Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

We posed this question previously and received the same reply in respect of it. A number of people sought legal advice on this matter in the interim and the answers provided to date, and repeated here, have been examined. The Mines and Quarries Act 1965 seems to clearly indicate a secondary liability issue in the context of the State, as licenser and inspector of the mines, having a duty of care. The position is somewhat similar to that which obtained with regard to industrial schools. The State was obliged to pay its fair share of compensation in respect of people at such schools who were abused by those who were not working for the State. At the time in question, the State had a supervisory role in respect of industrial schools and, therefore, had a duty of care which it neglected.

The same rationale can be used in the context of mining. I accept that mining was not a State business. However, the State had an integral role to play with regard to granting permissions and inspecting the way in which mining was conducted. That is the issue we are getting at here. A small number of those who worked in mines, over many years in most cases, are still alive. They are looking for a small recognition of the fact that the conditions they worked in, under State licence and supervision, have had a dramatically negative effect on their health. That is the issue the Minister needs to address today.

See this speech in context