Does this apply to any ordinary stone quarry in the country?
Mines and Quarries Bill, 1964: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Sections 113 to 124, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 125.
Question proposed: "That section 125 stand part of the Bill."
Yes, it applies to every quarry.
I take it that a quarry is defined somewhere here. If you open a quarry on your land to build a cow house, is this covered or must it be a commercially operated quarry?
The definitions are back in section 3 (2).
I am wondering if I open a quarry to build a cow house, does that place on me a statutory obligation under section 125 to serve notice under this section if I intend to transfer?
Yes, it does.
Any man who raises a stone on his land becomes liable, if he subsequently sells the land, to serve notice on the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or he commits an offence under this section?
It does not make any change in the existing legislation. This has been in force since 1872 under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations Act, 1872 and the Coal Mines Act, 1911.
The only possibility is that the definition of "quarry" under section 3 may be wider now than it was when these regulations applied. Perhaps the Minister would consider the desirability of bringing within the ambit of section 125 every kind of stone raised by a man for use on his own land today?
I will consider it to see if there is any inconsistency.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 126 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 129.
Question proposed: "That section 129 stand part of the Bill".
Do I understand from the Minister that under this section it is proposed to appoint as inspectors only people who are qualified?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 130 to 136, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 137.
Question proposed: "That section 137 stand part of the Bill".
What is the new element in this section?
It makes it clear that the defence available to mine and quarry workers under section 135 of proving that responsibility had been expressly imposed on a responsible official does not absolve such mine or quarry owner from the obligation to pay damages in respect of a breach of a statutory duty by an employee. It makes it clear that in certain circumstances the mine or quarry owner cannot absolve himself by placing responsibility on his official. As to its being new I am not quite certain, except that it is not in previous legislation. Previous legislation provided that it would be a defence for a quarry owner to prove that the responsibility had been expressly imposed on another person. This section is new in that it seeks to remove any doubts there may be about a person seeking to absolve himself from his responsibility.
I am still not quite clear about it.
Section 135 refers to the defence that is available.
For a person acting per alios?
Section 137 is new. The section makes it clear that the defence available under section 135 will not automatically absolve mine or quarry owners from liabilities to pay damages in respect of breaches of statutory duties by employees. A breach of a statutory duty imposes a much greater responsibility on the person on whom that statutory duty lies. The section makes it clear that while certain responsibilities may be imposed on an employee, if there is a statutory duty involved a person will not be able to rely on section 135 in respect of a breach of that statutory duty.
That will not deprive a man of the right to sue the company as a result of such a breach?
I am more familiar with the Factory Acts in which, if a person puts a competent manager in charge of a floor in a factory and if the manager does not see fit to fence off a piece of dangerous machinery in that floor, the competency of the manager will not absolve the owner of the factory from the effects of that breach of a statutory duty.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 138 to 148, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 149.
Question proposed: "That section 149 stand part of the Bill."
This is new. What is new about it?
It is a new provision in respect of mines but it is already in the corresponding factory legislation, the Factory Act of 1955.
It places the mine employer in the same position vis-à-vis the Registrar General in the Factory Act?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 150.
Question proposed: "That section 150 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (2) of this section says that the advisory council shall consider and advise the Minister on any matters arising on or in relation to the execution of this Act, including any proposals by the Minister to make, amend or revoke any orders or regulations under this Act which the Minister may refer to the council. Does that mean that the council can consider only such matters as the Minister will refer to it? Will the council have the power to take up matters on its own?
There are quite a number of matters which the council may initiate themselves and in which they may give advice to the Minister.
The council will be consulted before any regulations are made?
Yes.
Is it proposed to refer the draft regulations to the council?
It is.
Has the Minister any idea of what the representation on the council may be?
There is nothing set out in the Bill indicating from what sources the membership of the council will be drawn but the Deputy can take it that the membership will be drawn from representatives of owners, workers and people otherwise qualifies to give advice.
It is a permanent body. Will the members have to seek re-appointment after one, two or three years?
There probably will be a period after which re-appointment must be sought. In such bodies there is usually a period of three or five years after which the members must be re-appointed and I imagine the same will apply in this case.
Question put and agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Next Stage?
Could we take all Stages now? I am afraid if we get into the Vote on Account, it might be a long time before I would get to the Seanad. There were only two points raised on Committee Stage to which I promised to give attention.
If the Minister proposes to amend the Bill, he could introduce the amendments in the Seanad.
I could.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.