This section provides for the formation and registration of the company.
Committee on Finance. - Minerals Exploration and Development Company Bill, 1941—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This settles the name of the company, and fixes the capital at £100.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(b) to develop and work any minerals which the company, as a result of their prospecting or otherwise, deem advisable to work, and for that purpose, to apply for and take from the Minister such leases and licences under the Act of 1940 as the company shall think proper and the Minister shall grant under that Act, and also, for the same purpose, to make agreements with private persons either for the purchase of land containing minerals, or the taking of minerals by way of lease or licence, and
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 3, line 46, immediately before the word "agreements" to insert the words ", with the consent of the Minister,".
This merely outlines the principal functions of the company as they are to be stated in the memorandum of association. At the present moment, one of the articles of association would give the company power to acquire a mining business in certain circumstances, that is to say, that the mineral substances must be essential to the life of the community, and the quantities of them raised by the existing owners of the deposits must be less than the quantities needed by the community. In certain circumstances it may be convenient that the company should have power to take over existing mineral businesses by agreement, and the purpose of the amendment is to endow the company with that power.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 3, line 47, to delete the word "either" and to insert, immediately after the word "for", the words "the acquisition of any mining business or".
This is merely a consequential amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This outlines the main articles of association.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This merely provides that the memorandum and articles of association shall not be altered except by consent of the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This provides for a loan to the company to pay the expenses of formation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10, 11 and 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
This gives the Minister power to require the company to prospect, where we might wish the company to carry out special investigations on our behalf, but we would only, I think, be entitled to make such requisitions on the understanding that the cost would not exceed £3,000 in all, and where we made the requisitions we should have to indemnify the costs of the investigation which the company undertook.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
This provides that the shares shall be held in trust for the Minister for Finance.
Has the Minister in mind who is going to hold the shares in trust?
Not at the moment; they probably will be civil servants other than the directors of the company.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This merely provides for the payment of dividends into the Exchequer.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(4) A copy of every balance sheet and profit and loss account furnished to the Minister pursuant to this section shall be laid by him before Dáil Eireann within one month after such balance sheet and profit and loss account are so furnished to him.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (4), page 7, line 20, to delete the words "Dáil Eireann" and substitute the words "each House of the Oireachtas".
This is to provide that a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. As the Bill was originally drafted, it was provided that it should be laid before Dáil Eireann only.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
This provides for the acquisition of existing mining businesses in the circumstances set out, that is to say, that where it appears that their acquisition is essential for the purpose of obtaining in adequate quantities commodities essential to the life of the community, and in order to secure to the State effective control of the mineral deposits in question, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, either acquire certain existing mining businesses by agreement or, failing such agreement, compulsorily.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
This relates only to mining businesses which are acquired by agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Whenever the Minister proposes to make a mining business acquisition order he shall give to the proprietor of the existing mining business which he proposes to acquire by the order, at least one month's notice in writing of the proposal to acquire the said business.
(2) A notice of a proposal to acquire an existing mining business given by the Minister under this section shall be so given by sending it by registered post addressed to the person who appears to the Minister to be the proprietor of the said business at the principal office at which that business is carried on.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To delete all words from the word "give" in line 9, to the end of the section, line 18, and to substitute the following words:—
(a) give to the proprietor of the existing mining businesses which it is proposed to acquire by the order at least one month's notice in writing of the proposal, and
(b) publish in the Iris Oifigiúil and in such newspapers as the Minister thinks fit notice of the proposal, indicating with reasonable particularity the situation, nature and extent of the minerals, buildings and plant which are the subject matter of the said business, and containing such other information as the Minister considers expedient, and
(c) deposit in the office of the Geological Survey, Dublin, a map (on a suitable scale and showing all relevant detail) of the area in which are situate the minerals which it is proposed to acquire by the order.
(2) A notice of a proposal to acquire an existing mining business given under paragraph (a) of the foregoing sub-section may be so given by sending it by registered post addressed to the person who appears to the Minister to be the proprietor of the business at the principal office at which the business is carried on.
