Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Finance (Profits of Certain Mines) (Temporary Relief from Taxation) Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—

the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (Profits of Certain Mines) (Temporary Relief from Taxation) Bill, 1955, until it has received and approved the Government's full proposals for the commercial development of the mineral resources at Avoca, County Wicklow.—(Deputy Lemass.)

Mr. Childers

I did not happen to be in the House last night, but I heard that Deputy McGilligan, in order to try to prove that Fianna Fáil had been lax in the investigation of mineral deposits in this country, quoted a statement I made in 1948, quoted that statement in part only and without giving the complete context. Apparently he quite deliberately wanted to give the impression to the House that the former Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, had in some way given up hope that there were mineral deposits to be exploited. That was very typical of Deputy McGilligan. He enjoys misquoting people; he enjoys quoting extracts from debates in order to prove a point.

Now, although it is of no very great importance to this debate, I think I should explain that in 1948, there was a discussion on the reduction of the grant for the exploration of the Avoca deposits. At some stage prior to that debate, the Government had been criticised because certain explorations of minerals had failed. One of the explorations that had proved there was no point in any further commercial exploitation was that undertaken in connection with Arigna iron ore. There was a time when a number of people here, including mineralogists, making their own private inquiries, were under the impression that it was possible that the British geological survey deliberately understated the position for quasi-political or purely political reasons.

It was discovered by the Fianna Fáil Government that, in fact, the geological surveys were on the whole reasonably accurate and at one time the former Taoiseach mentioned these surveys in the course of debates; we were being criticised because we had failed to exploit some of the ores in relation to which explorations had been conducted and results proved negative. One good example was the cost of the iron ore in Arigna where the percentage of iron was found to be insufficient for exploitation; the amount elsewhere in the world was sufficient in quantity and the price sufficiently low to prohibit our going ahead with that project.

In that debate, having referred to the statement by the former Taoiseach, I went on to say at column 2037 of Volume 110:—

"At the same time, I am well aware that a number of new processes in regard to mineralogical development have taken place since the war. There are new and simplified processes of extracting minerals by means of electricity and centrifugal separation, and so on. Before we take an extremely pessimistic view, that, although we have practically every mineral in this country in small lots in the soil, we must abandon all major mineralogical development, we should make at least one final examination using the new processes evolved during the war for extracting metal from low-grade ores."

That statement makes it perfectly clear that I, speaking as a member of this Party, advocated our going straight ahead and conducting as many examinations as seemed desirable because of the new processes and also because, since the war, the price of many metals had increased as a result of technological development, the production of high-grade ores and, in the case of copper, as a result of the enormous use of copper for electronic purposes. Deputy McGilligan can have his little point if he wants it, but it will not get him very far; he fails to quote the remainder of the speech and gives a false idea to the House as to what our views were in regard to mineralogical development.

In relation to the Bill we are now discussing, I recognise that it would be difficult for any Government to make the necessary decisions about Irish participation in this new venture, the nature of the company or the nature of the lease of any company undertaking the extraction of copper, or the nature of the lease with the Government of the day. Copper mining is, in spite of the high price of copper, still a very speculative project. I believe that only one out of every 100 ventures goes beyond the prospector stage and only one out of ten mines, after production starts, continues profitably for a number of years, indicating that, although the price of copper is high, copper mining is a very speculative business.

In contrast to that, as the Minister knows, the price of copper, nickel, lead and zinc has been constantly rising and the development of electronic equipment and atomic energy have stimulated the demand for these metals all over the world. I understand that the ore at Avoca is 1.2 per cent. and the American Government has spent several billion dollars subsidising private copper mines for the sake of providing a sufficient stockpile of copper for armament purposes, where the percentage is only .9. Here there is a narrow margin between what is regarded as highly profitable copper mining and mining that requires subsidies. I understand that when the percentage rises from 1.5 to 2 per cent., there is little doubt that it becomes a highly profitable venture and, in the case of the proposition now before us, the profitability of extraction depends on whether the company engaged in the work assumes they must base their estimate on the price of copper for the past three or four years, namely, some 33 to 35 cents per lb., or whether they can gamble on the price of copper remaining at its present very high level of anything from 45 to 48 cents per lb. There, again, I think it is extremely difficult for the layman to judge what should be the attitude of the House in discussing the terms of the lease. As the Minister probably knows, aluminium is not as good a conductor as copper, but it definitely enters into the picture when copper rises above a certain price. As I understand also, aluminium production in the world has not reached its zenith. In spite of the opening of an enormous plant in Canada, there is still a colossal demand for aluminium metal, even though the ore itself is one of the commonest in the world, unlike copper.

