Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 14

PRIVATE TEACHTAS' BUSINESS. - DEVELOPMENT OF COAL INDUSTRY.

Debate resumed on following motion:—

That in the opinion of the Dáil it is desirable that the Executive Council should exercise its influence to ensure the continuance and development of the natural resources of the country in minerals at Wolfhill, Castlecomer and Arigna.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

I had made one very small point in connection with this motion when it was last before the Dáil. I want to advert more particularly now to the terms of the motion. We are asked to declare.

That in the opinion of the Dáil it is desirable that the Executive Council should exercise its influence to ensure the continuance and development of the natural resources of the country in minerals at Wolfhill, Castlecomer and Arigna.

The Deputy confined most of his remarks, if not the entire of his remarks, to Wolfhill, but Deputy Cole, who seconded it, brought in one of the other mines, and Deputy Johnson rather made a general plea for these three mines.

The first point I have to make with regard to the motion is that none of these mines is Government property. Not a single one of these mines is at present entirely in the possession of the Government. If I leave out Wolfhill, I am sure the proposition which I put will be accepted even by Deputy Davin: that neither Castlecomer nor Arigna is at the moment in the legal ownership of the Government, or any section of the Government. With Wolfhill the position is somewhat different, but I believe the general proposition holds good even there, that the Government does not own the property in the mines at Wolfhill. Therefore, when we are asked to vote that the Executive Council should exercise its influence to ensure the continuance and development of the mineral resources of the country in minerals in these three cases, it must be remembered how weak that motion is. It simply is that the Government shall—the vague phrase is used—use its influence to ensure that certain resources shall be continued or shall be kept continuously in development at these three places.

Mr. DAVIN

On a point of personal explanation, I take no responsibility for the wording of the resolution, but in consultation with the Ceann Comhairle I think I agreed it should read, with the permission of the Minister, "the continued development."

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is a small point I was going to make, that the Deputy presumably did mean the continued development. Taking it in that way, this is a very vague thing: that the Government should use its influence to ensure the continued development of the mineral resources of these three places. I believe I can simply answer that by stating that the Government has no control over any of these mines and, consequently, I feel that I can readily accept this motion because it binds me, as a member of the Government, and binds the Government as a whole, to nothing, or to something which is so vague and so unsubstantial that it can be dismissed as nothing.

Deputy Davin made his case about Wolfhill, and he gave us certain interesting figures with regard to the working of the mines under the present miners' committee—figures which I do not attempt to criticise here. I have no wish to criticise them, but even if I had I have not sufficient details. Deputy Egan raised one point. He wished to know if there were any charges in the sums mentioned by the Deputy towards the weekly expenses list, towards the depreciation of the plant and machinery or towards the provision of new plant. He wanted to know whether these overhead expenses and new charges were met to any degree in the list of expenses which the Deputy gave. I presume they were not. I presume he meant the wages paid.

Mr. DAVIN

Yes, and I quoted the figures accordingly.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Therefore if we criticise the figures, such as those given by Deputy Davin, they are not sufficiently detailed for proper criticism and for meeting the case put up, namely, that the Miners' Committee could make the mine a success over a long period in the future. The Deputy has shown, provided we accept his figures, that the mine as at present being worked has shown something in the way of a profit, where it previously has shown a loss.

Mr. DAVIN

I assume that the Minister is not challenging the figures.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I cannot challenge things which the Deputy simply states. The figures have not been subject to examination. I do not impugn the Deputy's honesty in giving the figures. They have been put before us; we have taken them as stated, and we say that on them there is not a sufficient case made to show that the Miners' Committee could continue to work this single mine at a profit in the future. The Deputy alleged gross mismanagement on the part of those who had previously run the mine, and, while he was indulging in criticisms of the previous management, he asked that there should be stated here what sum of money was set aside, through the National Land Bank, for the purchase of machinery, and how far, to the best of our information, the money was expended for the purpose for which it was given. I am informed by the Ministry for Finance that, approximately, £25,000 was given for the purpose of purchasing the necessary machinery and equipment. Beyond that I cannot go. I could not state to what that money was applied. That was a matter for the Board of Directors.

