Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1965

Vol. 58 No. 13

Private Business. - Mines and Quarries Bill, 1964: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

The main purpose of this Bill is to consolidate in a single measure, as far as this is practicable, the existing body of law relating to the safety, health and welfare of mine and quarry workers. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to bring the law up to date and to provide for some desirable innovations.

The operations of mining and quarrying have much in common and are attended by similar risks. At present there are two separate codes of law relating to them, although these codes are similar in general character and are closely connected. Both are cumbrous and involved, being contained in 18 enactments stretching back to 1872; they are also out of date in many respects. I think it would be convenient for all concerned if the entire body of the law were dealt with comprehensively in a single enactment.

The Bill has been framed on the principles that the rights enjoyed by mine and quarry workers under existing legislation will not be diminished; that mine and quarry workers will, in general, be given the same kind of protection as has been afforded to factory workers by factory legislation; and that working conditions will comply with this country's obligations under International Labour Organisation Conventions. Accordingly, it follows the general lines of existing legislation but revises many of its provisions in the light of modern conditions and practices. At the same time a number of elaborate provisions are replaced by power to make regulations. This change, by setting out general requirements in the statute and leaving the details to be prescribed by regulations, will provide a degree of flexibility which should obviate for many years to come the need for amending legislation.

Part I of the Bill makes the usual preliminary and general provisions relating to interpretation, expenses, repeals, etc. I would like to draw attention, however, to Section 6, which brings State mines and quarries within the scope of this type of legislation for the first time. This development is in line with current views on the position of State enterprises—the Factories Act, 1955 and the Office Premises Act, 1958, have already set a headline in this respect. Section 9 provides for prior consultation with the Minister for Health on health regulations.

Part II deals with the management and control of mines and quarries. It sets out the duties of owners and provides for the appointment, general duties, rights and powers of managers. The most important innovations in this Part are the requirement that a manager must be appointed to supervise the working of every quarry, and the power to prohibit, by regulations, the carrying out of certain operations unless the quarry manager has prescribed qualifications. The requirement that every quarry must have a manager arises from the need to have a readily identifiable person who will be responsible for seeing that the detailed requirements of the Act and of Regulations and Orders made under it are complied with. Owners of small quarries need not feel that this requirement will place an undue burden on them, however, as it will be open to any owner to appoint himself manager of his own quarry. On the second point, developments in recent years in the scope of the activities being carried out at some of the larger quarries have indicated that, in order to supervise some of the more complex operations, a manager would need to have technical qualifications.

Part II also contains some new provisions about the rights and duties of mine and quarry owners and managers which are designed to set out clearly their respective areas of responsibility. For example, orders by mine and quarry owners to subordinates of managers must normally be given through the managers, and managers may in certain circumstances require written confirmation of owners' orders. Also, a quarry owner may exclude any matter from the manager's control and reserve responsibility for it to himself, as long as this would not be prejudicial to the safety or health of his employees.

Part III of the Bill deals with safety, health and welfare of mine workers. It covers such matters as securing shafts and entrances, construction, maintenance and safe use of roads, operation of winding and haulage apparatus, provision of support underground, ventilation and lighting of mines, use of electricity and blasting materials, precautions against fire and flooding, safety provisions relating to machinery and buildings, and general welfare. These provisions are based on existing legislation to a large extent, with some necessary modifications required by modern conditions. There are a number of new provisions, none of which could be regarded as revolutionary.

Part IV provides for the safety, health and welfare of quarry workers. As might be expected, it has a good deal in common with Part III, and it incorporates certain provisions of that Part, which are relevant to both mines and quarries. Again, existing legislation is followed closely.

Part V deals with the notification and investigation of accidents and diseases. This Part also follows the lines of existing legislation, which has been adapted to modern requirements. The procedures laid down for holding inquests and formal investigations are similar to corresponding provisions in the Factories Act, 1955.

Part VI, which consists of only one section, maintains the right of workmen employed at a mine or quarry to appoint "workmen's inspectors" to inspect the mine or quarry at intervals. I am advised that this right has seldom, if ever, been availed of in this country but I do not propose to extinguish it.

Part VII also consists of only one section, which continues in force the existing requirement that owners must fence abandoned and disused mines. I might mention here that the fencing of dangerous quarries, whether abandoned or not, comes within the scope of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1964, and accordingly, there is no need to provide for it in this Bill.