(3) Every map deposited in the office of the Geological Survey, Dublin, under sub-section (1) of this section shall be available at all reasonable times in that office for inspection by any person desiring to inspect the same.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where the Minister proposes to make a mining business acquisition order he shall give to the proprietor of the existing mining business which he proposes to acquire, at least one month's notice in writing; that he shall publish in the Iris Oifigiúil and in such newspapers as he may think fit, notice of the proposal, indicating with reasonable particularity the situation, nature, and extent of the minerals, buildings and plant which are the subject matter of the proposed mining acquisition order; that he shall deposit in the office of the Geological Survey a map of the area in which are situate the minerals which it is proposed to acquire.
Will the Minister say why it is that, in paragraph (b) of this amendment, the terminology is "in such newspapers as the Minister thinks fit"? My recollection is that the general description of these newspapers is "newspapers circulating in the district". I cannot remember the precise circumstances of the case, but it has been brought to my notice that recently in regard to the insertion of advertisements by some State department discrimination was made against a newspaper having a fairly large circulation in favour of a newspaper with a much smaller circulation. Whether there was anything political in it or not I do not know, but it would appear that this particular description scarcely meets the case. I do not know whether it is intended to confine advertisements to the area or the county, or a county in close proximity to the district in which it is proposed to acquire the mining business, or whether it is confined to the Dublin newspapers. As a rule in these cases the description is "newspapers circulating in the district" and, if that were so, it would appear to be a natural corollary that it would be the newspapers with the largest circulation circulating in the district.
The terminology in this case is the same as in the Minerals Development Act of last year, and is merely to give the Minister reasonable discretion. I do not think there is any reason to fear that there will be discrimination as between one newspaper and another in regard to the matter but, obviously, the advertisements cannot be put in every newspaper. It is intended to allow the Minister to insert them in the newspapers which he thinks will come under the notice of the proprietors of the business.
I would like the Minister to reconsider that.
I will look into it, but I can assure the Deputy——
The fact that it was in the other Bill is no argument in its favour.
It may not be, but it is confusing if you have an Act with one form in it and a different provision in another Act which is really part of the same code. Most of the amendments I am suggesting now are really designed to bring this Bill into conformity with the Minerals Development Act.
The fact that the description was "newspapers circulating in the district" would not be contrary to that.
No, it would not be.
The Minister can select from them and it was the usual rule in all these cases, principally in Housing Acts and so on.
I will consider what the Deputy has said and, perhaps, insert an amendment in the Seanad, if that will suit him.
Why should it be done in the Seanad? It ought to be done here, if at all.
If we were to make it, "in such newspapers as the Minister thinks fit, including newspapers circulating in the district", would that do? Would it be permissible, Sir, to insert an amendment of that sort now?
If there were general agreement the Chair would consider such an amendment, with some misgiving.
Why not put it, "such newspapers circulating in the district" and leave it at that?
Would the Deputy allow me to put it the other way, because, after all, the headquarters of some of these mining companies might not be in the district in which the mine is situate. They may be in Dublin and the mine may be somewhere down the country. It would be desirable that the notice should appear in the Dublin newspapers. I would suggest that it should be, "such newspapers as the Minister thinks fit, including newspapers circulating in the district." I would like to meet the Deputy if he wishes to press the point, but I would not like the Bill to be held up.
Is the Minister proposing to look for all stages this evening? Honestly, this is becoming a disgrace: asking for final stages of Bills which have just been amended.
I was going to ask the House to give me all stages to-night.
It is making a mockery of the House. The Minister can ask if he likes.
If the Deputy will allow me——
I object to the Minister selecting a newspaper with a small circulation as against a newspaper with a large circulation.
I am trying to meet the Deputy. The Deputy's point is that he would like it to be obligatory on the Minister to have the notice inserted in the newspapers circulating in the district. If he will allow the section to go in its present form, in the Seanad I will have an amendment introduced and will amend the section accordingly.
Is the Minister going to exercise his political or other bias against certain newspapers? My information is that it has been done.
I doubt whether that charge can be levelled against myself.
That is the only objection I have to it.
I have no difficulty in giving an undertaking that, so far as I am concerned, the political complexion of the newspaper will not influence my decision as to whether an advertisement should go in or not. What I would be concerned about would be the effectiveness of the advertisement as a means of bringing notice of the proposal to the attention of the parties interested.
