Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1964

Vol. 213 No. 2

Mines and Quarries Bill, 1964— Second Stage.

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

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

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Both are cumbrous and involved, being contained in well over a dozen enactments stretching back to 1872; they are also out of date in many respects.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 will be 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, should 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 Bill 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 and 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. Compulsory medical examination of young persons has long been a feature of factory legislation, but the high incidence of respiratory disease in the mining industry 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 at mines and (b) compulsory medical examination of serving miners at regular intervals. Consultation with mine-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 provision 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 the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

This Bill is not controversial in its general principles. It is, in fact, a codification of the existing laws relating to mines and quarries which, I understand, are spread over about 20 statutes. The Bill, in fact, lays down the specifications which might well be laid down by an engineer or an architect to secure the safety of persons working in mines and quarries and, to that extent, it is more in line with these specifications than an ordinary piece of legislation. This is not a criticism of the Bill but a commentary on its contents.

There are, however, certain matters that may fall to be considered between now and Committee Stage. One question which arises on the Bill is whether there is any machinery in the Department of Industry and Commerce which inquires from time to time whether mine owners are fully au fait with the procedures to be adopted in the event of miners being trapped. For instance, are any practice rescue operations carried out from time to time and can the Department make available at short notice expert advice on rescue operations in the event of such advice or information being required and is there adequate machinery available for use in rescue operations?

I raise these matters because it seems to me that the time to take the necessary steps to have them attended to is before they are required rather than after the need has arisen.

There are certain points in connection with individual sections which I should like to mention at this stage so that they can be considered between now and Committee Stage. Under subsection (3) of section 3, there is a possibility that a machine shop placed at a mine would be covered by the Factories Acts rather than by the Mines and Quarries Bill and it is suggested that there should be some exclusion from the definition to make it clear that such manufacturing as is required for a mine or quarry production process is excepted, when carried out in a mine or quarry, from the provisions of the Factories Acts.

Also, there appears to be some difficulty in regard to the function of a deputy as defined in paragraph (b) of section 17. I understand that the function of a deputy as so defined is that which is normally considered to be the duty of a shift boss or other first-line supervisor. Under section 20 a deputy is not permitted to work for a contractor so that it would not seem to be possible for a shaft contractor to employ supervisors but that such supervisors would have to be employed by the company. I understand that a shaft contractor must employ supervisors if he is to operate efficiently. It may be, therefore, that some amendment is required in these sections.

Section 32 appears to be concerned only with coal or other stratified minerals. If this is a correct interpretation, then it suggests to me that the term "stratified" should be defined because many mineral deposits could be classified by geologists as stratified. If this is so, the restrictive conditions of section 32 would apply to lead, zinc, barytes and other similar metal mines, whereas the section is intended to apply only to coal mines.

Sections 36 to 41 contain restrictions on mechanical haulage. It might be that this would be more appropriately dealt with by regulation than by a section in the Bill.

Section 43 deals with the qualification of a person in charge of haulage apparatus. A person qualified to operate such an apparatus should be required to undergo an annual medical examination. This is a responsible and onerous position and the fact that a person carrying it out would be required to undergo an annual medical examination might ensure that he was at all times physically and otherwise fit to undertake the duties.

Section 104 deals with the question of workmen's inspections and was referred to by the Minister in his introductory speech. There is no conflict of interest between labour and management so far as mine safety is concerned and the need to provide good working conditions. In fact, no modern mining operation would be successful unless safe and efficient working conditions were provided. Representatives of management and the trade unions concerned almost invariably co-operate on the safety precautions and on the steps necessary to ensure that these are carried into effect, and it has been suggested to me that joint company and union safety committees are the most satisfactory methods of dealing with this. To that extent I believe the proposal which follows the somewhat similar provisions in the Factories Act for an advisory council may deal with this matter. If not, it would seem to be a matter which might appropriately joint representation. Although it may be necessary to prescribe for it in the Bill or by regulation, in a matter of this sort voluntary co-operation appears to be the appropriate procedure.

There is one other matter about which I want to inquire. The enactments set out in the First Schedule are repealed. Is it correct to assume that, with the repeal of those enactments, there will also be automatic repeal of regulations such as Statutory Instrument 273? As I understand it, much of that which is covered by Part III of this Bill deals with the subjects covered in Statutory Instrument 273. Some of them may be in conflict with that statutory instrument and I should like to inquire if it is proposed to issue further regulations when the Bill is enacted.

Subject to those remarks and any amendments which may be proposed on Committee Stage, this Bill appears to bring mines and quarries into line with the similar changes which were made in the Factories and Workshops Act as applied to factories and workshops.

Mr. Pattison

I should like, on behalf of the Labour Party and the trade union movement, to welcome this Bill. It may not be generally known that the conditions of coal-miners and quarry workers in this country are governed by an Act of 1911 and were it not for the activity of the trade unions down through the years in getting conditions agreed upon between employers and unions, there would be many more accidents in mines.

This Bill follows more or less the British Act of 1954, and most of the provisions in the Bill, as I said, are already provided for by union agreement with management. Nevertheless we wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and if there is any criticism to be made of it, it is only that a period of ten years has lapsed since the British Act was passed in 1954.