Part VIII deals with conditions of employment. At this stage I might point out that settling conditions of employment is not a primary objective of this Bill, and in fact quarry workers are already covered by the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. However, under existing legislation mine workers have certain rights in this matter which will be continued in force, and I have taken the opportunity of making some necessary new provisions. The existing prohibition on the employment of boys under 14 years below ground is being replaced by a power to make regulations restricting the employment of boys under a prescribed age. This change will enable the minimum age for work below ground in mines to be reviewed in the light of any alteration in the general school-leaving age or any future commitments which this country may assume under any international agreement on the matter. Restrictions on the employment of women and young persons at night are being brought into line with the latest ILO Convention on the subject; other conditions of employment of such persons employed above ground may be settled by regulations. The prohibition on the employment of women and children below ground will, of course, be continued.

Regulations may also provide for the compulsory medical examination of all persons employed or seeking employment at mines or quarries. Compulsory medical examination of young persons has long been a feature of factory legislation, but the danger of contracting respiratory disease in mining and quarrying requires that such examination can be extended to adults. I envisage that these regulations will require (a) compulsory medical examination of all persons seeking employment and (b) compulsory medical examination of serving workers at regular intervals. Consultation with owners and trade unions on the making of these and other regulations relating to conditions of employment is required by section 119.

Part IX continues in force, without any fundamental changes, existing requirements about keeping records and furnishing returns and information. Part X, which consists of a single section, makes provisions for the making of ministerial regulations, the procedure being set out in the Second Schedule. Here again, the lines of existing legislation have been followed.

Part XI maintains the right of coal miners who are paid by the weight of coal produced, to check the weighing of it. I understand that this right has hardly ever been formally invoked in this country, but its existence probably is of some value in the completion and implementation of wage agreements where wages are based on output.

Part XII deals with the appointment of inspectors and sets out their general powers. These provisions are on the lines of existing legislation. Part XIII makes the usual type of provision for offences, penalties and legal proceedings.

Finally, Part XIV covers a number of miscellaneous matters which are not proper to any other Part. The most interesting of these is a new provision for the setting up of an Advisory Council representative of employers and employees. This provision has been prompted by the success which has attended the operation of the Factory and Office Advisory Councils set up under the Factories and Office Premises Acts. It will be the function of the Council to advise me on any matter arising out of the execution of the Act which I may refer to them. They will also be entitled, on their own initiative, to advise me on the administration of the Act and any orders or regulations under it, and on certain other matters affecting the safety, welfare and education of employees and employers. The Council must include representatives of trade unions and of employers' organisations. I am confident that the Advisory Council will be of considerable assistance in the smooth operation of the Act when it becomes law.

I recommend this Bill to the House.

Professor Dooge

This Bill, which the Minister has outlined to us, consists of three parts, an essential reenactment of existing legislation, an amendment of the existing code on mines and quarries to bring it into line with modern conditions and thirdly, certain provisions to allow for the particular conditions in this country. Our existing code on mines goes back to 1872 and 1911 and that on quarries to 1894. We have had no amending legislation since that period and it is timely that the Minister should bring in a Bill on this particular topic, and should incorporate in this Bill many of the provisions which appear in the British Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, which the British Parliament, with their longer and greater experience of mining and quarrying, saw fit to enact.

The Bill is, of course, of its very nature, a technical Bill, and its discussion lends itself far more to a Committee Stage discussion than to a debate on Second Stage. Nevertheless, there are some points that could well be discussed here this evening. The Bill is again of its nature, largely an enabling Bill, and even though certain specific matters are laid down, the Bill largely sets out to outline the code of administration for the operation of mines and quarries in this country.

As I have said, the Bill is timely, and it is a good Bill. I think it will be welcomed by the House. It involves a substantial improvement of our existing conditions. Nevertheless, as a loyal member of the House, I do not consider there is any Bill that cannot be improved by discussion here in the Seanad, and accordingly I intend to table several amendments on Committee Stage. Before we start to consider whether the Bill as it is before us today is suitable for enactment by the House for conditions in this country, it is well for us to recall the peculiar position of the mining industry and the quarrying industry in this country. We do not have a very large mining industry. We have not had a very large mining industry in the past, but there are signs now—and very welcome signs indeed—that mining will loom larger and larger in this country in the future. In the past we have not had many mines, and the mines we had have been small. Indeed, the Ice Age which managed to give us some of the best scenery in western Europe also managed to leave us with some of the worst mineral resources in western Europe. The result is that such mines as do exist are mines which were set up to exploit relatively narrow seams. That is something which affects mining operations and the code of mining operations in many ways. When we look at what has been enacted in Britain and ask if this should be enacted in exactly the same way, we must make allowances for those facts.