Mr. DAVIN

Not for the Board of Directors from the date on which the mine was taken over and managed by the National Land Bank charged with the expenditure of Government money.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I shall have to take two distinct periods. There was a period in which the mine was under the control of the Committee of Management or Board of Directors, and there was another period in which it was in charge of a receiver appointed by the National Land Bank. There was a third period of recent date when it was in charge of a manager and receiver appointed by the courts. In the earliest period, £25,000 was given for the purchase of machinery.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister state at what date the court intervened in this matter?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not want too much to be taken from my words, but I can answer the Deputy in this way: In the last fortnight a manager and receiver have been appointed by the courts. In the earliest of these three periods a sum of, approximately, £25,000 was given for the purchase of the necessary equipment, including machinery. How far that was expended on machinery, or equipment of any sort, I do not know. It was the business of the directors to see to that. The Board of Directors appointed a manager of their own free choice, and it was their business to see that he applied the money for the purposes for which it was got.

Mr. DAVIN

Was that money voted since 1923, when the National Land Bank took over control?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That I cannot say. I understand it was in the earliest period, in which the mine was under the control of the board of directors. I understand that it was not in the period since the National Land Bank did what the Deputy phrases as "taking control." There were certain items on which the Deputy wanted information. He wanted to know how much money was put into the concern by the National Land Bank. To go into all this would take the period back to January, 1922, when a sum of £25,000 was lent by the National Land Bank on the guarantee of the Provisional Government. Later, in July, 1923, the date on which the National Land Bank was paid off, the working of the colliery was financed by the National Land Bank, the Bank receiving debentures to the extent of £50,000 over the company's assets. In September, 1924, the National Land Bank took over the mine under the terms of the debenture agreement. What I have mentioned so far may be called direct payment. In addition to that, there was certain assistance given to the mine. For instance, the Board of Works placed contracts for coal with the Wolfhill people and put up a certain amount in advance as payment for it. The advance at one period amounted to £12,000. In addition to that, there was a sum of money originally paid for the construction of the colliery railway, which could be counted as money put in by some Government source, for the continuance and working of the mine at something like a cost of £150,000. Those are three items, and exactly which of them the Deputy wants, or for what purpose he wants it, I am not clear. There was certainly not less than £200,000 put into that mine.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister give the information in this way: if, as would be proper in a case of this kind, an estimate, supplementary or otherwise, was put forward to cover the money advanced and spent, what would be the extent of that sum? I ask for detailed figures as to how the money has been spent. I am ruling out of consideration the £50,000, which has nothing to do with my proposal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

To give a definite answer to that question would involve great difficulty. The Deputy in his speech always referred to the Government as having control of this mine, but once or twice he corrected himself by changing the synonym from the Government to the National Land Bank, and on one occasion he referred to the Government through its agent, the National Land Bank. The sum of money which would have to be put on estimate for presentation to the Dáil would differ in so far as the National Land Bank, in its negotiations with the Company was, in fact, an agent for the Government for such purpose. It is not enough for the Deputy's purpose to establish that the National Land Bank has certain Government money and to conclude from that that in everything it does it is acting as an agent for the Government. There would be a sum of £25,000 put on such estimate.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

Would the Minister say whether the £50,000 debentures issued by the National Land Bank were guaranteed by the Government?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not even clear that these sums were guaranteed by the Government directly. I think they were covered by the general guarantee given by the Government to the National Land Bank.

Mr. DAVIN

Before going into these very delicate details, if the Minister would give first of all the written conditions on which responsibility was taken by the Ministry of Finance it would save a good deal of trouble in the matter of explanations.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Would the Deputy put his question more clearly? Does he mean the conditions under which the mine was taken over by the Minister for Finance?

Mr. DAVIN

The condition of guarantee.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The condition of guarantee was never taken over by the Ministry of Finance.

Mr. DAVIN

I did not say that. The Minister specifically stated that £25,000 was advanced for the purpose of purchasing machinery, and a guarantee was given by the Provisional Government, which is, I presume, in some Government Department, that is, the conditions under which this money, or other money, may have been given for this or any other purpose in connection with the working of the mine.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think the Deputy is again adding together things and making too much of them. A loan of £25,000 was given by the National Land Bank to the mine, and it was guaranteed by the Provisional Government. That was afterwards paid off, and to that extent that represented a gift of £25,000 by the Government to the colliery owners. Later there was an arrangement under which the figure was £50,000, and of that £25,000 was set aside for machinery. What the exact terms were I do not know. I have not got them here.