Again, the probability of the Avoca mines, considering these two price limits, the present price of 46 cents and the average price during the last three years, depends upon a number of factors which it is very difficult to prejudge in this House. It depends on the extent of stockpiling by Governments for certain purposes; it depends also on how much continued labour unrest exists in various mining centres in the world, the unrest having actually affected the price of copper in recent months. It depends also on what other sources of copper are likely to be discovered in various parts of the world and to be exploited. I understand, for example, that there are enormous deposits of copper of a fairly high grade in South America, but the difficulty there is an almost complete absence of transport. If the transport bottleneck could be overcome, there would be a large source of production available there, and I believe there are similar bottlenecks elsewhere of labour, capital, and so on, the elimination of which could bring a very considerable increase in copper production and changes in the price.

Over and above that, of course, there is the question of the actual copper market itself and of the price determination by copper interests. As the Minister probably knows, copper at the moment is sold in the world market on two different bases. One group of companies have a certain principle in regard to fixing the price and another group have a different principle, and there has been considerable argument in the mining journals in regard to the establishment of these two principles. That again must affect to some degree the question of the lease and the position here.

Deputy Lemass suggested various alternative methods by which the Irish capital market could have a part in this venture. He made it clear himself that it would be very difficult to determine exactly what should be done about it. For my own part, speaking personally, I feel, having made a very amateur study of this question, and naturally it must be amateur, that on the whole a professional mining company is the one we need and that to have a group of people, without not only professional mining knowledge but intimate contacts with the copper market all over the world, might be very risky. The fact that, in the world of copper mining, there are copper mining interests who are interlinked as between Africa, Canada and the South American Continent is a very important point in the whole of the discussion on this question.

We must take into consideration not only their international contacts but their technical knowledge, and also the ability of the professional mining company to take tremendous decisions in the direction of capital expenditure planned over a period of one or two years, decisions which will frequently frighten the minds of those who are engaged in an ordinary company who might employ a consulting engineer for this purpose and attune their minds to the copper world. They might find it very difficult to do so because of the necessity of taking advance decisions and engaging in long-term financial commitments.

Having said all that, I would like to repeat what has been suggested and to ask the Minister whether there could not have been some participation between the Canadian interests and Irish interests, if only on a financial basis? The Minister may have a very reasonable reply to make, but it is surely reasonable on our part to ask this. We would like to enter into the world mining interests and to get the flavour of the mining world. There is a number of alternative ways by which, even though this Canadian company were to be the principal partner in the venture, some definite Irish interests could also participate. It might have been possible for some of the share capital to have been made available on the Dublin Exchange in sterling at the time when the prospectus was issued. It might have been possible for an Irish holding company to have formed a holding company with some financial link with the Canadian company for the purpose of holding some of the shares and having an interest in the venture, or even for the purpose of having some part in the sale of the ore when the ore was extracted. It might have been possible to have a joint company consisting of Irish directors and Canadian directors in which the Canadian section of the company would have some very definite powers in regard to the expenditure of money.

I understand that one of the difficulties in any joint company of this kind is that no professional Canadian mining engineer with long experience of success at this business will act without very great delegation of powers being given to him. In most of these mining ventures, the principal engineer is given an enormous delegation of authority, is allowed to go ahead with his plans and commit his company to very large expenditure without interference, and most of this kind of men will not act, unless they are given that authority. Nevertheless, within the ambit of the various suggestions I have made, I should like to ask the Minister if it would not have been possible to have some sort of Irish participation, so that we could have appointed a certain number of persons with executive ability who would acquire a knowledge of mining which might be very useful to us in the future?

May I also ask the Minister whether any plans have been made in regard to the other ores in Avoca? Will he tell us whether there is any plan for the disposal of barytes or if there is any other Irish company which would take part of the barytes which would be extracted at the same time as the copper? I would further like to ask the Minister whether anything can be done with the iron which will become available at the same time?

