Mines (Health and Safety)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 6:48 pm on 26 October 1993.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Michael Forsyth Mr Michael Forsyth , Stirling 6:48, 26 October 1993

With the leave of the House, I should like to try to answer as many of the points made in the debate as I can. I shall be happy to write to hon. Members about any important matters that I do not have time to deal with.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made much of the "practicable" point as it applies to the regulations. He was echoed in that by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The hon. Member for Wansbeck waved the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and asked where the test of practicability was to be found in that Act. If he turns to section 157, he will find that it states: It shall be a defence in any legal proceedings to recover damages and in any prosecution, in so far as the proceedings or prosecution are or is based on an allegation of a contravention, in relation to a mine or quarry, of—

  1. (a) a provision of this Act…
  2. (b) a direction, prohibition, restriction…
  3. (c) a condition attached to an exemption".
It goes on to say that it shall be a defence to prove that it was impracticable to avoid or prevent the contravention. The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members argued that the idea of practicability was new. That argument is undermined by the fact that the 1954 legislation was subject to that test of practicability.