Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill, 1941—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 8, inclusive agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment 1:

Before Section 9 to insert the following new section:—

9. The State mining licence granted by the Minister to the Company under the immediately preceding section of this Act shall contain such provisions as the Minister thinks necessary to ensure that the wages paid and the conditions of employment observed by the Company shall not be less favourable to the workers employed by the Company than the wages which would be paid and the conditions of employment which would be observed if the work were carried out under a contract between the Minister and the Company containing a fair wages clause similar to that for the time being contained in contracts made by Ministers and Government Departments.

In our legislation so far, we have inserted a provision of this kind in the Railway Act, 1924 and the Railways Act, 1923. We have inserted a protective clause in the Road Traffic Act, 1933, in the Housing Act, 1932 and the Housing (Labourers) Act, 1937. We have provided for the observance of fair wages and fair conditions of employment under the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934, a provision exactly similar to that which I now seek to have inserted being embodied in that Act. Similarly, in respect of the Cereals (Produce) Act, 1933, the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, and the Tobacco Act, 1934, provision safeguarding workers in respect of wages and conditions of employment was made. Again in the Cement Act, 1933, there was inserted a provision similar to that which I now seek to have inserted.

In the Combined Purchasing Act, 1939, provisions safeguarding the workers in employments affected by that Act were inserted. At present, sixteen industries are subject to the Trade Board Acts, 1909 and 1918. The function of the Trade Board is to fix minimum rates of wages and maximum working hours in respect of the workers engaged in these industries. If we are to approach the whole problem of protecting workers engaged in industries of the kind contemplated by this Bill, we can really follow a well-beaten track, because the State has made similar provision in legislation covering other industries. Here the State is to embark on expenditure of, approximately, £100,000 in financing Slievardagh coal developments and it is not an unreasonable request that, in such circumstances, the State should insist, in the relations between those who will operate the company on behalf of the Minister and the workers whom they will employ, on a condition requiring the employers to conform to the fair wages clause already inserted in other legislation. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. Its only purpose is to ensure that fair wages will be paid and that fair conditions of labour will be observed in the coalfield. A State can hardly resist a claim of that kind.

Mr. MacEntee

In this instance, there is no question of the State resisting a claim that fair wages be paid and that fair conditions of employment obtain. The instances which the Deputy has cited, where, by specific legislation, the State sought to impose upon other bodies, over which it had no immediate control, the obligation to pay fair wages and to grant fair conditions of employment, are proof of that. But we are asked in this case to go very much further than we ever went before. We are asked to enact legislation which would suggest that there was some possibility, or some danger, that, if it were not for this particular provision, the State would not pay fair wages and would not grant fair conditions of employment. I think that a case has not been made for the amendment. I think that the amendment is unnecessary, particularly in view of the fact that the accounts of this company will be tabled from year to year and that, if it requires funds for the further development of the mines, it will have to come to the House. The necessary moneys will have to be obtained by an Estimate for that specific purpose or by a sub-head in the Vote for the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on which occasion, if there was any question that fair wages were not being paid or that fair conditions of employment did not obtain, the whole matter could be raised in the House. In these circumstances, the Minister responsible would be put in the unenviable position of having to justify unfair wages and unfair conditions of employment. I suggest to the Deputy that, in all the circumstances, it is not necessary to write the sort of provision which he now proposes into the Bill, that the position is already sufficiently safeguarded. This company, according to the terms of the Bill, will be entirely under the control of the Minister for Finance. It will be part of the ordinary organisation of government and its activities will be subject to review in this House in a way which does not apply to the case of the activities of the other companies to which he referred.