Will the Minister give bail for his good behaviour about the newspapers?
I would have no difficulty in doing that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(g) the expression "the relevant date" in the next preceding paragraph of this section shall, where the order is made within four months after the date of the passing of this Act, mean the 1st day of March, 1941, and shall, in every other case, mean the date on which notice of the proposal to acquire the said business was given by the Minister in pursuance of this Act;
I move amendment No. 5:—
In paragraph (g), page 9, line 4, to delete the words "given by the Minister and to substitute the words "published in the Iris Oifigiúil”.
This amendment is merely to insert in section (g) a proviso, defining the relevant date as the date upon which a notice of the proposal to acquire the business was published in Iris Oifigiúil”.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Line 6, page 9 of the Bill, reads:—
"The order shall not be expressed and shall not operate to impose on or transfer to the Minister or the company any liability for any of the debts and other liabilities of the proprietor of the existing mining business in relation to or on account of the said business."
Apparently it is intended to acquire some of these businesses. If it were not for that paragraph, it might be expected that in acquiring such business, regard would be had to the liabilities affecting it. In another place it mentions that the liabilities, if any, for debts of the proprietor arising out of the business shall be enforceable against the compensation. It can be inferred from the way in which this particular section is drawn, if my interpretation of it is correct, and from the way in which Section 24 is subsequently drawn, that an effort may be made to escape liabilities that are there already. If the proprietor is insolvent, that is one thing. It is not expected that the State should make good his insolvency. The second point which would arise is: would the acquisition by the mining company tend to make him insolvent? Thirdly, if the compensation is sufficient to discharge the liabilities that are there already, what is the necessity for putting in this particular section? Surely anybody who has a claim against the person whose property is going to be acquired would have that claim without these sub-sections going in? I ask the Minister to explain what is meant by them.
The position here is that we propose to acquire only the property and assets of a neglected mining venture and that we should acquire them at their full value, fixed either by agreement or as assessed by the mining board. Any liabilities which have attached to the business will remain liabilities of the proprietor because they have been contracted by him and will not be transferred to the company. They are the personal debts of the proprietor. As against any assets which he held, he will get compensation and the onus of discharging his debts will rest upon him, presumably to satisfy them, out of his compensation or out of any other resources which he may have.
The terminology of the sub-clause to which I have referred is rather significant:
"....liability for any of the debts and other liabilities of the proprietor of the existing mining business in relation to or on account of the said business."
It is not his other liabilities that are in question. It is merely the liabilities which have arisen out of his particular sphere of activity in connection with the business. Why is it proposed to escape these? There is a disposition, as far as I can judge, in recent years on the part of the State to be dishonest, to claim the right to be dishonest, and to legalise dishonesty in so far as the State itself is concerned—to grab all and to pay nobody. I should like to see what justification there is for it in this particular case. A man may have incurred certain liabilities which have arisen out of the business —not private debts at all—and it is said that these debts will not be the concern of the State. Why not take them over and give him whatever balance there is, or are we going to do this in the way in which the State generally attempts to get property—to confiscate the property in the first instance, and to confiscate the claims of the people who have given credit to the former proprietor in the second instance?
There are two classes of debts which we may consider. There are first of all debts which are secured on the assets or otherwise. In so far as they are concerned, they are covered by paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 24, which states:
(c) all securities for any of such debts and other liabilities which, immediately before the date of acquisition, attached to the said business shall on the said date cease to affect the said business and shall, in lieu thereof, attach to and be enforceable against the compensation awarded under this section in respect of the said business.
Any debts which are not secured by the business would remain in exactly the same position as any other debt of the proprietor, even though they have arisen out of the business. It is not the practice when you are acquiring a business, I think, to assume responsibility for the prior debts of the proprietor. The usual practice is to buy the business as it stands, if possible free of all liabilities, and to allow the man who contracted the debts to settle with his own creditors by paying them, if he can, 20/- in the £, and if not, by making a composition with them. That is the normal business procedure. That is is what we propose here. As the State is acquiring the business, it is necessary that our responsibility in this matter should be very strictly defined.