This is a very important Bill and we shall have the opportunity on Committee Stage of dealing with it section by section. Each section needs to be considered because this Bill is something like the Road Traffic Act and the Factories Act in which we are dealing with the lives and livelihoods of workers and others concerned in mining and quarrying operations. It is very seldom that a Bill comes into the House that deals with life and limb. That is why we should consider this Bill in detail on Committee Stage. It must be remembered, and this is important, that mine workers and many quarry workers are not insured with insurance companies. The mining companies and the quarries have to carry their own insurance. If there is an accident and a worker is awarded £2,000 or £10,000, he may find himself in the position that he cannot get one penny because the mine goes into liquidation.

I do not want to go into too much detail at this stage but it will help considerably on Committee Stage if the Minister can tell us more about this advisory council. This is the body which will really administer the Bill when it becomes law. It will make the regulations and advise the Minister. The proposed council will consist of eight members and a chairman. Since this is a Mines and Quarries Bill, I take it there will be four from the mines and four from the quarries or, in other words, two employers' representatives and two trade union representatives. I would ask the Minister to consider extending the membership of the council. In the British Act there is provision for area councils. If there are only two workers' representatives from the mines, the council will not be very representative really because problems differ in the different mining areas. There are different problems in the Leinster coalfields from those in the Connacht coalfields and, if the Minister cannot increase the membership of the council, then he should consider setting up area councils. I would suggest one for the Munster coalfields, one for the Leinster coalfields and one for the Connacht coal fields. In that way we would have a good cross-section of the mining problems in the country. The problems, as I say, differ. A problem in a Connacht coalfield might not be a problem in a Leinster coalfield and vice versa.

I welcome the Bill but I trust we will get more information on Committee Stage and I hope the Bill will receive the consideration it deserves on that stage.

Mr. Ryan

This Bill, like any codification measure, is to be welcomed, but one shudders at the prospect for the future. Instead of an Act of the Oireachtas generally available, well known and easily accessible, we will be offered a mass of regulations, unexplored and unexamined. In the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill, and again in the Minister's speech today, we were told that, in order to achieve flexibility in the management and operation of mines and the safety measures adopted in them, we were to remove many of the obligations which now exist in statutes and substitute for them regulations, which will obviate, the Minister says, the need for amending legislation.

The most unbending thing we can experience in this world is a statutory regulation. The most unbending individual one can meet this side of Jordan is the bureaucrat applying a regulation. One of the most difficult things to amend is a regulation, not that it calls for any great effort on anybody's part to amend it but because the impulse and the urge that one must create, or induce, before a regulation is amended is so great as to be beyond the endurance and capacity of most people. That is why I do not welcome the section in this Bill which proposes to create a mass of regulations.

The Minister referred to the Planning Act. Under that Act, passed earlier this year, we have had a greater mass of regulations in a short time than we have ever had under any other measure I know of in recent times. The result is that from day to day people who are consulted—lawyers, architects, engineers and others—in relation to planning and development are unable to answer with confidence what the law is at any particular moment. I am aware that these regulations, when made, will be placed on the Table of the House. I am also aware that they may be rescinded within 21 days. The distractions and duties which hedge in public representatives today are so multitudinous, so multifarious and so onerous that it is true to say that some regulations that have been passed should never have been passed in the form in which they were drafted.

It seems to me, therefore, that we urgently need to establish a group like the Committee of Public Accounts to sit permanently for the purpose of considering regulations as they are made.

The spasmodic fashion in which we are supposed to review regulations is not suited to the demands of this modern age. The duties of Deputies are increasing inside and outside of the House. I hope that before long we will create machinery for the careful examination of all regulations made or about to be made. I hope that the committee I suggest will have power to send for papers and for officials to explain what is proposed, together with the power to urge on Ministers the desirability of amending regulations.

It has been the lot of many members here to meet individual cases of injustice and hardship. We are told that hard cases cannot be accepted as justification for amending regulations because hard cases make bad law. If we had a reviewing committee sitting permanently, entrusted with the duty of examining regulations, that would prevent injustice and hardship and the unendurable situation that can exist when justice is not being done because the regulation does not permit it to be done; this House has given the Minister power to do something and we are unable to take effective action to rectify an intolerable situation. The Minister's answer will be that amending legislation may be introduced to qualify the Minister's powers or require certain things to be done but it is unlikely, in my opinion, that an individual member of this House will undertake the onerous and difficult task of trying to ensure amendment.

The Minister is providing for safety regulations to be made in regard to mines and quarries. The powers we are conferring on the Minister in this regard are, in the main, permissive. I am concerned with the fact that the Factories Acts and other legislation passed in this House have allowed regulations to be made for the safety of workers and operatives in various industries and I am aware that in a large number of cases the necessary regulations have not been made. I think the Department has been unduly dilatory in making safety regulations, particularly in relation to weights to be carried and other matters of that kind. It has occurred on many occasions, when workers have sought legal redress for injuries received in the course of their occupations, that when their legal advisers sought advice from the Department of Industry and Commerce, or sought amongst our Statutory Instruments, some guidance as to what was a safe mode of working or what was safe equipment, they found no guide or regulations as far as conditions here were concerned. In many cases also people have been obliged to look to Britain, to examine British Statutory Instruments or to write to the British Stationery Office to get information. In most cases where such information has been sought, certainly in my experience, there was some kind of record or guidance available in Britain.

I can appreciate that the Minister may not have the staff at his disposal to make all the necessary or desirable regulations but if the adoption of regulations available elsewhere would cut out a certain amount of work, it might be desirable to do it. Certainly we should not be assuming that we are discharging our duty in this House by simply permitting Ministers to make regulations when we know of cases where we have already given the permission and the necessary regulations have not been made.