Mr. DAVIN

Are not the taxpayers of this country entitled to know, and particularly the people interested in the mine, if there are any available resources, and to get any actual facts the Ministry may have? These should be in possession of the Ministry, or in some other department.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not clear as to what the country is entitled to know regarding this matter, for it is a very mixed sort of transaction. The Government does not control or own the mine. The Government has given certain moneys to it under the corresponding method that a guarantee is given as regards loans under the Trade Loans Facilities Act, where a schedule has to be prepared giving the items such as the Deputy asks, but there was no obligation regarding the publication of a schedule when the money was given to the Wolfhill people. I do not know that I am bound to give that information, or that the Deputy has a right to ask for it. I have no information to give at the moment. I admit that some money was given for the purchase of machinery. That is not much good to the Deputy, unless he wants me to go further and admit that it was spent for other purposes than the purchase of machinery. If that is so, that was the business of the board of directors and their manager.

Mr. EGAN

Could the Minister say what is the total Government money sunk in the mine, directly or indirectly, including the railway?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The amount of money advanced through the Government for the purposes of the mine amounts to £212,000, and in addition there are sums under the agreement made just before Christmas whereby money was diverted from the unemployment relief fund, and given over for the purpose of keeping the pumps going and keeping the mine from being submerged. These sums amounted in December to £950, January £950, February £400, and the estimate for March is £200.

Mr. DAVIN

It should not go abroad that money has been spent by or with the authority of the present Government in connection with the development of Wolfhill, which in reality has not been so spent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was answering a question by Deputy Egan, who asked me to state what amount of money directly or indirectly had been advanced. I put it at something near a quarter of a million pounds. After giving the history of the operations under the Miners' Committee the Deputy came to what was the point of his motion—that is to say, he made a suggestion that the Government, through its agent, the National Land Bank, should so operate on the directors of the mine as to induce them to pass a winding-up resolution, for the purpose evidently of letting the mine be taken over later by the Miners' Committee. That, however, is only an assumption, but the Deputy made a suggestion that a winding-up resolution should be passed. That gets us back to the very difficult circumstances surrounding this whole matter. It is not in the Government's power to make the directors pass the resolution the Deputy requires, except by a method he would not approve, that is by cutting off all sums of money, in which case the National Land Bank will want to get rid of sustained and definite losses. That would readily bring the directors to wind the company up, and to get this mine off their hands. I agree with the Deputy when he says that the present position cannot last indefinitely. The present position is not intended to last indefinitely. There is a very definite limit set to it by the provision of this money, for the agreement was that any moneys handed over from the Unemployment Relief Fund to keep pumps going were to cease at the end of March, so that so far as the Deputy's point is concerned he is going to be met. Deputy Johnson said that inasmuch as this mine represented national property it should not be allowed to come to the point where flooding will take place, and where the property will be very much depreciated, and if anyone afterwards intended to work it it would entail very considerable expense in bringing it to its present state. If the Government did own this mine, they are faced with the proposition that since January, 1922, there has been lost not merely from Government sources, but by the old directors, the National Land Bank, and the Government, at least a quarter of a million pounds.

Mr. DAVIN

Can you give rough and ready figures dealing with that amount?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

To be able to do so I should have the directors' figures regarding the losses, and I have not got them, but from the three sources I have mentioned there was a loss of a quarter of a million.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does that include the cost of a railway provided by the British Government?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. The totals happen to be the same, but there is a different sum. That includes the money put into the mine. It is not a question of the Board of Works contract of £12,000, and it is not a question of the colliery railway, but of the actual money put into the mine, and for which there was no return. The figures the Deputy gave us are not sufficiently detailed to be criticised, but on the basis of those we are asked to take a risk. We have seen what our own losses are, and we have an estimate of what the directors' losses are, and notwithstanding that and after control by the Miners' Committee since about January, and seeing what they can do, we are asked whether we are inclined to let the mine run on. It is not a very sound proposition, and it is one which the Minister for Finance would require to have a much longer opportunity to consider.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy had previously asked a question, and in his remarks adverted again to the expert's report. He demanded that the expert's report should be made public, that at least it should be laid before the House. I interjected that that could not happen, because the report was not the property of the Minister for Finance, or of any Minister, and I think the Deputy's retort on that was that that was so much the better, because it showed that the Government had taken no steps to find out what was the true position with regard to this mine. There are two very definite things here to be considered. There was a report prepared on the mine and its potentialities. That report was sent to the Minister for Finance for his information. He saw what was in it, and saw the arguments. He took into consideration the reputation of the man who wrote it, and he came to certain conclusions. He could do all that, and could conclude that that was sufficient to save him from incurring any further public expense in getting a report of his own, while at the same time he could surely insist that as it was not his report it was not for him to make that report public. I again repeat what I said, that the report was received, was read and considered, and on the basis of that report—not completely on the basis of that report, but with the surrounding and attendant circumstances—certain decisions were taken.