Very often, in acquiring a business, you acquire the assets and liabilities in full, particularly where the business is going to be continued. In this case I do not see any reason for a departure from that practice except a Civil Service reason. These Acts are becoming almost impregnated with Civil Service psychology which has not a soul, and has not a body to be kicked either. We have had the same experience in connection with corporations. The letter of the law was adhered to, but it cost them a small fortune, to meet debts and liabilities—all within the law. In the normal course one would say that the proper procedure would be to take over the assets and liabilities, and finish the job. Let the new institution take over and settle up these debts. Remember you are putting a man out of business.
We pay him fully for it.
You do by saying: "There is £50 for you; go and pay these people to whom you owe £100." That is the State's way of discharging its obligations and of keeping the Seventh Commandment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 23.
(1) Any person claiming to be the proprietor of an existing mining business acquired by a mining business acquisition order may apply to the company for compensation in respect of the said existing mining business.
(2) The Minister may make regulations prescribing the form of application for compensation under this section and the particulars to be specified in such form, and every application for compensation under this section shall be made in the form so prescribed, and shall contain the particulars required by that form.
(3) No application for compensation under this section shall be considered unless lodged with the company within two months (or such longer period, not exceeding altogether six months, as the Minister may in any particular case allow) from the date upon which the notice of the proposal to acquire the existing mining business which is the subject of such application was given by the Minister in pursuance of this Act.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 24, after the word "business" to add the words "and any person claiming to be interested in the said business as an incumbrancer may apply to the company for the assessment of such compensation."
This amendment provides for a case in which there may be a person claiming to be interested as incumbrancer in a mining business to be acquired. It gives such person the right to apply to the company for the assessment of such compensation as may be due in that regard. Amendment No. 7 provides that the Minister may make regulations prescribing the form of application for compensation and the form of application for the assessment of compensation and the particulars to be specified in those forms respectively. Amendment No. 8 is merely a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 10 provides that every application for the assessment of compensation, and also every application under the section for compensation in respect of which the applicant and the company fail to reach agreement, shall be referred by the company to the mining board.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
7. To delete sub-section (2), lines 25 to 30, page 9, and to substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Minister may make regulations prescribing the form of application for compensation and the form of application for the assessment of compensation under this section, and the particulars to be specified in those forms respectively, and every application for compensation or for the assessment of compensation under this section shall be made in the appropriate form so prescribed, and contain the particulars required by that form. —(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)
8. In sub-section (3), page 9, line 31, before the word "under" to insert the words "or for the assessment of compensation".—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)
9. In sub-section (3), page 9, line 37, to delete the words "given by the Minister" and to substitute the words "published in theIris Oifigiúil”.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)
To amendment No. 10 in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, there is an amendment offered by Deputy McMenamin. The Minister will first move his amendment.
I move amendment No. 10:—
After sub-section (3), page 9, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Every application under this section for the assessment of compensation and also every application under this section for compensation in respect of which the applicant and the company fail to reach agreement shall be referred by the company to the mining board, and thereupon the mining board shall assess the compensation payable in accordance with the next succeeding section.
The mining board will be constituted within the next couple of days and the relevant section of the Minerals Development Act provides that it shall consist of a chairman and two ordinary members and that they shall be qualified as follows—the chairman shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of, at least, ten years' standing. One of the ordinary members shall be one of the panel of official arbitrators appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment and Compensation) Act, 1919, and the other ordinary member shall be an officer of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It seems to me that a board better suited for assessing compensation in matters of this sort could not be secured. The board will operate in a more general way under the Minerals Development Act, 1940, and will have a great deal of experience in dealing with matters of the kind covered by this section. I think that I could not get a better board for the purpose or one more likely to deal fairly between the applicant for compensation, on the one hand, and the company, on the other hand.
Who will pay the chairman?
The chairman will be paid by the State. I am awaiting the minute of appointment. He will be a senior counsel of good standing and eminently suited to deal with a matter of this sort. I propose to appoint Mr. Kevin Dixon.
On behalf of Deputy McMenamin, I move amendment No. 11:—
In lines 4 and 5 of the amendment, to delete the words "the mining board" where they occur firstly, and in line 5 to delete the said words where they occur secondly and substitute the words "an arbitrator agreed upon by the Parties" and "the said arbitrator" respectively.