I was disappointed to hear from the Minister, if I understood him rightly, that workers who have the right to inspect mines and quarries have not been exercising that right. One would hope that the trade unions would encourage workers regularly to inspect mines and quarries. We know that the injuries and pain that can be suffered where there is an accident in a mine or quarry can be very considerable. In many cases death can be caused and in others very serious injuries, and it would appear most desirable that those mostly affected by defects in quarries and mines, or in equipment, should take the necessary steps to inspect them and having done so, ask the advisory councils which the Minister suggests for the necessary protective measures to be taken before accidents occur.

The Minister tells us that he is removing the specific statutory rule which prohibits engaging people under 14 years of age below ground. I would be happy about that if I were certain that the regulations which the Minister proposes to substitute instead of the specific section now in operation, were to be made in time but again I am afraid our experience with Government Departments has been that regulations trail along until the social conscience of the people requires something new.

The Minister may say that the regulation will be made more quickly than amending legislation but I do not think that always follows. I do not think it is desirable in an important matter like the age of employees that we should shed our responsibility. That is something that lies peculiarly and specially on the shoulders of legislators as legislators and it is not a moral responsibility which should be passed on casually to the administrator or the Executive.

Subject to these remarks, we on this side welcome the Bill. We appreciate that it is primarily a Committee Stage Bill because it is only by the examination of each clause and phrase that we can understand its implications. We will certainly give to the Minister in the consideration of this Bill the co-operation and assistance which we feel it deserves.

Mr. Treacy

The fact that most of the enactments governing mines and quarries in this country are based on British Acts dating as far back as 1892 indicates clearly that after a lapse of some 92 years, legislation of this kind by an Irish Government is long overdue. It is true to say that we have come a long way in mining from the days of Keir Hardy when child labour was exploited at a very tender age and children as young as ten or 11 years were employed in British mines. They were obliged to work excessively long hours—from 12 to 14 hours per day was not unusual in those days. They were exploited in every sense of the word by unscrupulous coal barons. There was no regard whatever for the health, safety or welfare of these workers. They were confined to the bowels of the earth, hewing out coal or in charge of pit ponies, working in darkness and excessive damp which had a ravaging effect upon their health and many of them died young.

We have not the same history of coal mining or mineral research as they have in Britain; nevertheless in those mines that we have, we have an obligation to ensure that the people employed therein are employed in decent conditions, with adequate wages and adequate safeguards for their health. In my opinion, and I speak as a Deputy who is familiar with mines as there are mines in my constituency, I regard mining, especially of coal, as the most arduous, the most dangerous and the most exacting on health, of any employment. Sad to say also it is insecure. The legislation laid down in this Bill is welcomed by us in the hope that after the completion of the Committee Stage, we will have evolved a miner's and a quarry worker's charter which will guarantee them the most modern conditions of employment to which they are justly entitled, with decent rates of pay, the elimination of any semblance of exploitation, and adequate health, safety and sanitary facilities.

There is much in the Bill which we welcome but there is much left out which we would like to have seen included. Pending the more conclusive observations of the unions involved in mining and quarrying, we will have a most important contribution to make on Committee Stage.

I am pleased to note at section 57 that waste must be ventilated and that the appropriate steps must be taken to minimise dangerous emissions from waste of inflammable or noxious gas. We all know the very high incidence of accidents in mining. We have seen most tragic and heartrending scenes in films in recent years, and we have read of such accidents in the papers, caused by inflammable gas, an inrush of water, or the collapse of shafts which were not properly shored up. We know of miners who sustained injuries or lost their lives as a result of explosions in mines. We know also, as Deputy Pattison pointed out, that such accidents are the results of inadequate precautions, and that there is inadequate compensation.

This measure could be perfected if the Minister had regard to the modern times in which we live, and the necessity for the inclusion in a measure such as this of the very desirable fringe benefits for which the trade union movement is agitating today; proper sickness benefit for miners or quarry workers who may be obliged to lay off from this very exacting work and the urgent necessity for an adequate superannuation or pension scheme for such workers and, above all, the necessity that they should have a feeling of security. Our mines and quarries should be made secure and the workers given the feeling that they have secure employment and are not at the mercy of an employer who can indiscriminately lay them off if he is experiencing any difficulty, irrespective of the contribution they, and their fathers before them, made to the wealth of the company concerned. Those people should at least get the contributory old age pension at the age of 65 years.

We welcome the measures in the Bill which lay down that there shall be adequate sanitary arrangements in the mines and facilities for washing and so on. Those of us who have seen miners at work, and coming from work, have been appalled at their condition, and many of them are very young. They are covered all over with dust and sometimes they are dripping with water, having worked for seven or eight hours in the bowels of the earth. Many of them must go home, perhaps to a council cottage, and there undress and wash themselves. I respectfully submit that one cannot adequately wash oneself in a basin in a council cottage, having regard to the kind of work that is involved in mining. It is essential that adequate washing facilities be provided, and the services provided should be availed of by the miners.

I wonder why it is still necessary to retain section 106, and similar sections relating to the employment of women and children. I take it that it is a carry over from the English Act. I am aware that in the bad old days it was common to employ young boys and, indeed, young girls, underground in mines in Wales, England and Scotland. I am not aware that ever happened here. We did not have that mining tradition here; otherwise, perhaps the same exploitation would have taken place here also. It is quite unnecessary to have regulations to replace the existing prohibition on employment below ground of boys under 14 years, or of women and children. If the Minister examines the situation in Irish mines and quarries, I think he will find that boys under 14 years are not employed, and girls are not employed except in offices as secretaries, or clerks, or typists, and the offices are usually somewhat removed from the mine proper. I do not see any reason why that stipulation should be laid down in these modern times. There is no necessity for it.