I again repeat that it is not in the power of the Minister for Finance to lay that report before the Dáil. It is not his property, he has no control over it. He was given it for his information, and he took what was in it and came to certain conclusions on it. I think it is quite fair to state, and one can reasonably state it, that the Minister for Finance had certain information before him, although he may not have had to incur Government expense to get that information. One of the owners of the mine said that in order to clear up things in regard to its future he himself was prepared to fee an expert to look into the matter, and the expert's report was presented to the Minister for Finance for his information.

The other mines referred to, Castlecomer and Arigna, are clear-cut cases. They are in the hands of individuals. Three individuals are concerned in the ownership of these two mines. The Government has no say whatever as regards the disposition of these people's property. Deputy Morrissey asked a question about the Tipperary mines. The position there, as I understand it, is, that a syndicate has been formed to look into the coal resources in South Tipperary and to acquire capital for the working of the Slievardagh mines. I understand that so far no difficulties have been met with by the syndicate in getting the information and the money they have set out to get. Of course, enterprise of that kind is of a sort which the Government would welcome, but again I say it is not a matter in which the Government could interfere.

Mr. MORRISSEY

May I take it that the Government will be prepared to give any assistance they can as regards these Slievardagh mines?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I prefer to keep to my own phrase, that enterprise of this kind is of a sort which the Government would welcome. If one uses vague phrases in the sense of giving assistance there is an immediate reaction. It is looked upon as if it was to be monetary assistance. Then we get into those mixed transactions that we have had in regard to the Wolfhill mines.

With regard to this motion, it is quite acceptable. I do not believe that it means very much. It is a pious expression that the Government will exercise its influence to ensure certain things. The Government will support that. The Wolfhill Colliery must be looked at in the light of its past history, and that past has been a deplorable one. It may have arisen from the reasons that Deputy Davin has set out, and there may be other explanations. At all events there has been a report in regard to it. The only suggestion the Deputy made was that another report should be obtained, not from an English or a Welsh engineer, but that a continental expert should be brought in to examine the Wolfhill Colliery. That suggestion I can put before the Minister for Finance, and see what attitude he will take upon it. No such action, not even that action can be taken with regard to the other two mines, Castlecomer and Arigna, because they are completely out of Government control.

I do not propose to follow Deputy Figgis into his expert evidence with regard to coal mines in Ireland and South Wales, culm and various other matters with which he dealt. Deputy Johnson's remarks were directed to our national resources. I would accept what Deputy Johnson said with regard to the national resources, but I do not think that these three mines which have been named would fit in under his heading. If the Wolfhill Colliery properly became absolutely the property of the Government, then the remarks that Deputy Johnson made about it would apply, and under these conditions I would accept them.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister ask us to assume that if it were satisfactorily proved to his mind that a mine which had been developed and was capable of turning out so many tons of coal in the year for the benefit of the country was being generally mismanaged and was likely to be destroyed through flooding, it would not be incumbent on him to save that national resource to the nation, even if it meant his interfering with the proprietors?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I could accept that general proposition, but again I say the Wolfhill Colliery does not fit in under it.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the point of my contribution, such as it was, was to the effect that the Minister should satisfy himself that there was something valuable there that ought to be conserved, and that should not be allowed to go to ruin through flooding.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I thought that I dealt with that point when I was replying to Deputy Davin's suggestion that another report on the mine should be obtained. I do say that all the evidence available so far, the history of the mine and the expert report, goes to prove that the Wolfhill Colliery is not a good proposition. If some other proposition came along which put the mine in the position that Deputy Johnson suggests, a mine capable of producing so much coal and becoming a national resource, and if that was likely to be destroyed by flooding, then it would undoubtedly be the duty of the Government to take steps to prevent such a thing occuring.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister seemed to rule out that proposition, because this happened to be private property.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think there would be difficulty, but if the thing was shown to be a great national resource there would be less difficulty then in interfering with the right of the private property-holder who was letting a very valuable national asset depreciate. But when it has, so far from being a very valuable national asset, proved to be a very great national liability in so far as it came on the national funds, then there would be more scruple in interfering with the right of the private property-holder. I do not know if I have quite segregated all the figures that Deputy Davin asked for. I had a certain segregation of them, but I do not know if that meets the Deputy's point.

