Vol. 215 No. 5
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), page 9, line 53 deleted and in page 10 lines 1 to 5 deleted.
The effect of the amendment is to delete the interpretation of the word "inset." The word was used in an earlier draft of the Bill and it was removed, and the deletion of the interpretation is consequential on the removal of the word.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
In page 11, line 51 "(other than a special regulation)" deleted.
This amendment relates to the making of a special regulation under the Act. Because of the wide consultations required for special regulations, it was not thought necessary to have each special regulation laid before the House of the Oireachtas. The Second Schedule provides that an application for the making of a special regulation shall be made only by an inspector, an owner or the majority of the workers, and that the application shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed regulation. It provides that the Minister shall give notice to the person affected of his intention to make a regulation, and arrange for the provision of copies of the draft and other facilities for objections to the special regulation. Members of the Seanad felt that the object of a general regulation might be achieved by making several special regulations. That is unlikely, but they pressed me to accept the amendment. It does not make any very great change in the Bill and I am willing to accept it.
Assuming that the special regulation is deleted, what publicity will then be given to these regulations? Is there any method by which people would be informed generally that the regulations are in existence? If they are tabled, people will know about them.
They will be tabled now in spite of the fact that there was broad consultation before.
They will still be tabled?
I accepted an amendment to have them tabled.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be taken together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), line 4 "(if any)" deleted.
I accepted an amendment to delete these words. It was suggested that they were not necessary and at the same time implied that qualifications for managers and owners of mines ought not to be prescribed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), line 47 "(if any)" deleted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Before subsection (4), page 21, a new subsection inserted as follows:
"( ) Every road which is used at the beginning or end of a shift by not less than six persons shall be kept free from obstruction and the floor thereof shall be kept in good repair."
The provision proposed in the Seanad is similar to the provision in the British Act of 1954. I accepted the amendment as I consider it an improvement to the Bill.
This is a safety requirement?
Yes.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
In subsection (3), line 24 "subsection (1) of" inserted before "this".
This is a drafting amendment affecting section 37. It would appear at the moment that a person might appeal against an easement which would be most unlikely. This amendment is intended to make quite clear that the right of appeal against an inspector's notice applies only to a notice served under subsection (1). Subsection (2) gives easement and would be unlikely to cause an appeal.
Why does the Minister say it is unlikely?
It is unlikely that a person would appeal against benefit to himself. It was not clear in the Bill, and this is just a drafting change in order to make it clear.
Unless he wanted to do better, of course.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 would seem to be consequential on one another.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Before section 89 a new section inserted as follows:
It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to provide and maintain, for the use of persons employed thereat, an adequate supply of drinking water at suitable points conveniently accessible to all such persons.
I should like to take the three amendments together. They provide that regulations may require provision for washing and changing, canteen facilities, and an adequate supply of drinking water. On Committee Stage in the Dáil, the Minister made suggestions that the Bill should require the provision of certain facilities. Having regard to the sizes of mines, the Minister undertook to see what should be the minimal requirements and what should be desirable. These amendments provide for a supply of drinking water which would be a minimal facility and should be a statutory requirement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
In line 10 "and" added at the end and in line 14 "and" deleted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Paragraph (d), lines 15 to 17, inclusive, deleted.
Could the Minister indicate at this stage when it is proposed to bring the Bill into operation?
It will be brought in by order, which will depend on the making of regulations.
Adequate notice will be given?
Yes.