Let us take a typical example. This Bill, as I have said, is an enabling Bill but there are certain specific conditions in it. One of the most specific is the provision laid down that all travelling roads in mines should be five feet six inches in height. It might be thought that this is something which is equally desirable and equally onerous under British conditions and Irish conditions. Actually it is a particularly onerous provision in regard to Irish mines. I anticipate that practically every Irish mine—and certainly every Irish coal mine—will ask the Minister to be exempted from the provision in that section. The position is that in making a travelling road five feet six inches in height in an ordinary mine such as occurs in Britain that road is excavated and probably three feet six inches or four feet of the excavation is solid coal. Therefore the greater part of the excavation which is taken out consists of the mineral which they are looking for. In Irish mines the seams are something like 18 inches thick and the position is that only 18 inches of the excavation actually involves the removal of the material which is being sought; the remaining four feet involves the removal of completely waste material.

There are many instances where there are differences because of the particular circumstances in mining in this country and because we are working seams which people would not bother to work in Britain. We have a very great responsibility in enacting a mining code because our mining industry is operating in a marginal way on these marginally worthwhile mineral seams. In the enactment of a Bill like this, we must tolerate no lowering of standards involving matters of the health, safety and welfare of the people working in the mines, but we must also be extremely careful not to impose conditions that will be more onerous than is necessary because, as I said, in this peculiarly marginal industry, this would bear very heavily on the owners.

As I have said, this is largely a Committee Stage Bill and my main comments will be made then, but there are a few general points I should like to raise at this stage. First, I should like to say something about the new provision in regard to medical inspection. I welcome very much the provision in the Bill in regard to medical inspection of all new workers and all existing workers. My information is that the position in regard to the health of the workers in this country has unfortunately not kept up with the times. I do not think that is anyone's fault but at the moment we are a long way behind conditions in other countries. That is not because anyone was neglectful, but rather because we have not managed to develop the proper administrative machinery.

The position in this country appears to be that in the case of a mine worker who is unfortunate enough to contract the disease of pneumoconiosis, to which mine workers are subject, the disease is not often diagnosed until it has reached a relatively advanced stage. Under conditions as they stand in this country, when the disease has reached an advanced stage, the worker goes to civil law to recover damages from his employer. Thus we have the case of one man who has his health ruined to a large degree, and another man who pays heavy damages as a result. It should be possible under the new provisions in this Bill to produce a scheme which would prevent that situation.

As I understand it, for many years past in Britain there has not been any advanced case of the disease of pneumoconiosis, nor has there been any resort to civil action. In Britain, apparently, they have developed a system whereby in a case such as this a tribunal is up, consisting of a mine inspector, a trade unionist and a doctor. The tribunal examines each case and makes an appropriate award. In all cases both the mine owners and the workers have been perfectly satisfied with the awards made by the tribunal. This, together with the X-ray system which has been operating in British mines since just after the war, has led to a tremendous reduction in the number of workers suffering from pneumoconiosis. I think we could adopt such a system here. In the British system an award of damages is made on the basis of the degree to which the person's health has been affected, and also a recommendation is made in regard to the employment of the worker.

I think it is important in this regard to remember that this disease is not a progressive disease. Once the worker is removed from the actual working face of a mine, the disease will not progress. Actually, workers who have contracted the disease in a mild form can work not only over ground but also in something like 75 per cent of the working areas below ground: those who are mildly affected with this disease can continue to work.

I would hope that the Minister, with the aid of his Advisory Council, will, following the enactment of this measure, be able not exactly to follow in detail the British system but to evolve a system whereby this particular disease will be diagnosed early; that the financial adjustments can be made readily and easily on this informal basis and that agreement can be reached concerning the placement of the worker.

I come now to the question of the educational qualification of mine managers. Section 15 of this Bill in fact replaces section 5 of the 1911 Coal Mines Act. But, as it stands here in the Bill, I think it replaces it by a weaker provision. The Bill repeals the 1911 Coal Mines Act which laid down certain qualifications for mine managers and merely provides that regulations can be made in regard to qualifications for the future.