Mr. DAVIN

I know that the Minister has official figures available in his Department, and whatever figures he has to give I would like them to go on the records. It is ten days since I asked for some of those figures.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the Deputy will indicate whatever figures he thinks have not been given to him, before the debate concludes I will see what can be done to meet him in regard to that.

Mr. DAVIN

This is not a personal matter with me at all. I am prepared to accept whatever figures the Ministry put before me. I am sure they will put reliable figures before the Dáil, but what I am concerned about is to get these figures on the records.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was dealing more with the quantity of figures. I have given to the Deputy and to the Dáil all the information, with regard to the figures and everything else, that I have at my disposal. If there are any gaps to be filled in and if the Deputy indicates them, I will see what can be done.

Mr. DAVIN

They are all gaps as far as I am concerned.

Mr. E. DOYLE

I should like to say a few words on this matter. So far the Minister contended that our national resources do not lie in coal mines like Wolfhill. If the Government of the country does not see that our national resources, and one of the life-giving streams of the nation, such as this is, are protected against outside or inside interference where will people look for protection? One particular case the Minister has not mentioned, and that is Castlecomer. I have connection with Castlecomer, and I know that the mines are fairly well developed there, but at present the men are only working half time. That is a terrible state of affairs, and it should not be the position at the moment. I saw recently that our native Government purchased coal probably from England for distribution largely in West Cork and in Connemara to keep the home fires burning in Ireland.

I think it was Dean Swift said on one occasion that we were to burn everything English except coal. I should not like to go so far as that at the moment, but I think it is the duty of the State to come to the rescue of the mines in some way. At all events I think we should make our local institutions and all our barracks in the Saorstát purchase and burn Irish coals as part of our national resources. These resources should be protected in every way possible, because after all, who is to come to the rescue if our native Govearnment is not going to do so? We have thousands of people unemployed at the moment and we will have them in the future if our national Government is not able to provide work. We will have nothing but the gaols and the workhouses and all these things if our native Government does not come to the rescue. I certainly hope it will be the policy of the Ministry and the Executive to develop our resources in such a way as will render foreign invasion well nigh hopeless. I hope the Minister will look into this matter at as early a date as possible and see that our resources are protected.

Mr. DAVIN

I am quite prepared, candidly, to admit, at the outset, that my object in putting down this motion on the paper has not been achieved. Last October, during a discussion in this House, of supplementary estimates on the Relief Grants Vote, Deputy Shaw, who, I regret, is not here, and who knows a good deal about the management or the mismanagement of the Wolfhill colliery, made a statement that the failure of the colliery was due, and due alone, to the action of the Labour Party and the people working the mines. I was not very much prompted by that ridiculous statement in putting down my motion, but I thought I was quite fair in moving this motion so that the case might be either refuted or established, and that the Government should give to the House the information they undoubtedly have at their disposal as to the amount of money actually put into the mine on the authority of the Ministry of Finance since the Provisional Government first took the responsibility for the management of this concern. I asked, in moving that motion this day week, what were the conditions originally accepted by the Government, and what were the conditions placed upon the directors then in control when the first advance was made on the guarantee of the Provisional Government. I think there was nothing unfair in asking for information of that kind, because I am quite sure that £25,000 was not advanced by any body of business men or by any Government or by any Ministers merely on word of mouth or on a verbal conversation between individuals representing the Government on the one side and the directors on the other. There must be something on record to show and particulars as to what were the conditions imposed on both parties with regard to the guarantee of that £25,000 to which the Minister referred. That, I claim, I am entitled to know, and I think that the Minister should be in a position in the week that has intervened to dig up that document and produce it to the House.