I have been looking up the regulations governing the duties of quarry managers, and the deputies which the Minister's Department will probably appoint to supervise the quarries and mines and see that they conform to the regulations. I understand that an owner is entitled to designate himself as manager of a mine. I question the wisdom of that. In the regulations the Minister is insisting on certain technical and engineering qualifications. It may well be that a manager is operating a mine from a long distance. He may not be domiciled, in, or a native of, this country at all. I think we should ensure that a manager is not merely readily identifiable, as the measure says, but also readily available when an emergency arises and his services are required. He should also have the technical qualifications to cope with his responsibilities.

In regard to the qualifications laid down in this Bill for managers, I suggest to the Minister that we have some managers of quarries or mines who may not have any degree, or any technical qualification, but have been doing the job satisfactorily over a long period of time. I have been asked to request the Minister to ensure that such people will not be interfered with in their employment. If they do their work to the satisfaction of their employers, they should not be interfered with by reason of the enactment of this Bill.

I am also pleased to see section 70 and other sections which require that the productions of inflammable or injurious dust below ground be minimised, and set out the measures which the mine manager must take to deal with any such dust produced below ground or in a building on the surface. It is true to say that a great deal of ill health and disease amongst miners is the result of dust. There is the miners' disease, known as pneumoconiosis, which would seem to be prevalent in certain mines in this country. We welcome any step the Minister may take to minimise that scourge. We welcome everything in this Bill which will ensure that these mines will be properly ventilated and that the noxious gases, and so on, are eliminated to as great an extent as possible.

I must point out to the Minister that there seems to be a conflict between the Department of Social Welfare and the insurance companies governing workmen's compensation in relation to claims by miners who are suffering from pneumoconiosis. The Minister ought to remedy this anomaly which I shall strive to outline.

It has come to my notice that when a miner has an ailment of the lungs and applies for disability benefit to the Department of Social Welfare he is told that he is not entitled to such benefit and should seek workmen's compensation. The claim having gone to those dealing with workmen's compensation, the applicant is informed that the matter is not the responsibility of the workmen's compensation section but rather is that of the Department of Social Welfare.

There is a dispute as to responsibility in this matter. Seemingly, the Department of Social Welfare insist that this ailment is caused as a result of the employment pursued by the applicant and that consequently any claim for benefit arises under workmen's compensation. On the other hand, the insurance company say, in effect: "No. This is merely a chest ailment, an ordinary ailment, and consequently we are not responsible." I have dealt with some cases of this kind.

While the battle was being waged between the Department of Social Welfare and the insurance company governing workmen's compensation, the miner who in certain instances was married and had a large family was obliged to seek home assistance and to live for a number of weeks on home assistance until the whole problem was resolved. I would ask the Minister to have a look at this problem and to see if he can pin responsibility on either the Department of Social Welfare or the insurance company governing workmen's compensation, thus ensuring that payment is made promptly when a miner is obliged to lay off work on grounds of any respiratory trouble, pneumoconiosis or chest ailment of any kind.

It was hoped that the Factories Act, 1955, would do great things for industrial workers. I understand it is also applicable to mines and quarries, which are listed here. The then Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, the late Mr. William Norton, piloted that Bill through this House. That excellent measure which could do so much good for industrial workers, in particular, has not been availed of to the extent to which the trade union movement would desire.

The Factories Act, 1955 gives power to the workers and their trade unions to appoint a factory committee to look into questions of safety, general health, ventilation, sanitation, adequate lighting and heating facilities, and so on. Although workers in factories, shops, mines, quarries and so on, have the power under that Act to set up such a committee they have not availed of it to the extent we would desire. I do not know whether or not it is attributable to the lack of factory inspectors or to the approach of these factory inspectors in that when they visit a premises or a factory they are more inclined to treat at all times with the employer and show a scant respect for the operatives. There is an obligation on these gentlemen, who are charged with the implementation of the Factories Act, which is also contained in this new measure, to see to it that the workers are also consulted.

The measure is not being implemented for the sole benefit of the employer. Rather is it being implemented for the benefit of the worker. The aim is to ensure that the intolerable conditions under which so many people worked for so many years will end and that there will be satisfactory sanitation, heating, lighting and safety conditions, and so on, with a view to safeguarding life and limb.

Where there are factory committees, these inspectors should consult with them on every visit. Even where there are not such committees, there should be a greater enticement to appoint committees by a direct approach—if necessary on the floor of the job—by these inspectors. It is not good enough that they go to a plant, factory or office and are escorted in and out by a member of the staff, without bidding the time of day to the workers on the job. At the same time, the trade union movement is not without blame in that, as well, it has not been able to inculcate in its members the responsibility which is theirs to set up committees under the Factories Act, 1955. May I express the hope that the workers in the mines, for whom we are now legislating, will avail fully of these provisions?

I hope the Minister will give us some time before the Committee Stage in order to consult with our respective unions and workers' organisations so that we may convey to him our views on how this Bill might be improved. We have given some views already. It is our desire that this Bill will prove to be a miners' charter, a quarry workers' charter. We hope that it will mean a greater sense of security for workers, a greater feeling that a man is benefiting from the wealth he creates and is sharing adequately in the wealth which he produces. We trust that he shall be safeguarded on the job not merely in respect of safety, sanitation and health generally but that he shall be given a wage which will enable him to maintain his family in at least frugal comfort. Moreover, we trust that cognisance will be taken of the fringe benefits to which I have adverted—the desirability that in sickness, infirmity and old age a worker is properly provided for. These are the fringe benefits on which the trade union movement today lays greater emphasis than on an actual increase in wages.