Then, we have the question of the further process of smelting the copper. Is it not only reasonable for us to ask whether the Minister is aware of the arrangements that could be made in the future to smelt the copper ore? Would it be possible to have a smelting plant here and would he state whether the lease applies to smelting or whether it is confined purely to extraction, and whether possibly there might be a second company formed in which there would be an Irish group associated or an all-Irish company for smelting ore, or whether we are committed in advance to export the ore before smelting?

Smelting would give further employment, involving technical processes which would be of great value to this country. It would bring us in more foreign exchange because the material would be sold at a point where it would receive further processing. I think it is important for us to know how far the Minister is committed in regard to smelting and what may happen in regard to that matter in the future.

So far as the Bill itself is concerned and the facilities it gives to the mining company, I would like to suggest to the Minister that a great deal of the taxation in relation to industrial development needs revision. It is rather a pity in a way to see this Bill, which is obviously meant to apply to a very narrow field of activity, when what is needed very badly is a complete revision of taxation to encourage capital development and, in particular, to encourage export development. In the face of our present balance of payments and with due regard to whatever regulations may exist in regard to the liberalisation of trade under O.E.E.C., it surely is necessary for us to reconsider the taxation as applied to future export industries, industries that will export materials other than ores, if we are to expand our national effort and to overcome this problem of the balance of payments.

Many representations have been made to the Minister by the industrial interests in this country in regard to depreciation allowances and in regard to taxation reductions when new companies are going into business. A committee was established to report on this matter, but we have had no report from that committee. It was initiated by this side of the House before we left office and there was a demand that there should be a speedy report from that committee. There should still be a speedy report from the committee and still speedier action by the Minister for Finance. Something very bold and emphatic must be done if we are to establish national exports. Countries such as Germany and other countries in Europe have all sorts of methods by which exports can be established.

Well worth while schemes can be considered and although ultimately the O.E.E.C. agreement to which we subscribe prohibits exports fostered by tax concessions, a great deal can be done in the initial phases. The cost of exploring markets and of ascertaining designs required for the foreign market, even the travelling expenses and the advertising campaign necessary in the initial stages, can be very expensive and some method should be designed to give relief from these expenses. I am sure the Minister can get a wealth of information on these matters.

There are many other forms of potential production in which the initial costs are great and where the risks, even before such an industry gets into production, are very extensive. There are the risks of changes in currency values and the prices of competitive products which may have to be met at any time, even just after the venture is in operation.

I hope that the fact that this Bill has emerged in its present limited form does not mean that the Minister is unaware of these difficulties and that he will reconsider this matter and realise that the principle may have to be extended over a very wide field, if we are to give more employment in this country and build up our national resources.

Mr. James Tully

In my short time in this House, I have found that, when anything of importance is up for discussion here, it is usually channelled into a political debate, with the apparent object on one side of sabotaging any effort there is being made to get things done. From the very start, the Opposition launched a vicious attack on this Bill with the obvious intention of not alone preventing the present development in Avoca, but also with the object of discouraging any other people who might be interested in coming into this country with the intention of developing our mineral resources. It seems to be the view of quite a number of people on the Opposition Benches that, when something like this occurs, there should be a special place kept for people who want to get in on the ground floor and who want to get their share, and more than their share, of what is going.

I am one who believes very much in the investment of Irish capital at home, but if we cannot get Irish capital invested at home and if, because of that, the mineral resources of the country are left lying, as they have been left lying for the past 30 years, surely something out of the ordinary must be done to have them developed. I think the suggestion that there should be a special type of protection for vested interests is something which should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

I know quite well that many people who spoke on the Bill had the idea that this is an attempt to create an industry which will give very big employment in the rural areas. A number of people on the opposite benches did have that view, but the suggestion that the whole thing will be a failure and that whatever Irish capital is invested in it will go down the drain, is not one that will encourage other people to come in. I believe that this effort in Avoca is the beginning of a very big attempt to develop Irish minerals.

We all know of the fellows who, in the past 20 years, went around the country where minerals were supposed to be, and looked wise, and then said that there were no minerals there. We know that the result of that has been that people have been going around saying that there are no minerals worth developing in Ireland. Now that the contrary has been proved and that people have been found who are prepared to put money into the development of Irish industry, I think it is a shame that anybody should attempt, as the Opposition has attempted, to prevent that development. I think that every possible encouragement should be given to anybody who is prepared to make a genuine attempt to develop Irish minerals. I have no doubt that we have plenty of minerals and that before long a general development will be on foot which will provide employment for our people and industries in our country.