I heard various figures quoted as to the amount of money lost, stolen or strayed with regard to the conduct and development of this mine. I never heard until to-night the figure put at the exaggerated sum of £250,000. The Minister has included in that figure the amount of money spent on the construction of the Wolfhill Railway, which was given free by the British Government and had nothing to do with any responsibility of the Provisional Government or any Government which succeeded it. That, as we all know, applied in the same way to the Arigna mines. Money was given by the British Government at the time for the purpose of building connecting railways to the collieries so that the shipping which was so valuable to them during the European War period would not be used unless absolutely necessary to bring coal from England to Ireland. No amount of exaggeration could credit the loss to the working of the Wolfhill Colliery—if one were to put it that way—of this figure of £150,000 for the railway. That railway will remain there until the colliery closes down unless the Government proposes to sell the rails. That sum of £150,000 should be subtracted from any alleged loss in connection with the working of this mine.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister clear up that? As I understand, the total of £250,000 was exclusive of the £150,000, the cost of the colliery railway. This is very important, because I gather, taking three years and three months, there must have been 750 men employed at £2 per week for the whole period whose wages are entirely lost.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think the trouble arises from the fact that I mentioned two sums of a quarter of a million. They are two distinct sums. In answer to Deputy Egan, who asked what money directly or indirectly coming through the Government, the National Land Bank or otherwise, had been put into the Wolfhill mine, I gave certain figures. I took the £25,000 and the £50,000, the two sums of £950, a sum of £400 and a sum of £200, and a sum of about £12,000 advanced on foot of the work, and with the money expended on the railway I said that meant, roughly, £250,000, or more accurately £237,000. I said, further, leaving this amount aside, there was a second figure, the amount of money that could be calculated as lost since January, 1922, and I said it was lost by three sets of people, the Government, the National Land Bank and the Directors of the mine, and that sum also I estimated at £250,000.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the railway belong to the mining company?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It does not.

Mr. JOHNSON

Was that included in the last sum?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was not included in the last sum of £250,000. It was included in the first sum, the sum I gave in answer to Deputy Egan when he said the moneys directly or indirectly contributed to the mine. The money advanced by the British Government amounted to £150,000. That railway is still there. To that extent there is an asset. It is not worth £150,000.

Mr. JOHNSON

It does not belong to the mining company.

Mr. DAVIN

I am not prepared to accept in this House or outside of it, from anybody, in connection with a purely business transaction, figures which cannot be supported by details when they are asked for. Any company, private or public, demands that figures should be supported and explained when necessary. I wonder whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce included in his £250,000 this £160,000 nominal capital, £110,000 of which was placed on the Stock Exchange for speculators. Is that included?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is quite clear that I could not include £160,000 in a sum of £150,000.

Mr. DAVIN

It is £250,000.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have already given three quarters from which money has come. Two of those were sufficiently designated. The third is a matter for the directors. I am not going to give the figures of directors' losses. I have nothing to do with them. I have heard a statement and an estimate of their losses. The Deputy ought to realise that this is a mixed transaction, and I cannot be asked to account for moneys lost at a time when the Government had nothing to do with the mine.

Mr. DAVIN

I spent fifteen years in an accountant's office juggling, if you like, with figures and carrying out instructions. I have got more mixed up with the Minister's explanation in connection with this matter than I have at any time. The fact is that the National Land Bank took responsibility as the agents of the Government in connection with the working of this mine from September, 1923, and with the consent of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce actually had the appointment of the manager of the mine. Beyond that date I know that figures are at the disposal of the Land Bank. Figures should be available to the Government in respect of every penny spent in the working and development of this mine. All I ask is that the conditions be given as to the money advanced, as to how much of the money advanced was spent in wages and how much set aside for the purchase of machinery, and how much of the amount advanced for the purchase of machinery was spent for the purpose for which it was given. I think that is a definite and plain question which, with a week's time to prepare, should be capable of being answered. I think the Minister if he has the answer should give it to the House now. When a person talks of the failure of a mine or a business concern, he is bound at the final meeting of the shareholders who put money into the concern to give an explanation as to what were the causes of the mismanagement, or failure if you like to say so. That is all I am asking for in this case, because the Government, through the Minister and through one of the Deputies who supported him, made statements to the effect that the colliery has failed.

The Minister said there was nothing, so far as the reports in his hands were concerned, from the point of view of relieving unemployment or developing available coal resources, which would justify them in putting any more money into the mine. That is the position, and therefore I assume that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is on his defence, and such an able person as he is should be able to answer those very simple questions which would be put to him if he were a director of the Wolfhill Collieries Company, Limited. My only concern is to secure, if it is possible, the assistance of the Government in order that the 194 men who were employed on this very useful work during a number of years would continue to receive employment by means of some reformation of the company, or through whatever influence the Government might exercise to keep the mine a going concern. I have stated the offer the miners were prepared to make in order to prove that they had confidence in the future of the mine. They were prepared to help to whatever extent they were able with their own limited resources. Since last December, the period in which the miners took control, several appointments have been made with the old directors of the Wolfhill Collieries Company, Limited, but we have not met more than two of the old directors. I ask that any influence which can be exercised through members of this House and the other House, and the local people interested, should be exercised to enable the colliery to be conducted as a going concern in the future. Having admitted that we have failed in that respect I think it is only fair that the facts should be put before the House, and the House should say whether or not the mine should be closed down, and whether or not the Government should take responsibility for it, if it is unable to do anything for the 194 men employed there on useful and productive work.