Mr. Norton

The Minister has made an excellent case for the amendment, but he made it unconsciously. He said that, where we put a provision of this kind into legislation, we did so to impose an obligation on other people. Evidently, he thinks that it is correct to insist on everybody else being tied down by a fair wages clause while the State should not be so tied down. I do not believe that the State is a good employer in this country. It is a wretched, sweating employer and I do not think that anything happening in State employment can justify the belief that the State is a kind of an American uncle in respect of its employees. One might better trust some private employers to have a proper conception of their responsibilities to workers than one might trust the State. We had examples in the past few months. We had private employers recognising that, owing to the increase in the cost of living, it was necessary to grant increases of wages to their employees. We had the State, which had a definite agreement with its employees, repudiating the agreement and refusing to grant increases of wages. We had another example in the case of road workers. Some local authorities proposed to increase the wages of road workers from 30/- to 33/- per week. The State came along and would not allow the increase, which represented only 10 per cent., while the cost of living had gone by 24 per cent. Those sitting at the citadel of power in Merrion Street told the local authorities that, whether they spoke for the ratepayers or not, they would not allow them to grant an increase of wages to the road workers. That is the institution we are asked to trust.

The Minister's statements were not correct. He knows perfectly well that the State is at present obliged to comply with the provisions of the Conditions of Employment Act. The Minister knows perfectly well that, in respect of the industrial staff employed by the Board of Works, the Army Corps of Engineers at the Curragh camp and military centres throughout the country and the Post Office factory employees, the State puts itself in the position of a private employer in respect of conditions of employment. The Conditions of Employment Act passed this House and the State inserted these provisions in it. They were not inserted by way of amendment. The State voluntarily conformed to the same standard of wage-fixing and condition-fixing as was imposed on the private employer. Here the Minister wants, for some reason, to ride out of that uniform practice. He says: "Do not ask me to put this into the Bill. You will always find the State a good employer and, in any case, if I do pay low wages at the collieries you will have the privilege of kicking up a row annually when you see the balance sheet of the company." That is not what I want. I want to ensure that the State will be obliged to conform to the same conditions as it imposes on private employers.

It has already accepted that position in the Conditions of Employment Act, and there is no reason why the Minister at this stage should seek to break away from a pretty long-established practice. I think the Minister, even if he feels himself it is not necessary, as a gesture ought to put this section into the Bill, so as to make it clear that, so far as the State is concerned, if it prescribes a certain code of conduct for others, at least it is not above conforming to that code of conduct itself. Even from his own point of view and from the point of view of the State, I urge on the Minister that he really ought to accept the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I could not possibly accept the amendment which carries with it, as the Deputy's last speech has shown the implication that the State, having regard to all the interests involved treats its employees unfairly.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 45.

Tá

Bennett, George C.
Benson, Ernest E.
Byrne, Alfred.
Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Corish, Richard.
Cosgrave, William T.
Davin, William.
Dockrell, Henry M.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Timothy J.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Giles, Patrick.
Hannigan, Joseph.
Hickey, James.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
Linehan, Timothy.
Lynch, Finian.
Norton, William.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl

Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Breslin, Cormac.
Childers, Erskine H.
Cooney, Eamonn.
De Valera, Eamon.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Hogan, Daniel.
Kelly, James P.
Kelly, Thomas.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Francis.
McDevitt, Henry A.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Cornelius.
Moylan, Seán.
Mullen, Thomas.
Munnelly, John.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Martin.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Keyes and Hickey; Níl, Deputies Smith and Seán Brady.

Amendment declared lost.

Sections 9 to 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

(1) The company shall within ninety days after the end of every accounting year furnish to the Minister a balance sheet for such accounting year duly audited by the auditor of the company and also a profit and loss account for the same accounting year similarly audited.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 2:—

At the end of sub-section (1) to insert the words "and a report on the work carried out by the company, the condition of the undertaking and a report prepared by the auditor on the financial position of the company."

Section 16 provides that there shall be an obligation on the company to furnish a balance sheet and a profit and loss account within 90 days of the end of every accounting year. My amendment seeks to put on the company an obligation to provide, in addition, a report on the work carried out by the company, the condition of the undertaking and a report prepared by the auditor on the financial position of the company. I think it is essential, where we are putting up £100,000 of State money, that we should have from this undertaking something more than an ordinary balance sheet.