I should like to suggest that there should not be any weakening at all in regard to this question of the qualifications of mine managers. Even a casual glance at the Bill will bring home to anybody the tremendous responsibility placed on the mine manager in regard to the health and safety of all concerned. Indeed, the key-note of the Bill is the solid placing of this responsibility on the shoulders of this single individual, the mine manager.

Under the 1911 Act, the position was that if there should be more than 30 people engaged in a mine then the mine manager had to have a first-class certificate of competency. If there were between 14 and 30 people, he would require a second-class certificate. In addition, a mine inspector could at any time make an order in respect to the classification of any mine classifying it as requiring a manager qualified in a particular way. This, as I understand it, is the law in regard to the qualification of mine managers at the moment.

The law as it stands now should be carried completely into effect on the coming into operation of the new Bill. It should then be open to the advisory council to amend these particular qualifications in any way. As I see it, we shall have a hiatus in regard to mining qualifications under the way the Minister proposes to do it now. We do not have in this country any qualification of our own in regard to the management of mines. The fact that we should have to use, for such time as may be, the British qualification in regard to this matter should not deter us from making sure that we carry on, from the date on which the Bill comes into operation, exactly the same provisions in regard to the competency of mine managers as were in operation before that date.

We would hope that, if our mining industry develops, managers can be trained in this country. If there is not the opportunity to train mining managers in this country at the moment as they have been trained from 1911 to date, then we must carry on as before and have these men trained in Britain or elsewhere and returned here as mine managers. I feel that what we should do in this regard is to re-enact what is in the 1911 Act, with power of variation on the part of the advisory council.

A final point I should like to refer to at this stage of the debate is the matter of regulations under this Bill. I should like to ask the Minister some questions in this regard. There are, under the Bill, a multitude of types of regulations. There are Ministerial orders which could bring certain parts of the Bill into operation. There are regulations under the complicated procedure laid down in the Second Schedule. These could be general regulations which apply to all mines and quarries or they could be special regulations applying to individual mines or quarries. There is also provision under the Bill for orders to be made by mining inspectors. These, again, are of different types. Some of these are subject to appeal under, I think, section 145 of the Bill. Others are not subject to appeal. There are still further types under section 131 where an order can be made and must be carried out without delay because of possible immediate danger. Statutory rules to be made by the mine manager are also provided for in the Bill. He has power to make transport rules and support rules.

I should like to ask the Minister, in this regard, what guiding principles he has adopted in deciding the matters to be covered by Ministerial order, Ministerial regulation, inspector's order or manager's rule? What are the different principles which allocate a particular order to one or other of these types of regulations and what criteria has the Minister used in determining which orders of inspector are subject to appeal and which orders are not subject to appeal?

Again, in this matter of regulation, there is the question I shall return to on Committee Stage: the matter of sanction for certain breaches of rule. There is provision in certain sections for rules made by a manager but, as I read these sections, there does not appear to be any particular sanction for a breach of these rules as made by the manager. I do not know whether we would be getting into difficulty here by allowing a manager to make a rule the breach of which would be a statutory offence. I do not know if there is the difficulty in that regard but I feel that, in a matter like this, there should be a definite sanction for the breach of rules.

As I understand it, some of the mine and quarry owners are of the opinion that mines can best be operated in regard to this matter of rules to be made by the manager for safe working if the manager of the mine or of the quarry were given power to fine workers for breach of these rules. They make the point in this regard that there are certain breaches of discipline for which it would not be appropriate to bring a man to court for a statutory offence and neither would it be appropriate for the man to be peremptorily dismissed but that there are certain types of offences in regard to safety and welfare below ground which could be a potential danger in which a system of fining, which would be a matter of agreement between the manager and the trade union representatives— would be an appropriate way of dealing with the matter. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate if there exists a sanction for breaches of manager's rules and if he would give us his views on how this may best be carried out.

There are many regulations and when the Bill goes into operation, all these will be applied and there will be many people other than the managers who, when working in a mine or quarry, will have the responsibility of seeing that the regulations are complied with. I would urge the Minister to follow the excellent example of Britain in regard to the publication of a mining and quarrying code. The position in Britain is that separate publications are produced in regard to the responsibility of different classes of people. Whether the person is responsible for blasting at the mine face, or is a mine manager, a publication covers him and imposes responsibility. To summarise, may I say that this Bill, both in regard to what it re-enacts of old legislation and in regard to the fresh provisions, is a good and a timely Bill.