Mr. de Valera

The matter which we are discussing here is of fundamental national importance. That is the root matter we are discussing—the development of such mineral resources as we possess. As one of the oldest members in the House, I may say that I remember when, over 50 years ago, it was put forward as fundamental in national policy that the natural resources of this country should be developed in the interests of the Irish people. A statement of mine, requoted, or mentioned, last night, was that at one stage I expressed disappointment that some of the hopes that were held some 40 years ago had not apparently been realised, that we did not in fact seem to have the mineral resources in the country that at that time we had been led to expect. We wanted to find out, however, and it was for that reason that we, in 1941, established a company which was to try to find out as exactly as possible what our mineral resources were and to exploit these in the national interest in the best possible way.

I had at one time the idea, for instance, that in the County of Leitrim there were in close proximity quantities of coal and iron. Investigation proved that the quantities were relatively small and the hopes that I and others like me had that that area, which is not rich in some of the resources that other counties have, might be developed as an industrial area, were not realised.

At any rate, it was only by exploration and thorough examination that we could know exactly what the mineral resources are and we set up the company to investigate the possibilities. One of the places where the investigation went on particularly was the Avoca area. There, as a result of State money, made available to the extent of something like £500,000, it was proved that there was material which, under modern conditions, modern methods of working, could be exploited, could be mined, smelted and made commercially profitable at the existing prices. Immediately that that was determined the risks which otherwise would have to be taken by companies coming in were considerably reduced and the only risks that had to be faced were those that would occur in practically any mining operation of the kind.

The question then naturally arose: How we were to exploit those resources which, on account of the tunnelling and the drilling, etc., that had taken place, we now knew to exist and knew the under limit of the amount that was available? I think there is nobody in this House who would not agree that if our minerals, our country's natural resources, can be exploited by Irish labour, Irish skill, Irish work, and Irish capital, it is in the national interest that it should be so done. I do not think anybody here will disagree with that statement. Therefore, we have, so to speak, to satisfy ourselves, if we depart from that ideal of exploiting our natural resources with our own capital, our own skill and our own labour, that we justify every step we take in departing from it.

The opposite ideal would be to alienate these natural resources, hand them over to some other people, some other nation, some other companies, to outsiders, to develop. That is the very opposite to the first ideal and it is quite clear that to do that means to a certain extent giving away that which is ours and making the least possible use of it. We do not want to put ourselves—no nation would want to put itself—in pawn in that particular way.

Undeveloped areas in the world have been developed by outside capital and by outside companies and we know what has happened in the case of some of these countries. They have had to have revolutionary action; they have had to face the risk of economic and other wars in these countries to get rid of the outside interests and the outside influences which are established by methods of that sort.

Hence, I say—again I think I would get general agreement here—that to hand over the minerals of our country to be exploited completely by an outside body is something which we should only contemplate when any intermediate arrangements between the first ideal that I have suggested and the latter have been thoroughly examined and found to fail.

Our resources are limited. The quantity even of copper in Avoca is limited and, in the development of it, certainly, if an Irish company were developing it, we would like in the national interest to try to secure that it was not a question of a feast and a famine, that it was not a question of having large employment for one year and then idleness afterwards. Obviously, in working our minerals in that way we ought to try, from a social point of view, to provide employment, over a reasonably long period. There must of course be a balance. If there is need, as there is here at the present time—urgent need of employment, in order to keep our people at home, we will have to sacrifice some of our long term ideas for that but I think most people in the House again will agree with me, because I think there is a great deal of common ground in this House in regard to matters of this sort, or there should be and I am sure there is, that it would be better, for instance, to have a prospect of 250 people employed in an enterprise over, say, 20 years than to have 500 employed for half that period or a shorter period. We have examples of that where we have had capital development, such as, for instance, the development of our water power. For instance, at Ballyshannon and neighbourhood, there was considerable development. Large numbers of people were brought there. There was a great deal of employment there for a short time but then there was immediately the problem of what was going to happen those workers when the work was completed.