The balance sheet of the ordinary company, as those who have read them know, is not a very informative document. It may, of course, suit the directors of a certain kind of public company, with its limited number of shareholders, to give just the minimum amount of information required by the law as to the financial affairs of the company and its activities generally. But, here we are dealing with a public company financed by State money, a company concerned with the development of coal deposits. I think that, in the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask that the Company should give us a report on the work carried out by it, and on the condition of the undertaking. In respect to the Electricity Supply Board provision is made for a report of the kind which is sought in this amendment. There is an informative report from the Electricity Supply Board with regard to its activities, its projected programme of work, and, generally, one can get from the report a comprehensive picture of the undertaking: as to the nature of its work, and as to what it intends to do in the future. But, after this Bill is passed, a Bill under which we are giving the Minister power to advance £100,000 to the company we will get nothing from the company except an annual statement of accounts and a profit and loss account. We will get no picture from it as to the policy it is pursuing, as to the condition of the undertaking, and as to what objective the company is working towards. The amendment, I submit, is not seeking to put any unreasonable requirement on the company, and I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that he is prepared to accept it.

Mr. MacEntee

It seems to me that this amendment is unnecessary. The terms of the section provide for the presentation, after every accounting year, of the balance sheet of the company, duly audited by the auditor of the company, together with the profit and loss account, similarly audited. It is prescribed, in sub-section (2), that the balance sheet shall contain a summary of the capital assets and liabilities of the company, together with such particulars as will disclose the nature of such assets and liabilities and the manner in which the value of the assets was arrived at. I cannot see that an auditor could furnish a report that would be likely to be of any greater value to this House than that which will contain the particulars to be furnished by him under sub-section (2) of this section. I should not attach very much importance or value to a report on coal mining which was prepared by an auditor, who would not be a technical expert, and who, naturally, would have to confine himself to the accountancy aspect of the undertaking. That position is very fully covered by the terms of the present section, and I do not think there is any necessity to go beyond it.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister seems to think that under this amendment the auditor will prepare the report asked for. The amendment does not ask any such thing. I should like to point out that under sub-section (2) the balance sheet and the profit and loss account shall be drawn up in such a manner as the Minister shall direct, and shall contain a summary of the capital assets, and so on. That does not give any of the information which is being asked for in the amendment. It asks for a report on the work carried out by the company, the condition of the undertaking, and so on. I agree with Deputy Norton that, unless one is an expert, one will be able to obtain very little information from the balance sheet issued by the ordinary company. This undertaking is to be financed by money provided by the State, and, therefore, the information asked for in the amendment should be given. I do not see why the Minister should object to an expert giving a report to this House on the nature of the work carried out by the company.

Mr. Hickey

What is the Minister's objection to the amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

That no useful purpose would be served. It seems to me that it would be doubly inadvisable to accept the amendment because it is clear now that there could be a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of it. I do not think it is necessary to carry that elsewhere.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister's interpretation is different from mine.

Mr. MacEntee

I put upon the amendment the interpretation which appears to me to be the natural one.

Mr. Norton

It would be much better, I think, if the Minister would spend a little time trying to understand the amendment instead of concentrating all his time in trying to find a flippant reason for rejecting it. The object of the amendment is perfectly clear—to put upon the company the obligation to tell this House, to tell the Minister, and the taxpayers who are putting up this £100,000, what, in fact, they are doing in the exploitation of these coal deposits. Surely what is a reasonable requirement to impose on the Electricity Supply Board is not an unreasonable requirement to impose in connection with a development scheme of this kind. The obligation in respect of the Electricity Supply Board is a very burdensome one, but it is one for which they charge enough. If we can ask a national undertaking of that kind to subject themselves to this undertaking, with all that it involves from the point of view of toil in complying with it, what is the difficulty in asking an undertaking of this kind to give us a reasonably brief report as to what it did during the previous 12 months, what in fact is the position of the company at the moment, and what it proposes to do during the ensuing 12 months? The Minister says it is not necessary to ask the company to do that, and he proceeds to quote subsections 1 and 2, which have nothing whatever to do with the preparation of a report. Sub-section 2 gives the Minister power to ask the company to compile a balance sheet in a certain way. The preparation of a balance sheet in a certain way will not enable them to put a report into that balance sheet. If the report comes, it will have to be a separate report. If it is desirable to get a report, why not put an obligation on the company as provided for in this amendment? It looks to me as if the Minister wants to get State money for the purpose of investing in this development, but he will not now ensure that the workers will get fair wages, and he apparently wants to screen the activities of the company from the public gaze. We are not going to get any information whatever except a balance sheet which would fit on a sheet of foolscap paper. That is all we are going to get in return for £100,000 of State money. I think it is a most unfair attitude for the Minister to adopt in this matter. There is no reason whatever why the Minister should refuse to accept an amendment of this kind, unless he wants to keep the activities of the company as dark as possible.