Professor O'Brien

I simply wish to welcome the Bill on general grounds. Those interested in industrial development look on mining as an activity likely to grow. A number of possibilities are in sight which could make mining an important industry in the near future and a still more important industry in the distant future. The Bill provides for a satisfactory legal code regulating this industry which we hope will grow. It is an industry which gives large employment of a good kind. At the same time, it requires to be very carefully regulated.

The Bill seems to have covered the whole ground as far as I can make out. It is very important the law should be clear regarding the welfare and safety of people working in mines and quarries and this Bill goes a long way towards clarifying these matters. I particularly welcome section 150 which provides for the setting up of an advisory council. Employers and employees will be represented and we hope that this will make for good labour relations in the industry—discussion among people who meet each other on equal ground in cases of threatened disputes or differences of opinion.

Senator Dooge spoke about the necessity to tighten up medical matters. Though this is new ground to me, I should have preferred if the qualifications of managers could be more clearly defined than they are in section 15. This is really a Committee Stage Bill and I do not wish to raise any points which should be more properly raised later. There is one small point I should like to make in relation to section 5, the interpretation section. It provides that special regulations are defined as regulations applicable to a particular mine or quarry only. Section 8 provides that every regulation other than special regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The special regulations might affect a whole lot of people and members of the Seanad might have views on them just as much as they might have views on the general regulations.

Professor Quinlan

I have pleasure in welcoming the Bill, which consolidates the law in regard to mines and quarries. The Bill itself, as previous speakers have said, is largely one for Committee Stage debate. The only regret is that it represents a type of legislation that could very well have been introduced in the Seanad in the first instance. The Seanad is reasonably well fitted to take the first consideration of such a Bill. We had plenty of time before Christmas which could have been utilised for that purpose.

This Bill being so highly technical, I wonder did the Minister consult in any real way the engineers' association. I know from such people they are very anxious to contribute in any way they can to national development and to placing their technical skill and know-how at the disposal of the Government. I speak in ignorance on it. I do not know whether these people were consulted on it. Had they been consulted, I would have thought they would have set up a committee and worked effectively to produce some really worthwhile suggestions and recommendations for the Minister on this topic. If the Minister has not got that assistance, I would appeal to him not to let such opportunities slip in the future of acquiring specialist help on problems obviously of a specialist character.

I should like to endorse what Senator Dooge has said about qualifications of mining managers. We must go very carefully into this on Committee Stage. While we have not got courses that would qualify mine managers at the moment, our primary degree courses in engineering and so on provide a solid foundation on which subsequent work can be taken. I welcome the provision in the Bill, whereby the Minister takes power to introduce legislation to raise the minimum age for employment above 14. I hope we have not under 14-year-olds, or anything in that region, working underground at the moment and I hope the Minister will see in the future that the age is rapidly pushed up to the realistic figure of 16 years at the minimum.

I also welcome section 119 which sets out clearly the duty of the Minister to consult with the owners, representatives and employees before making regulations affecting their interests. That is a very worthwhile provision. Also, the creation of a new Advisory Council symbolises a new type of thinking which has proved so valuable in the past few years. The council is a very positive step forward and I welcome especially the section in the Bill which gives the Advisory Council the right, and the initiative, to examine the necessary regulations, make changes or amendments in them and draw those to the attention of the Minister. In other words, to that extent the Council is enabled to function as an effective council.

I have a few reservations in regard to the Council in that I do not think it is in keeping with the general spirit that the Minister should nominate all new members, the chairman plus the eight members of the Council. I should think the Minister at this stage should recognise the contribution the engineering profession is making to the development of the country and the part played by their central organisation, the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland and its co-body, Cumann na nInnealtóirí. He should recognise their position by giving them the right to nominate at least two members to the Council. That is not much to ask and it would be only a just and fitting recognition by the Government of the great service performed by the engineers.

Finally, I am not over-happy that the Council should continue for an indefinite period. Subsection (7) of section 150 states that the chairman and the ordinary members shall hold office for such period as the Minister may decide. I think it would be far better to put the decision into the Bill itself and make the period a reasonable one, something in the order of five years. That would give an opportunity to the Minister to replace any members who have not pulled their weight. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and I look forward to an effective Committee Stage discussion when we may be able to make some minor improvements of a technical nature in it.