Above all else, on this question of security, the Minister should have appreciated that most of the mines in this country are not State controlled. They are still in the hands of private enterprise and whatever difficulties are experienced, when any economic illwind blows which ruffles the profits of these mines, we have the problem of redundancy rearing its ugly head. Miners and quarry workers have no semblance of security. The Minister should appreciate that and see whether or not we can include in this measure a provision which will allow for the payment of redundancy compensation in respect of the lay-off of men at any given time.

I think it was Deputy Pattison from the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny who was concerned some time ago about the possibility of redundancy in a mine in his area. As a result of the inrush of water to this mine there was a likelihood, were it not for generous State aid coming to the rescue, of a sizeable redundancy problem being created there and a large number of men laid off. It was through no fault of the employer they became redundant, but they would, perhaps, never find work in that mine again. They were laid off under circumstances where there was no provision for adequate compensation, or redundancy pay, of any kind. In other words, they were sent out on the unemployment scrap heap. The small allowance which is provided nowadays for unemployment is totally inadequate to maintain a family.

We would wish to see this measure evolve into that kind of miners' charter which would give these men a new impetus, new hope, new courage and new enthusiasm to work not merely for the betterment of themselves and the betterment of their employer but for the benefit of our community. It is sad to think that the mineral resources of our country are not being exploited as we would desire. We hope this measure will revive interest in the mineral deposits of this country—zinc, copper, lead and coal— and that the State will take a more active part in exploration of this mineral wealth. It is tragic that there should be such untapped natural wealth abounding, and lying dormant and unexploited at a time when we have a vast labour pool denied the means of a livelihood.

I should like to pay tribute to those who are responsible for drawing up the Mines and Quarries Bill of 1964. It seems to me they are men who know their job and are familiar with the sufferings, the hardships and the dangers involved in mining and are anxious to do a good job of work in respect of this measure. In all that it contains for the improvement of the livelihood of these people, we welcome this measure and we shall, please God, on Committee Stage have some further observations to make which we believe will improve this measure and make it the kind of miners' and quarry workers' charter we desire. It is evident we shall not get another opportunity for improving this particular Bill for a long time to come and we wish, therefore, to avail of the opportunity on the Committee Stage to peruse it in greater detail and give the Minister and his Department the views of the workers and the trade unions concerned.

Let me express the hope that, when this Bill has been enacted those engaged in mining and quarrying in this country will feel that it was worthwhile and that they will have a greater sense of security in their work than heretofore. In respect of the State quarries to which the Minister refers, I should like to ask whether they include the many quarries being operated in this country by local authorities. If the Minister is expressing a view in respect of State quarries and State mines, would he indicate clearly whether these are deemed to be quarries which we know are owned, controlled and operated by the local authorities?

By and large, we welcome this measure and hope to improve upon it.

Mr. Leneghan

I welcome this Bill. It is an urgently required piece of legislation, more particularly in view of the fact that it is now obvious that we have great mineral wealth untapped in this country. Recent discoveries in Galway and parts of Mayo have proved that and, in preparation for obvious future development, this Bill is timely. However, it is not so much the legislation enacted in the Bill which counts as the regulations which will be formulated as a result of this legislation. I should like the Minister to bear in mind, in the formulation of any such regulations that he should be sane and sensible and ensure that these are not like some of the lunatic ones formulated under the recently passed Planning Act. There is no use introducing regulations purely for the sake of raising handy money, or regulations which obviously victimise certain sections of our community.

Any regulations introduced under an Act should be sensible and sane and should not in any way involve the placing of undue hardships on any of the parties involved. We have reached a position where regulation supersedes legislation. At this stage of our development it is hard to know whether it is for better or worse that such a position should arise. I believe that where the Minister himself will have common sense is in seeing through any flaws in regulations put before him by officials.

It is possible in the near future, if some of the present developing areas prove worthwhile, we will have more foreigners coming into this country. They may be coming in for our good to some extent, but my own candid opinion is that, generally speaking, they will not come in unless they know quite well it is for their own good. If it were only to protect our people against those who come in with the idea of exploiting us, this Bill is most important. I am glad to say that the employment of juvenile labour in mines and quarries is, as far as I know, at an end but some of those get-rich-quick people from outside may still think we are backward enough to tolerate that kind of thing. This measure makes it possible for us to take steps to prevent it.

I trust that the position under this legislation will not be that the owner of a mine will be regarded as the manager of that mine. If that were to be the situation, we could have a rich Egyptian coming in here as the owner of a mine. He might not know the English language, let alone have a knowledge of mining, yet he could be appointed as manager, as a competent person to manage a mine. It is very important that nobody will be accepted as manager of a mine unless he is competent. Nobody should get away with murder even if he is a moneyed foreigner. I am sure the Minister agrees with me.

I have a particular interest in this Bill because it is likely that mining may become important in the western part of the country in the near future. It is obvious to all that there must be great mineral wealth unexploited in the West. By the time it comes to be exploited I should like to see the regulations provided for in this Bill fully working, fully tested.