The mining board will consist of nominees of the State, no matter how impersonal the Minister may be in his selections. It will be a State institution. The class of work they will be called upon to do will be slightly different from that of settling compensation. If they are to have the responsibility of assessing compensation, that will be one of the things they will consider when they are passing judgment as to whether a place should be acquired or not. Why should there not be an agreed arbitrator? That is the usual course and it would appear to be the more satisfactory method. If the mining board is, in addition to its ordinary administrative work, to undertake the task of arbitrator, it will be doing something more than the Minister had in mind when he originally conceived the idea of a mining board. It seems to be a reasonable proposition that the arbitrator should be, if possible, agreed upon by the parties and that course would be likely to give greater satisfaction than the procedure proposed.
I think there is something basically wrong in having a mining board, paid by the Government which holds the shares of this company, assessing compensation in respect of acquired mineral rights. The State has, naturally, an interest in securing that the company shall get such assets as it desires to acquire at the minimum price. In the event of a dispute between the person with the assets to sell and the company desirous of buying the assets, you refer it to the mining board. You find, then, that three members of that board are appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for putting up the capital of this company, and that one of the members of the board is, in fact, an official of his own Department. Without at all reflecting on the normal honour and honesty of the official, I say, candidly, that he is bound to be influenced by the Minister's desires so long as he is acting as a member of that board. You have an independent person from the panel of arbitrators but you have the chairman conscious of his position every time he gets a cheque from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not think that that is the type of board to which we should refer this kind of question. Let the aggrieved party, if he wishes, select the chairman but do not compel him to take the board if he does not want to take the board. He has an asset to sell and he should not be obliged to take less than its value nor should he be compelled to take his grievance to a board all the members of which are in the pay of the Minister.
I could not possibly accept the amendment which has been proposed. It might completely defeat the purpose of the Bill which is that, in the event of the parties failing to agree as to the amount of compensation to be paid, the matter should be settled expeditiously by competent authority. This amendment merely provides that it is to be settled by an arbitrator agreed upon by all the parties. Supposing we could not get agreement, are we not to be able to acquire the business at all, even though it is to be acquired by compulsion as a mining business exploiting commodities essential to the life of the community and even though the Minister be satisfied that the requirements of the community cannot be met unless the Minerals Exploration and Development Company take over that mining venture? Are we to allow the proposal embodied in this amendment to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, as it could be defeated by the simple expedient of a person who is not prepared to come to a reasonable agreement with the Minister refusing to agree to the choice of an arbitrator?
Some rather unjustifiable reflections have been passed on the mining board. Let me remind the House what the mining board is. It is a board originally set up under the Mines and Minerals (Development) Act, 1931. It has been in existence for the past ten years and has, I believe, given satisfaction. It is not an administrative board at all. It is purely a judicial tribunal, the principal function of which is, and always has been, to determine the compensation that shall be paid for minerals acquired by the Minister where such compensation cannot be settled by agreement with the dispossessed owner.
This is a board of which the House approved, not merely last November, but when the original Act was before the House in 1931. The board is constituted in exactly the same way and the primary purpose in setting it up is identical with the purposes for which we propose to avail of it now—that is to say, first, to determine the compensation that shall be paid for minerals acquired by the Minister, where such compensation cannot be settled by agreement with the dispossessed owners. The next purpose of the board was to hear and determine applications for unworked mineral licences. The third purpose was to advise on applications for ancillary rights—that is, rights necessary to enable mineral deposits to be worked conveniently: the right, for instance, to dam or divert rivers. The fourth purpose was to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to persons against whom awards were made. This board has been functioning in this fashion for the past ten years.
How many cases did it deal with?
It had cases before it — not very many. Some of them were very difficult. I do not think that any person has for a moment suggested that the members of this board have been in any way susceptible to Ministerial influence. I think it is wrong to suggest that they are, or could be, so susceptible. They are appointed very definitely as arbitrators, and I am perfectly certain that, as men of standing in their profession, they will act as arbitrators and will not, at the instance of any Minister—no matter who pays them, no matter whether they are remunerated out of public monies or not—do anything which would be unjust. One might as well say that the judges whose salaries are paid out of public funds——
The Central Fund. This is not the Central Fund.