Mr. Davin

This is the first company of this kind which has been formed with the taxpayers' money for the purposes of developing our mineral resources, and I am pretty certain that the people of the country as a whole will follow the activities of this company very closely, not alone for the purpose of finding out whether their money is being properly spent but for the purpose of finding out whether the company is so successfully conducted as to justify experiments of the same kind being carried out in other places and in other cases. The Minister, while acting on behalf of the taxpayers, will have at his disposal, through his nominees on the Board and through his authority as Minister, many ways and means of getting information and getting explanations of what is contained in the balance sheet, which will not be available to members of this House who receive the balance sheet nor to members of the public at large. I am pretty sure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be in constant consultation with his nominees on this Board, and through that channel will be able to check the activities of the Board, and to hold them up in any case where he thinks they are travelling in a wrong direction. The representatives of the people in this House are entitled to just the same information as the Minister is entitled to in matters of this kind. The Minister knows better than anybody else that balance sheets can be framed in such a way as to mislead the most intelligent-minded financier in the country. I wonder whether Deputy Dockrell, for instance, if he were encouraging the members of the Chamber of Commerce or the commercially-minded people of the country to invest their money in a concern of this kind, would say that they should be satisfied with the production of a balance sheet submitted in accordance with the wishes of the Minister, without having the right, as they have not in this case, to go to an annual meeting for the purpose of asking questions and getting explanations of what might not be clearly set out in a dictated balance sheet? If the Minister wants to induce the taxpayers of the country to take an intelligent interest in the conduct of a concern which is being set up with their own money, I think he should, if he is, as I believe he is, interested in the development of the mineral resources of the country, comply with the reasonable request contained in Deputy Norton's amendment and agree to accept that amendment. He will be serving the public interest if he agrees to do so.

Mr. MacEntee

If it be correct that I have misinterpreted this amendment, the necessity for it becomes less clear than ever, because I gather that the company is to make a report upon its activities. But it is not necessary that we should have an Act of Parliament to secure such a report from the company. The company, under Section 9, is to be financed out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Before the Minister comes to the Oireachtas and asks for money for this company he will certainly obtain a very full report as to its activities, and if there is any information wanted by the House on that occasion I have no doubt that it will be readily forthcoming. I cannot see what useful purpose is going to be served by asking the company to make a report to the Minister. Mind you, if this had been the report of an independent person, then perhaps Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin might have been able to make a case for it. I do not say that it would be an unanswerable case but, at any rate, it would be a specious case; it would bear the appearance of reality upon it. It was because I thought the only thing Deputies had in mind must have been the report of such an independent person that I read the amendment in what appeared to be a reasonable way, in what is still in my view the only way in which it can be read, that is that the auditor would have to make the report. If this report is going to be made by the company, then it seems to me that the amendment is unnecessary, because the relations between the company, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance and this House, are such that the fullest information must always be made available to the Minister and through the Minister to this House whenever it is required. The company cannot carry on unless the moneys are voted by the House, and, when the House is asked for the money, no doubt it will ensure that everything there is to be known about the activities of this company will be duly put before it.

Mr. Linehan

Just like Roscrea!

General MacEoin

I think the Minister has just given the case away. He said it is only reasonable that before the House would vote the moneys it should be aware of the activities of the company. We are now voting this sum of money without being aware of any such activities, except simply that a coal mine is to be opened up. I think that the Minister, considering his decided views as to the activities of other companies, should insist upon this company just doing exactly what he wants other companies to do. He has been very vocal upon the railway company recently in correspondence. Surely to goodness he should ask that a company which is being voted moneys by this House should do what a private company in the State is already doing.