Mr. Brosnahan

This corner has had quite an innings today on this legislation. I should like to welcome the Bill. I think it is a most enlightened piece of legislation. It is a tidying up of out-of-date enactments of the past. It recognises the rights of workers in many sections and makes provision for the safeguarding of their health, welfare and safety. Like Professor Quinlan, I welcome particularly the reference to the age of entry into work, that is, the decision of the Minister to replace the existing prohibition of boys under 14 by regulations restricting the employment of boys under a prescribed age. This is particularly welcome, especially in view of the fact that our official thinking on the matter of age of entry into employment has been governed since 1934 by a decision of an inter-departmental committee which stated that children of 14 were not immature for employment, either physically or mentally.

That, I think, was a most enlightened decision and we seem to be coming round to the fact that children are immature at that age and are not yet ready for employment, either above or below the ground. It is of interest to note that children under 17 years are not allowed to enter employment in Russia, a country which is often held up as the symbol of materialism. As a matter of fact, the school leaving age over a considerable area of Russia is 17 years. It is also so in many areas of the United States. In England according to the Sir Geoffrey Crowther Report all children should be kept at school until they are 16 and there should be the compulsory education for all up to the age of 18. I particularly welcome that section of the Bill. I consider it a piece of enlightened legislation which should be welcomed by the House.

Mr. J. Lynch

As most of the speakers have said, this is a Bill that can be dealt with more effectively in Committee than in Second Stage. There were a few points raised with which I shall deal on this Stage, perhaps not in the details Senators will require, but, nevertheless, I hope to satisfy them that any apprehension they might have expressed at this stage may not be too well founded.

Senator Dooge pointed out that we were not very well endowed with mineral deposits. Apparently he seemed to be putting the blame on something beyond the Government's control, the Ice Age, I remember when I had particular problems with the copper mining industry, and that was not long ago, I took counsel with a very eminent mining engineer, Sir Chester Beatty. He was kind enough to offer some advice which was very valuable to us. He told me that having regard to the Jake Day theory, we could not be expected to have great mineral deposits in this country. He told me when he was a mining engineer in a Utah company for which he worked, they had a fair idea that there were valuable deposits on the land of a certain Jake Day. When the company approached Jake day to get on to his land, they were told it would cost $50,000 to put their foot on it; to start inspection would cost $250,000 and he said: "When you start boring holes, we will talk about what it will cost you then." The representative asked what this meant on land that was full of rock and scrub and Jake Day said: "When the good Lord put rock and scrub on my land, He gave plenty of it." He must have put something good underneath it. Apparently in this country the good Lord gave too much scenic land for us to expect a lot of valuable mineral deposits.

That is one of the reasons why, to revert to what Senator Dooge said, we have not perhaps advanced to the stage in mining operations they have in Britain. That applies particularly to one of the big points he made about the existence of pneumoconiosis of the workers in this industry. In Britain they have a system whereby when this disease is suspected, by reason of the vast nature of the operations, they usually employ such a man in an overground capacity and thereby relieve him of the necessity to go underground to earn his living. Unfortunately, in this country we do not have sufficient overground operations to take anybody who is suspected of the disease from underground and give him similarly paid employment overground. Nevertheless, the regulations we are now proposing to make will be an advance in this respect.

As far as the difficulty of compensation for those who suffer from this disease is concerned, it is true most of them have taken their remedy under common law rather than under statute law. It was suggested to me in the Dáil that this is a matter we ought to provide for in this Bill, but this is not the appropriate Bill. This is an enabling Bill and it does not provide for matters such as this. It would be more proper to the comprehensive Workmen's Compensation Bill which the Minister for Social Welfare is at present preparing. I am not certain he is going to deal with this specific matter in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is not proper to the Bill under discussion.

Another point the Senator made referred to the qualification to be required of mining engineers under Section 15. He seemed to suggest that there might be danger that we would depend on the standard set in the 1911 Act. I can assure the House there is no such danger. In the first place, as Senator Quinlan said, we have not got any training facilities in this country. We have no degree in the university at a level that we can insist on mining engineers possessing. Nevertheless, this is a matter on which I will have to take the advice of the Council. There will be no gap between the period when the new qualifications will be required and the present time. The qualifications will be prescribed without any danger of a hiatus occurring.