Our main objective here is the protection of workers in mines and quarries and while we may be inclined to busy ourselves overmuch with mines, we should not forget quarries. In the matter of quarries, local authorities are the greatest offenders in the State. For years they have been setting up crushers at every crossroads in the country but they have made no effort to protect their workers from rain, wind, hail but particularly from dust. They have never introduced any type of sprinkling system to prevent the dust rising. It is true of practically all local authorities who operate quarries.

It is a shocking state of affairs that because they are public bodies they can get away with downright murder. They are nothing better than potential murderers when they allow this dust to get into people's lungs. I hope the Minister will look into this matter most closely so that local authorities will in this respect be subject to the same stringent regulations as private operators of quarries—that steps will be taken not only to prevent accidents but to protect quarry workers from this dust menace.

If the regulations under this measure are to be of any value, inspectors must be employed to enforce them. Those inspectors must be men of integrity and ability, men who will go out and not be afraid to take action, no matter how drastic, against people contravening this Bill when it becomes law. It is no use sending out as inspectors fellows who have better eyelids than eyes, fellows who would close their eyes to offences. The whole value of the Bill will be defeated if competent inspectors are not appointed. Despite the fact that most of the important quarries in the country are situated beside trunk roads, I have never heard of a prosecution in my county. I hope that when these regulations are introduced, the Minister will not hesitate to have them enforced. I am glad the Bill is before the House and hope it will get through in the best possible form, as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Dillon

We have established in the House a special procedure for the codification of many branches of our laws. I put it to the Minister that what is required here is to get all mining and quarry law into the one Act. I fear we are falling into the same mistake we made in regard to the Official Secrets Act. We are trying to amend the law and codify it by the same Minister.

I put it to the Minister before that when we are seeking to codify law, the sensible thing to do is to take all the statutes requiring amendment, to amend them, then codify them by bringing in one Bill and putting it through the codification machinery the House has provided. In that way you effectively get in one Bill all the laws relating to mines and quarries. The Minister has tried to do that here, but if you look at the Table on page 41 and the First Schedule on page 65, you find that the Table on page 41 sets out that certain sections apply to quarries only. When you come to the First Schedule on page 65, you find that in many cases we are repealing the whole Act but we are retaining apparently part of the Payment of Wages in Public Houses (Prohibition) Act, 1883, 46 and 47 Vict. c. 31. Manifestly, our whole purpose here is to ensure that somebody advising mine owners will not have to refer back to the Payment of Wages in Public Houses (Prohibition) Act, 1883.

It is established what the form will be in relation to quarries and mines in Ireland. If we made what amendments were necessary to that old Act, we could then have repealed it in toto and reassured the people concerned with mines and quarries that it was no longer necessary. If we look further down at the list of repeals, we will find that in another Act there is total repeal but in the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906, 6 Edw. 7, c. 53, the extent of repeal is sections 1, 2, 3 and 5. Whether the balance of that Act has any reference to mining and quarrying in this country is a question that will have to be investigated by anybody seeking to advise those concerned with mines and quarries. If you look further down, you will find that we have repealed section 10 of the Police (Factories) Act and further down we have repealed section 19 of the Mining Act of 1920, c.50. Out of the Factories Act of 1955, we have deleted sections 21 to 28.

I think that procedure invites confusion. If we had introduced a Bill dealing with all these amendments and then produced a Mining and Quarries Bill, 1964, we would be in a position to say authoritatively to everybody concerned that there would no longer be any need to consult any other statute in regard to the law regulating mines and quarries because there would be no other statute operative except the Mines and Quarries Act, 1964.

This is a non-controversial measure to provide for regulations regarding mines and quarries, some of which require to be brought up to date but there are two matters to which I would like to refer. Deputy Treacy referred to the disease known as pneumoconiosis which affects miners. There is an absolute statutory obligation on mine owners to make whatever provision is necessary to prevent the incidence of pneumoconiosis and its appearance is conclusive evidence of neglect on the part of the mine owner and the question of damages lies against him. There is an absolute obligation on the mine owner to take such precautions as may be necessary to prevent a dust situation in his mine when he starts mining operations. That is as it should be.

Anyone who has seen in the old days an elderly miner dying of pneumoconiosis will agree that such a man is entitled to whatever damages he can obtain against the mine owner for allowing such conditions to obtain. I appreciate that the Minister may say that there is separate legislation dealing with industrial diseases but I would put it to him that there are forms of respiratory diseases in mines which do not seem to come within the general statutory description of pneumoconiosis. It would be well if the whole position was re-examined and that absolute liability was placed on the mine owner to ensure that such conditions would not obtain in his mine which would give rise to this industrial disease.

The last matter to which I wish to refer is this. In regard to the Shipping Acts there are statutory obligations placed on shipping companies to ensure that where they carry passengers certain safety drills will be carried out at regular intervals. This is done for the simple reason that there is no use having safety equipment if nobody knows how to use it. There is nothing more ghastly than to have a mining catastrophe in which men are entombed in the ground and I would be glad to hear if there is any power which requires the mine owner to have provision made for dealing with such a contingency if it should arise. It may be that our mining operations are on so limited a scale that we ought to consider having some central rescue service to which all mine owners would contribute and which would be available to them in case of accidents. The progress made in recent years in the invention of equipment for that purpose has been remarkable and we have all noted with admiration the equipment operated in Germany for the rescue of men entombed in a mine without which equipment they would have been lost.

