serious cardiovascular illness, there is a serious problem from a public policy point of view, which is all we will say on that point.
Deputy Hoctor raised important points about ventilation and dust, and causation. Causation goes to the heart of this matter. It is out contention that none of these men would be before the committee if they were not exposed to excessive dust. We have examined this issue on a number of levels. Our first response to the Deputy is that it is also important from an evidential point of view that we fully examine each coal miner here and that a detailed deposition be taken as to the state of his health. There is such an inordinate level of abnormality in these men's health that once that is medically assessed as attributable to excessive coal dust only, it will make the case on dust. However, from an evidential point of view, we have explored the possibility of reopening some of these mines to allow a parliamentary inquiry or, for example, a redress board under the charge of a member of the Judiciary. I have asked if they could go down and witness what was going on and assess now what the level of ventilation was. I think one can in some instances. We have investigated and there is still the capacity to go underground to assess what the de facto situation was when these mines were operational. Deputy Hoctor’s point is well made. Certainly, we would have no difficulty in facilitating a factual examination of mining underground. In at least two coalfields, that still can be done. In some cases it may be more difficult.
On dust and dust exposure, and I suppose grounding the claim of excessive dust exposure, that really is a case of every coal miner in the country appearing before some form of a sworn inquiry, which leads us once again to the concept of redress.
On the point Deputy Naughten made, the committee heard what the lads have to say on inspections. I am conscious that the principals in terms of inspections who were involved here are deceased and we are not in a position to directly attribute any bad motivation to them. That said, the evidence is compelling. All of these men worked in a situation whereby inspectors were doing their rounds. There are exhaustive records kept in places like Castlecomer where Mr. Seamus Walshe has written, maintained and kept records of life underground and dealings with inspectors. There is a fair degree of documentary record on dealings the unions had with the then Department officials and inspectors. I do not see that being a difficulty if the testimony of these men is taken in good faith. That would probably get us around that issue.
Many have alluded to the concept of redress. Deputies McManus and Coveney referred to it as well, as did Deputy Mattie McGrath. To me, that is where we need to go with this. We all can get involved in a costly adversarial legal battle. If it is one's last throw of the dice where one's rights have not been vindicated in any other forum, one will go down that road. When one is watching a loved one taking his last breath, one will fight tooth and nail to ensure that justice is delivered.
The issue is not just about going down an adversarial route for money. As Seamus Walshe stated, there is a moral debt owed to coal miners by this State. They worked in some of the most challenging environments known to man. Effectively, they secured fuel reserves and energy resources for this country at a time of economic backwardness and at a time of crisis after the Emergency and throughout the 1950s and 1960s. I do not believe that debt has ever been honoured by the State. There is an overwhelming moral case for some acknowledgement in that regard. The beauty of redress, as members know because they created the system, is that it would allow issues such as liability to rest to one side but time is the one thing we do not have. We buried one of the Ballingarry miners yesterday. It is rare that the committee has to face people who are literally running out of time and dying. Fifty coalminers have died since the hearing was adjourned in June 2008. I acknowledge members have competing demands on their time and from different deputations but this is a case which involves a small number of persons who are running out of time. They have a strong legal and moral case for compensation.
I am not a member of the committee but I have a keen interest in the topic. I met the group when it was established in 2007. I am also familiar, through the work of Mr. Seamus Walshe and his book and my association with the Castlecomer mine in my constituency, with the devastating effect the mine had on the lives of those involved at the time. I agree with Mr. O'Connell that a debt is due to them from the State and that this has never been acknowledged. It is worth elaborating on this, given that so much has happened to the health of the miners. Notwithstanding the case made about the missing records, there is sufficient proof and experience, as outlined in Mr. Walshe's book through the stories told by each individual, to support the case being made. Issues such as this can be dealt with in a proactive and efficient way through the social welfare system or a redress scheme, of which there are numerous examples. It would not cost the State a fortune in legal fees. As such, we should explore the options. The Government and the political system should be open to responding to a limited group of people and their families who are seriously affected by this issue.
I also agree with Mr. O'Connell on the time that has elapsed. Many years have passed since I first met the group and the health of the miners has changed considerably. They do not have time. I will support whatever method is used to fast-track the process and determine the response of the Government, various Departments and so on. Whatever the committee and the group can do to bring this issue to a head should be undertaken in a collaborative way in the hope we can achieve a positive outcome.
Mr. Walshe outlined the history of local communities and the families involved in coalmining and the dangers to their health and their lives as they did the job. This is sufficient proof that the issue needs to be addressed. If we put the defence to one side and consider this in a compassionate way, only one conclusion can be drawn. A fast-tracked, cost-effective system needs to be put in place. I will continue to support the efforts of this group.
I am also not a member of the committee but I am glad to have the opportunity to offer my support to the group. I am from Kilkenny and well aware of what happened in the Castlecomer mines and what the miners and their families have gone through during the years. An inquiry should be set up first, although inquiries are not the done thing in these times, but this issue only involves a few counties and between 300 and 400 people. I urge this committee and the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs to advance the issue. We can do our bit by talking to the Minister and the powers that be to support the miners in some way.
Could we invite the departmental officials dealing with this issue to appear before the committee because many questions need to be put to them? If we could do this, it would be worthwhile.
We will make that request and include it in our work programme.
Officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs should also be invited to attend.
Okay. On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the representatives of the National Coalminers Group for attending. The meeting was most informative. I thank each representative who gave heart-rending evidence about his own health and how it affected his family. All members felt it was compelling. I also acknowledge that we had more time today than in June 2008, which meeting was my first as Chairman. I am disappointed that on that occasion we were not able to give the delegation more time to vent its case. We will send a transcript of the meeting to the Ministers for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs. On my own behalf, I thank Mr. John Kavanagh for his assistance in arranging this meeting and acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of Councillor Maurice Shortall. I thank the group for its presentation. I will be in touch regarding any correspondence the committee receives.
Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.