With regard to the guiding principle I would imply in my regulations, I can, first of all, say the regulations will fall under three main heads. There will be Minister's Orders. They are applied generally. There will be inspector notices which will apply to individual cases. Naturally the inspectors will have regard to the requirements in these individual places when they make the orders. Thirdly, there will be owners' rules which, of course, must necessarily apply again on a more ad hoc basis. In regard to owners rules, Senator Dooge suggested there might be some system of providing for fines to be imposed by managers for breaches of regulation by their workers. I discussed that with the Mines and Quarries Association and I expressed some doubt as to the constitutionality of such a provision in the Bill. We have all of us fairly recent recollection of another Bill being declared unconstitutional in giving the Law Council power to impose certain penalties on members of the Incorporated Law Society. I doubt if it will be possible to enact such a provision in this Bill without danger of its being challenged on a constitutional basis. Nevertheless, I do not think there is any thing to prevent a mining engineer and the trade union representing the workers in the mines evolving a system whereby some system of fining could be imposed.

Another point made by Senator Dooge referred to the height to be required in regulations for access roads. I agree with what he said about many of our mines in this country. They operate on a marginal basis and it might be unrealistic to require that an access road shall be of a certain minimum height, say, 5 ft. 6 ins. when a seam might be only one-fifth of that measurement. Nevertheless, this is a regulation that will be applied in a realistic way and having full regard to the problems facing individual mining owners.

Senator O'Brien referred to the fact that special regulations would not be required to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas before they became applicable. General regulations will, of course, but I can assure the Senator if he consults the Second Schedule of the Bill, he will see that before such regulations are made they have to be published in advance and the objections will have to be taken account of. These objections which are made will be taken account of, even to the extent of having inquiries set up. I believe by the time such regulations ultimately become effective, they will be generally acceptable. There will be the necessity to hear objections from the parties interested and there will be the possibility of having special inquiries made into the making of these regulations.

With regard to prior consultation with the engineers, which was mentioned by Senator Quinlan, we did not in fact consult with the engineers' body, as such, but we did have consultation with the Mines and Quarries Association of Ireland which, I thought, was the more appropriate body for consultations of this sort. The Senator also referred to the provision whereby the Minister will nominate the chairman and eight members of the Advisory Council. He suggested engineers' associations and others should have the power to nominate one or two members to the Council. I am not making any specific reference to any organisation in this matter but it has been my experience, when organisations like this have power of nomination, they invariably nominate the President as the chairman for the time being. He might not be the best man for the job in all these cases. It is difficult for these people to nominate other than the President and in fact it is invariably done. It is better that the Minister should have a free hand in this respect.

I expect any Minister—I certainly will—will have prior consultation with appropriate bodies before he nominates anybody, first of all, to ensure that he gets the best man and secondly, to preserve the right of the Minister in this respect. I have very strong views, in a business like this, on having members nominated by outside authorities. We usually get some convention that really is not as effective as one would want it to be.

I think these are the main points that have been raised. There was one other point about there not being a right of appeal against the inspector's notice in all cases. There will, of course, have to be provision for quick action by inspectors in the case where an immediate danger is apparent to the inspector, that is, an immediate danger arising, which might cause an injury to life or limb. I think, in such cases, the inspectors might be expected to act reasonably. It is only right, whoever is required to do a certain act in order to obviate an imminent danger of that nature, that there should not be a right of appeal which might perhaps be so long delayed as to give rise to danger happening in the meantime. However, these and other points, which I may not have covered specifically and fully, can be raised again on the Committee Stage.

Professor Dooge

I fully appreciate that Orders in respect of apprehension of immediate danger under section 131 should not be subject to appeal but is the Minister satisfied that in all other cases there is an appeal against an inspector's order?

Mr. J. Lynch

I cannot say there is an appeal in all other cases. There will be an appeal in all other cases where the requirements that he will seek go beyond what is provided for in the Act. In other words, if a mine owner or manager feels the notice or the order of the inspector is not in accordance with the Act, he has the right to appeal, so I take it that would cover most cases in which the manager would be aggrieved.

Professor Dooge

There were a few sections on which I thought an appeal might lie. However, this can be properly discussed on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th March, 1965.

Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.