Perhaps the Minister will say to me that this kind of equipment is of so unique a character that its availability must be based on an international agreement but I doubt if that is so. The Minister will be able to tell us, when he is replying, if it is so. I would suggest that any comprehensive measure dealing with mines and quarries should have regard to that contingency and we ought, if practicable, to place on mine owners the obligation of providing such equipment or of making arrangements for the use of such equipment in the shortest possible time where the necessity may arise. I can conceive a situation in which we might make an arrangement with the Mine Owners Association of Great Britain, if the installation of such equipment is beyond our own resources but, one way or the other, that is a matter to which we all have to have regard. When we are legislating in a definitive manner with regard to mines and quarries this is a provision which should be made.

This is a long and detailed Bill. It is not easy to examine it with the care it deserves for Committee Stage consideration in this House. I am glad, and I desire to acknowledge this, that when the Bill first came out it was not accompanied by a White Paper but when we directed the Minister's attention to this he was courteous enough and obliging enough to arrange for a White Paper to be provided. Even with the White Paper it is not an easy Bill to master without careful examination. I would have preferred to deal with an amending Bill first and to then have a codification Bill and I would suggest that in any future codification operation the Minister should adopt that procedure and avail of the codification machinery which we have provided for the better convenience of those who have to deal with such technical matters.

Mr. J. Lynch

I agree with most of what Deputy Dillon has said about amending and codification legislation. It is difficult to deal with both in the one measure but, as the Deputy is aware, there has been a lot of amending and bringing-up-to-date of legislation in my Department in the last couple of years and there is naturally a desire to get things done as quickly as possible to keep pace. I will accept the Deputy's advice in the case of future codification legislation.

Deputy Dillon and other Deputies referred to the prevalence of pneumoconiosis amongst miners. Unfortunately, it occurs even in mines where all the necessary precautions are taken and respiratory and preventive equipment is available. It is not easy to oblige a particular mine owner to carry the full burden of personal disability through pneumoconiosis. A mine owner may employ a workman who has already contracted the disease. I think that is one of the problems Deputy Treacy was referring to when he mentioned that insurance companies who carry mining risks often are in conflict with the Department of Social Welfare. Insurance companies allege that the pneumoconiosis from which the insured person might suffer was not contracted in the course of the employment they had insured but may have arisen in previous employment. I understand that is often the case and is one of the difficulties involved. Nevertheless, I am under the impression—I may be wrong—that the Department of Social Welfare are not that intransigent about paying disability benefit. They usually do pay if a man is unable to work because of the condition of his health. If it is established at a subsequent date that that condition arose out of an accident or conditions arising from his employment, the Department of Social Welfare usually seek recompense from the insurance company or the employer who is primarily responsible for the employment of the man in which he incurred that disability.

The Deputy may not have been quite correct in his reference to insurance cover. I know the mine owners have considerable difficulty in getting insurance cover because of the size of the premiums insurance companies request from mine owners for the cover of men who work for them. Again, that is largely brought about by the inherent physical danger involved in mining and, secondly, because of the difficulty of establishing when pneumoconiosis first took effect in a man's lungs. The mining owners came to me some time ago to see if I could do something to help. I have been trying to do all I can, but it is a difficult problem to resolve.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned a number of details which will be dealt with more adequately on Committee Stage. I agree with him and other Deputies that nobody in this House wants to gain political kudos from this Bill. Our whole purpose is to ensure that this legislation is enacted in the best way suited for what we want, that is to ensure that conditions of employment, safety methods and all other matters pertaining to mining are properly covered. I hope to give the House an adequate opportunity of helping me ensure we will have a good, workable piece of legislation when it ultimately emerges.

With regard to safety generally and to anticipate, if we can, mining difficulties, there is provided in this Bill a section which will enable regulations to be drawn up to have certain training carried out. It is a good idea that such training should not only be carried out at some stage but, as Deputy Dillon suggests, that there should be periodic exercises in that type of training. We have not at the moment any special equipment on hands to deal with specific mining difficulties, such as cave-ins, because the type of equipment used on such occasions is exactly the same type as mining operators use for drilling, boring and other operations. However, there is a very active Mines and Quarries Association in the country, composed of people who own mines or are managers of mines, and there are many technical people associated with them. I know of my own knowledge that they have come together to pool their resources on mining operations. I feel sure, apart altogether from the activities of the advisory council, that this is an aspect of mining to which this association will have full regard.

Deputy Treacy is not quite right in suggesting that this is a Bill in which we could provide for certain fringe and other benefits for miners. This is a Bill primarily designed to ensure, as far as we can, that the utmost safety precautions are applied to mining and to ensure that mine owners and managers will have the kind of safe equipment and type of operation to ensure the safety and health of their workers. Conditions of employment, such as wages, fringe benefits and redundancy pay, are matters outside the scope of the Bill, and I am sure Deputy Treacy will realise that.

Deputy Pattison asked about the advisory council. The council will consist, as the section provides, of a chairman and eight members. I do not think the qualifications of the eight members have been set out. If any difficulty arises about the adequate representation of miners as against mine owners, we can take this matter up on Committee Stage.

Another point raised by Deputy Treacy was that it should not be necessary to prohibit the employment of women and children in underground mines——

Mr. Dillon

Shades of Lord Shaftsbury !

Mr. J. Lynch

I suppose his Lordship would possibly be annoyed——

Mr. Dillon

No, he was the man who delivered the women from the mines, and the women nearly tore him to pieces.

Mr. J. Lynch

No; I was going to say he would be annoyed if we had to legislate to provide against that. But I think it is just as well that we should do it.