Mr. Norton

The Minister seems to me to be floundering about in an endeavour to find some reason for rejecting this amendment. One would imagine that the relationship between the Minister and the company is going to be such that the Minister has only to whisper that he wants full information, whereupon it will be provided for him. In Section 16 (5) he takes power to fine the directors £5 for every day during which they delay in sending him the balance sheet. The Minister asks: "Why do you wish to put an obligation on the company to produce a report of this kind?" One could well ask him: "Why are you taking powers to treat the directors as such miscreants that you feel obliged to take power to fine them £5 for every day during which they fail to send the balance sheet?"

What this amendment seeks to obtain is definite information as to what work the company is doing during the period when it is spending this money. If we put up £100,000 we will not have an opportunity, under the present arrangement, of ascertaining what is happening in respect to the company until we see the balance sheet perhaps a year and a half afterwards, or until the Minister comes here to look for more money. I should like to follow the activities of this company annually, and it is for that reason that I suggest that there should be an obligation on the company to furnish a report. The Minister tells us that we will be able to get information from the company. We have put questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to the sugar company, and the Minister has declined to give us information as to the activities of that company in certain respects. We tried to get information also about the Peat Development Board and it was not given to us.

General MacEoin

And Roscrea.

Mr. Norton

Roscrea is another example of where the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no matter what his personality may be, can be like the oyster. Slievardagh should not be allowed into that bad company; it does not deserve to start off in company with Roscrea. I want the Minister to put into the Bill a provision which will place on the company an obligation to tell us what is being done each year. The Minister says that he thought we required a report from some independent person. The only one who has suspicions about the slothfulness of the directors is the Minister. The only one who has doubts about their bona fides is the Minister. He expresses that in Section 16. What we want is the type of report which would be presented by any company to its shareholders. The Minister is the shareholder in this instance, acting for the taxpayers, who have put up £100,000. The taxpayers are entitled to know what the directors are doing with the money. That is the issue. These directors will get £100,000 of the taxpayers' money and, as representing the taxpayers, we ask that they should be told annually what is happening to their money and what the directors are doing. We want to know something of their position, just the same as with any other commercial undertaking.

Mr. Hickey

We assume that this company will be promoted in the same way as Grain Importers, Ltd., or the Dairy Disposals Board. We have sufficient knowledge about those bodies to know the difficulty there is in getting information as to what they are doing. I cannot understand the objection to this amendment. It appears to me to be pure insolence on the part of the Minister in withholding information from us.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 28; Níl, 45.

Tá

Belton, Patrick.
Bennett, George C.
Benson, Ernest E.
Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Corish, Richard.
Cosgrave, William T.
Davin, William.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fagan, Charles.
Giles, Patrick.
Hannigan, Joseph.
Hickey, James.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
Linehan, Timothy.
Lynch, Finian.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Timothy J.
Norton, William.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl

Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Breslin, Cormac.
Childers, Erskine H.
Cooney, Eamonn.
De Valera, Eamon.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Hogan, Daniel.
Kelly, James P.
Kelly, Thomas.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Francis.
McDevitt, Henry A.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Cornelins.
Moylan, Seán.
Mullen, Thomas.
Munnelly, John.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Martin.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Hickey; Níl: Deputies Smith and S. Brady.

Question declared lost.

Sections 16, 17 and 18, and Title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to take the remaining stages now.

Mr. Norton

That would have been possible if the Minister had accepted these two reasonable amendments, but he chose to refuse to accept them, and now we must consider whether alternative amendments can be submitted in order to try to provide such protection as we can for workers and the public. That would not be possible if all the stages were taken now.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy, on occasions, can be very loud in his outcry about fuel shortages and the development of native resources, but if he proposes to hold up the Bill, I have no option but to submit. We will take the Report Stage to-morrow.

Mr. Norton

We could not get an amendment in, if the Report Stage is taken to-morrow. The Minister becomes stubborn and says he will not accept amendments, without arguing why he cannot accept them. He gets all hot and bothered because everybody will not agree to pass a Bill on his instructions. We want a reasonable time in which to put in an amendment on Report Stage. If the Minister had not been so starchy when he came in, he would have got all stages of the Bill.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1941