I brought the matter forward for another reason, because I realise that without being able to provide suitable pumping machinery which would prevent the mine being flooded in a short time, it would be useless later to enter into any negotiations or to ventilate the matter in the House. Once the mine floods it automatically closes down. If the miners who are conducting the mine to-day had at their disposal a sufficiently large sum of money to enable them to provide proper pumping and other machinery they would have no hesitation in carrying on under the existing arrangements, and in giving better proof to the House and the public that the mine is not that badly managed and uneconomic concern which it has been represented to be.

The machinery that is there—I am speaking as a layman, but I listened to the judgment of engineers upon it— makes it dangerous for the workmen to go 200 yards beneath the surface in order to eke out a miserable existence at an occupation which few people would choose. The mine can only be worked by the men, under the existing arrangement, up to 31st March. After that date, it cannot be worked without the consent of the National Land Bank. The mine is not the miners' property. It is the property of the shareholders and directors of the Wolfhill Collieries, Limited, the National Land Bank having some claim upon the machinery or portion of the assets, if and when they are realised.

The Minister accepted, because he was not able to criticise, the figures that I quoted. The figures I quoted were not from the proper balance sheet of a going business concern but from the weekly revenue returns. The figures I quoted—I did not like to go into any great detail—are available at the National Land Bank. I know that they have been examined by the Minister's own permanent officials, who have done a good deal to help in connection with this colliery. If the Minister had time to go into these figures, as I have done, he would be in a position to criticise them. But they are in no way different from the figures at the National Land Bank, which have been seen by his own permanent officials.

I am not prepared to take responsibility—I am sure Deputy Egan and Deputy Bulfin, who are acquainted with the working of this concern, are not prepared to take responsibility either—for the closing down of this mine, if any proper arrangement can be arrived at, through the agency or influence of the Government, which will enable it to be carried on. If there are available coal resources in this country, it is the duty of the Government, put in power by the people for the time being, to develop those resources and reduce the amount of coal we have to import and which we send money out of the country to pay for. I quoted figures to show that we have actually to provide fuel for heat-producing purposes to the extent of 65 per cent. That is very serious, and it is silly for people to be using high-sounding political phrases about the great freedom we have, or that we could get under another label, when we are economically dependent for fuel on outside countries to the extent I have mentioned.

I do not desire to delay the Dáil, because I am fully confident that the Minister has more information on this matter than I have myself. I ask him to use his independent judgment, taking all the factors into consideration, and endeavour to secure that this mine will be carried on as a going concern, with the assistance of the Government, after 31st March. I made no claim that the miners should be the controlling influence after the 31st March. I had no authority to put such a proposition before the House. I did say—perhaps the Minister misunderstood me—that the miners were prepared to take shares to the extent of £2 per man in whatever future company was formed, as a result of the intervention of the Government. I hope the Minister will give to the House the figures which I demanded on this night week, when I moved this motion. If he is unable to do so, if he requires time to secure those figures, which I know are available, then will he give to the House, for the purpose of record for future reference, the figures to support the statement he made here to-night?

I ask, A Chinn Comhairle, that my motion be amended to read:

That, in the opinion of the Dáil, it is desirable that the Executive Council should exercise its influence to ensure the continued development of the natural resources of the country in minerals at Wolfhill, Castlecomer, and Arigna.

Leave given to amend the motion accordingly.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister stated that he was prepared to give figures at the end of the debate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I said that if the gaps were indicated to me I would endeavour to fill them in. But I have not been enlightened as to where the gaps are. That statement is to be taken in conjunction with my explanation that there are certain figures which I am not at liberty to give, inasmuch as they are figures for a period in which the mine was not even indirectly under Government control.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Perhaps when the Deputy reads the report of the Minister's speech, he will ascertain the figures he requires and put a question to the Minister.

Motion put and agreed to.