Mr. Dillon

He is the father of that legislation.

Mr. Treacy

It has not been happening here.

Mr. J. Lynch

But is it not better to ensure, as far as we can, that nobody should ask a woman or child to go down a mine?

Mr. Treacy

It is not likely to happen in these days.

Mr. J. Lynch

No, but it is better to have it in than to be without it.

Mr. Treacy

It is only carrying on the old English Act.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Leneghan referred to the possibility of an owner not having sufficient qualifications to appoint himself a manager. The qualifications required for a manager will be set out in the regulations to be prescribed under the Bill. It will not be sufficient for an owner to say willy-nilly that he appoints himself a manager and therefore satisfies the legislation. Not only will the manager have to be qualified but, whether he is the owner or not, he will have to be in attendance at the mine daily for consultation or, if not, a qualified man must be in attendance as his deputy. These obligations are clearly set out in the Bill.

Mr. Treacy

Will the Minister have regard to the plea I made that managers of quarries who are carrying out their duties satisfactorily now will not have their employment imperilled by this new legislation?

Mr. J. Lynch

There is a section which, I think, will enable that to be done. We can come to that on Committee Stage. I do not think there is any difficulty arising in the case mentioned by the Deputy.

Deputy Cosgrave asked whether certain regulations now in force by reason of the enactment of previous legislation would continue in force. Section 11 provides that this will be the case. So, on that score, Deputy Cosgrave need have no particular worries.

With regard to the regulations to be made, Deputy Richie Ryan made certain references to the undesirability of legislation by way of regulation. No matter what objections he and other members of his Party might have to this type of regulation under the aegis of legislation, in a case like this it is necessary. We may provide to the widest possible extent in a Bill like this that certain things may not be done in mines, that certain substances may not be brought near mines but it is quite possible that substances or equipment not now regarded as dangerous might be discovered at a later stage to be dangerous. It is better that there should be a quick method of dealing with eventualities or situations like that. I suggest that the regulations made under a Bill of this nature are the best means of covering matters like that.

In addition, of course, the advisory committee will have power, not only at the request of the Minister but of their own initiative, to take certain action which could include advising the Minister about the necessity for regulations or a difficulty about complying with regulations or the inadequacy of regulations. Therefore, in regard to the regulations that will be made under this Bill, apart altogether from the obligation of their being placed on the Table of the House, there will be adequate means of supervision and amendment as occasion requires.

I agree with Deputy Treacy that it is unfortunate that workers have not set up safety committees under the Factories Acts. That, of course, is their own fault. Arising out of that point, I want to assure Deputy Treacy that inspectors under the Factories Acts do not ignore workers in factories. I have heard that complaint. I have also had the complaint that inspectors pillory factory owners. It is only natural, if an inspector visits a factory, that he will go to the manager or personnel manager or somebody in charge, inform him of his presence and then proceed to visit the various parts of the factory. The fact that the inspector is accompanied by the factory manager or the personnel manager does not necessarily imply that he is in any way under the influence of the factory management generally. On the contrary I have received complaints that some of these inspectors start looking for too much, make too many complaints and often bring prosecutions over matters that might easily have been remedied on the spot had the factory management got adequate notice.

I am satisfied that the factory inspectorate in the Department of Industry and Commerce are carrying out their duties in a most satisfactory manner. There are very few factories, if any, that they do not visit at least once a year and there are many factories, no matter how small, that they visit at least a couple of times a year. The mining inspectorate in the Department is competent and will be able to carry out its duties in an impartial manner without in any way favouring a mine owner to the detriment of the mine or quarry worker. To answer a final question put by Deputy Treacy, those county council quarries do, in fact, come under the definition of State-owned property.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Minister one question. I mentioned to him that some ambiguity existed in regard to the definition of pneumoconiosis. I understand there is a statutory duty on mine owners to prevent the incidence of pneumoconiosis and if it arises in his mine that is in itself evidence of neglect on his part but pneumoconiosis has been declared by the courts to be a particular kind of lung inflammation associated with the inhalation of silica. The question has arisen whether the inhalation of coal dust comes within the statutory definition of pneumoconiosis. I would suggest to the Minister that the inhalation of any kind of dust in a mining or quarrying operation ought to come within the category of pneumoconiosis if it, in fact creates that condition. Perhaps the Minister will examine that question to see if any clarification is required in the safety regulation?

Mr. J. Lynch

I will, certainly.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. J. Lynch

I should like it to be ordered for Wednesday, 9th December. It is very likely that the amendments will not be ready by that time. I have some and I understand that Fine Gael and Labour have others. It could be ordered provisionally, at any rate.

Mr. Dillon

If that agreement is made, well and good. My suggestion would be to order it for the first sitting day after Christmas. That gives trade unions and interested parties abundant time to approach the Minister or Deputies if they have any interest in this business at all. Sometimes we are all approached with a remonstrance that such a thing has not been raised in Dáil Éireann but nobody mentions it until the Committee Stage of the Bill has passed. I do not think there is any urgency in this. If the Minister will set it down for the first sitting day after Christmas, it will let all take notice, and if they have any representations to make to trade unions, employers' federations or anybody else, they will have abundant time to do so and it is their own funeral if they do not.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am willing, but I understand that a Committee Stage must be fixed for a certain day and the next sitting day of the Dáil after Christmas is not yet certain.

Mr. Dillon

Then we will agree to fix it for a certain day next week and agree that it will be taken the first sitting day after Christmas, whenever that may be?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th December, 1964.