This is charged on the Central Fund. That is true, but one might as well say that other officers who are not charged on the Central Fund would deal unjustly with a citizen in regard to whom they were called to exercise the sort of functions which we propose to ask the mining board to exercise in this case.
The Minister knows the difficulty about removing a judge.
I do. If, however, the Minister were to remove the chairman of this board for an improper reason, I know that it would not go without public notice. I am perfectly certain that if an applicant felt that a member of this board had been removed by a Minister because that member had refused to deal unjustly with his application when before the board, the person interested in the application would very quickly ventilate that and we should hear a great deal about it in this House, where the Minister would not be able to stand over it. Let us be fair and reasonable in regard to these matters. There is no point in casting doubt and reflections—and they are reflections—upon the integrity, first of all, of the Minister, and next upon those whom he honours with his confidence when he puts them on a board of this sort. I say that he honours them with his confidence, as it is an expression of his belief that they will act honestly between all the parties concerned, and that is all we are looking for.
If the Minister is satisfied, there is no reason why he would not agree to consider adding a clause that "in default of agreement, either the Chief Justice would arbitrate or the mining board would do so." When we consider what they will arbitrate on, it is very interesting to realise that we have excluded any rights that the person would have in respect of State minerals, though the unfortunate man who had a mine and was working those minerals may have gone to very considerable expense in connection with them. He is not to get a penny: he will not be considered. We then consider how compensation is to be fixed, and we find that account is to be taken of the assets but no account whatever of the liabilities. That is a new form entirely. So far as the Minister's case is concerned, one simple sentence, "in default of agreement, the compensation would be arranged by the Chief Justice or the mining board would undertake it", would suffice.
The Minister said if he —or if the Minister for Industry and Commerce: I am not thinking of the Minister personally—were to remove the chairman or any member of this board because of the fact that they acted independently in giving a judicial decision under this section——
I did not say that. The chairman must act independently.
Yes—conditioned all the time by the fact that he is on the Minister's pay roll.
That is an unworthy suggestion.
But that is the whole reason why we make judges independent of the Ministry. We pay their salaries out of the Central Fund and we make sure they can be removed from office only by an overwhelming vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas, so as to make them independent of the Executive Government in the matter of the exercise of their functions. In this case, the board is to be vested with judicial functions to assess the amount of compensation to be paid. My complaint is that these people who will assess the compensation are on the Minister's pay roll and are, to that extent, subservient to the Minister. He may say that they are of the highest probity.
Could the Deputy tell me who would pay the arbitrator suggested in the amendment?
I will come to that in a moment. Here are three people, one of whom is an official of the Minister's Department, and the other two are appointed by the Minister. My complaint is that, in principle, it seems wrong that a Minister who holds the shares in this company should compel a person who has assets to sell to submit his case to a mining board, the members of which are on the Minister's pay roll. This amendment by Deputy McMenamin might, if literally interpreted, prevent the submission of any case to arbitration. That does not alter the position. Where a person has a grievance in a dispute, he should be able to put his case before some independent body. A body appointed by the Minister, and where the Minister holds the shares, cannot in fact be an independent body.
Under the Railway Acts, for instance, the Chief Justice has power to appoint an arbitrator, and, in fact, I think he has appointed two arbitrators to adjudicate on disputes. Where is the difficulty in endeavouring to draw up this Bill so as to ensure that, in the event of a disagreement, either the Chief Justice or somebody else will be required to appoint an arbitrator; or, at all events, that the matter will be taken away from a board which is on the Minister's pay roll? My objection is one of principle: I am not concerned with the personnel of the board or the personality of the Minister. It is a question of shunting grievance into a side line where the Minister controls the operations.
If we are making this a matter of principle, we ought to stand by the principles which the Legislature has already laid down, that a board, constituted as the mining board is, is the fairest tribunal to which an appeal of this sort could be made. The Deputy made a great deal of play about members of the board being on the pay roll of the Minister. They are not on the pay roll of the Minister, except to this extent, that arbitrators normally have to get fees for arbitration, particularly where there may be difficult arbitration. Sometimes the terms of reference provide that the payment of these fees, will be divided between one party and the other. The only way in which these gentlemen come on the Minister's payroll, as the Deputy described it, is because the State takes upon itself the obligation of defraying arbitrator's fees. Provided the person appointed is a person of standing, we have no other influence. In fact one of the members of the board is on the panel of arbitrators under the Acquisition of Land (Compensation) Act, 1913, and as the Deputy knows, that panel is settled by the judges. The other is a senior counsel of long-standing and the third happens to be an officer of my Department, who is there more in the capacity of an assessor, because he is familiar with all the considerations involved, but he will act notwithstanding all that, as arbitrator and as part of the board entirely unfettered by me.
I am not going to tell a man who has listened to a case what is fair treatment between the company on the one hand, and the applicant on the other hand. He will be as free as any private individual in the State would be to act according to his conscience and his good judgment. I cannot possibly see any substance in the point made against sending these applications to the mining board. It could not be made, and was not made when the original Act of 1931 was going through this House, or when the subsequent amending Act of 1940 was going through. The board has been in existence for ten years, and I do not see why we should cumber up the whole administrative processes of the State, particularly in the circumstances contemplated by this Bill, with unnecessary machinery. The Chief Justice has enough to do to look after his particular responsibilities. The Department is also greatly pressed. Why should we set out on a purely illusory search to secure agreement in regard to arbitration with a person with whom we have been able to come to agreement on price? We would have to put in all sorts of provisos. If we accept the fundamental principles of the amendment why we should have to put in all sorts of administrative provisos? As to when, say, we should have to have recourse to the Chief Justice or, in the event of his failure to appoint an arbitrator, to go to the mining board. In the end we would have protracted proceedings in a matter which should be carried through expeditiously.
Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
Amendment No. 11, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The time allowed for lodging applications for compensation is limited, but at the will of the Minister it can be extended to six months. Under sub-section (2) the form of application for compensation may be prescribed by rule. I consider two months a very short time to permit a person or a firm to prepare a claim of this character, involving probably a considerable amount of figures. It may depend on the advice of experts being taken and that may have to be secured from abroad. The wording of sub-section (3) is of such a nature that unless the application is lodged, presumably in the prescribed form, an application for compensation will not be considered. The preparation of an ordinary claim very often takes a considerable time, and in a claim of this kind two months is very short.
I will make it three months if the Deputy wishes.
In any applications for compensation for damage to property or dealing with burned houses some time is required. A few weeks is too short for preparing claims in cases of this kind, which might be complicated, as there is absolute prohibition of any claim being heard unless it is made within the period indicated.
I am prepared to go as far as four months if the Deputy wishes.
Four would be better than two months.
The change will be made on the Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Compensation in respect of the minerals (other than State minerals) acquired by a mining business acquisition order shall, in default of agreement, be assessed by the mining board in the same manner and on the same basis in all respects and shall be awarded in the same form as if it were compensation for State acquired minerals under the Act of 1940, and the provisions of that Act and of the regulations made thereunder relating to compensation for State acquired minerals shall apply accordingly.
(2) Compensation in respect of an existing mining business (excluding the minerals the subject matter of the said business) shall, in default of agreement, be assessed by the mining board in accordance with the following principles, that is to say:—
(4) For the purposes of this section, the date of the acquisition shall, where the relevant mining business acquisition order is made within four months after the date of the passing of this Act, be taken to be the 1st day of March, 1941, and shall, in every other case, be taken to be the date on which notice of the proposal to acquire the relevant existing mining business was given by the Minister in pursuance of this Act.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 40, and in sub-section (2), page 9, line 48, to delete the words "in default of agreement".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (4), page 10, line 38, to delete the words "given by the Minister" and to substitute the words "published in the Iris Oifigiúil”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
After sub-section (5), page 10, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, Parts V and VII of the Act of 1940 shall apply, with such modifications as may be necessary, to the practice and procedure of the mining board in assessing compensation under this section, and the power of the Minister to make regulations under Section 34 of that Act shall be extended accordingly."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We had a series of amendments as to the manner and form in which compensation shall be paid. Sub-section (2) (a) deals with fair value of the business, (b) with fair value of the goodwill, (c) assesses the fair value and (d) states that "account shall be taken of all book debts and other moneys which are owing to the proprietor of the business on the date of acquisition and the continuing benefit of existing contracts." Will the Minister explain what is meant by the following words: "but account shall not be taken of debts and other liabilities owing by the said proprietor in respect of the said business on that date." Will you take in all the assets, if they may be so called, including that doubtful asset, the amount of money granted by the State, while money that the man owes in respect of the business is not to be taken into account? What is the meaning of that unbalanced method of assessing value?
I think it is quite clear. Who is going to be in a position to ascertain a proprietor's debts better than the proprietor himself? We can ascertain the proprietor's assets, because they are there to be valued in the shape of the mining property, the plant and the book debts which he claims to be owing to him. But how do we know what claims other people may have against him?
I want the Minister to be honest with the House. He does not know what he is talking about; he does not understand this section.
I am suggesting the really business-like way to approach this matter is to buy what can be valued, to purchase the book debts of the business, the fixed capital in the business and whatever goodwill the business may have. These are matters which can be assessed. To purchase these for what they are worth and leave the man who owes the debts to satisfy the creditors out of the compensation which he would get—I think that is the only business-like and prudent way to deal with negotiations of this sort.
Perfect!
Section 24, as amended, put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:—
After Section 26, page 10, to add a new section as follows:—
27.—(1) As soon as may be after the end of every year, the company shall furnish to the Minister a report giving, in respect of that year, particulars of all existing mining businesses acquired by the company, either by agreement or by means of mining business acquisition orders, and such particulars of minerals worked or prospected by the company as the Minister may consider it expedient in the public interest that the company should be required to furnish.
(2) Every annual report furnished to the Minister in pursuance of this section shall, within one month after it is so furnished, be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas.
Why did the Minister put in this amendment—what is the explanation?
This new section is brought in merely to give the House all the information that we think necessary.
Why is the Minister so anxious to give this information in connection with this Bill, and he will not give it in connection with the Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill?
In the case of Slievardagh we were dealing with a particular proposition. In this case, where a company is being established to carry out a general programme of certain work, we consider it advisable to ensure that the company will make a full return of its activities to the House.
I think you are right now and you were wrong then.
New section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
With the permission of the House, I should like the remaining stages of this Bill to be taken now.
Mr. Brennan
It is not usual to take the Fourth Stage of a Bill that has just been amended. We have not the complete Bill before us, and it is a most unusual procedure to take the remaining stages in such circumstances. That would be creating a precedent that ought not to be followed. This Bill is not presented to the House as a complete measure.
The Ministerial amendments have been before the House for some time.
Mr. Brennan
I agree, but it would be a bad precedent to establish. Is there any hurry about this Bill?
There is. It is very essential to get this company working at the earliest possible moment. With the pressure of financial business and other things at the moment, and in view of the fact that this Bill is practically a non-contentious measure, I suggest the remaining stages ought to be taken now. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the necessity for this measure. I feel very strongly that we should be permitted to take the remaining stages this evening.
Mr. Brennan
I am against the principle of taking the Fourth and Fifth Stages of a Bill that has not been presented in its complete form to the House.
We will not be meeting until next Tuesday and there is a pressure of financial business which may hold this Bill up.
Mr. Brennan
All right, but I object to this procedure on principle.
Ordered: "That the Fourth and Fifth Stages be taken to-day."
I move:—
In page 9, Section 23, line 32, to delete the word "two" and substitute the word "four".
That is to meet the point raised by Deputy Esmonde.
Amendment agreed to.
Is the Minister putting in any amendment about the local papers?
Deputy Cosgrave did not press that point, but, if he still feels strongly about it, it can be dealt with in the Seanad.
But the Minister gave Deputy Cosgrave an undertaking that he would look into it.
I indicated a form which I thought would meet his point. I am quite prepared to meet it in the Seanad.
Mr. Brennan
There you are. We really do not know what is in the Bill.
It is most unsatisfactory.
Mr. Brennan
Very unsatisfactory.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.