We ought to approach a problem of this sort from the widest possible point of view, from the social point of view and generally from the national point of view. It is not a question of one side against another. Each one of us in this House is a trustee, and should regard himself as such, of the national interest. It is true that the Government of the day have to do a great deal of the preliminary work, the negotiations and so on, but, ultimately, when they have done that and the proposition is completed and the decision has to be made, it is this House that has to be responsible for the decision and, before this House can take a decision on matters of this sort, every member should be in a position to satisfy himself on this particular point: are we keeping as near as possible to the ideal that the utmost effort should be made to get this thing done by Irish capital and by Irish skill and by Irish labour, or have we gone unnecessarily away from that ideal? That is the only question at issue. If we were in government we would have had to do the negotiating and we would have to consider what steps we might take. I have not considered exactly what particular steps would be taken, but I certainly think that if our Government had anything to do with it we should in the first instance—and I for one would have to say this to myself—see that the utmost effort was made by those responsible for the negotiations to bring about a position in which as much of the work as possible should be done in Irish interests, by Irish capital, by Irish skill and so on.

Now that being the case, we, in respect of this Bill, took occasion to put down the amendment so that we might get the details or some of them, indicating the reasons why this particular line was taken. This work, mining of this sort, is a specialised operation. We have no mines of any magnitude developed in this country and we are at a very early stage now I myself have not examined the field and I am not able of my own knowledge to say, but it is possible—and if the Minister said so I am inclined to accept his statement on the matter —that an effort was made to see if there were any Irish experts who could advise on this matter. We should, at first, have tried if there were people of our own blood who would be capable of giving us at least advice and I think undoubtedly there are. There was in America a mine developed by the brothers Ryan. I was down that mine in Butte, Montana, and at Anaconda where the smelting was done. Some of our people interested in this particular matter, in copper mining, should have been brought into the country and into consultation with regard to the development of Avoca. We may take it for granted, and I think we will all agree on this, that no foreigners will come in to operate in this country unless they expect to make money out of it, no foreign people will come in here to operate just for love of us.

They will come in here satisfied that the project is one out of which they will make substantial financial profits. If they expect to make substantial financial profits that means the enterprise is one that, in its nature, if properly worked, can be made profitable. I have said that, of course, we may not have the skill here and that we might not be able to work it in the same profitable way as a foreign expert company could do it, but at any rate we have the sort of fundamental assurance that there is a profitable enterprise here when foreigners are prepared to come in and exploit it. We should then agree in the first instance to try and find out if there are people of our race abroad if not at home who would have some interest in our country in addition to a financial one.

Back in 1920 I met in America quite a large number of our people, people interested in and chief executives of all sorts of enterprises—coal mining, copper mining, large steel production enterprises and so on in America but even these people, while they have a sentimental interest in this country, would not be prepared to invest capital here unless they were able to find it profitable. But there is this to be said about them, that they would have something more than a purely financial interest in this country.

At any rate, I think we could get advice on these matters from people of that particular sort. Of course it is possible that the Government and the Ministry have tried to get that information and advice and have tried to interest these people in the matter. The first point is: Can we get the skill? The next is that we want skill, engineering skill and to a certain extent we want those who have knowledge of the markets since we want to be able to exploit them commercially. Next we want money, capital. Can we not get capital? If the enterprise is sound, if it is clear that the conduct of the enterprise is in capable hands is it not possible to get Irish capital? I do not know. It is possible that capital is shy, that our people who would be expected to put money into Irish enterprise might be slow in coming forward. We, in Fianna Fáil, while like members of other Parties we believe in private enterprise, would, I think, prefer if we had the choice to have a semi-State company here to do the work rather than a purely foreign company.

Mr. Sweetman

If I may interrupt the Leader of the Opposition I should like to ask why, in that case, did his deputy and former Minister state the reverse?

Mr. de Valera

If the Minister would give me a moment, he would learn that what was said was that it is not the best way of developing——

Mr. Sweetman

No, that is not what he said, with respect. Would you get me his exact words?

Mr. de Valera

I can get his exact words but the Minister can read them himself. The point is that while, if we had a choice between the two—to develop by private enterprise or by State enterprise—we would prefer private enterprise but in the case of some projects that it was not the most suitable. The question is, however, if something is unsuitable should you turn to something less suitable? In view of statements made I should like to say that I am not against the development or the utilisation of foreign experts or even foreign capital provided I am satisfied that we are not paying too much for their whistle. The point is are we keeping as near to the real ideal as possible, to the old Sinn Féin ideal? It is for the Minister to show that he is and that he has not departed more than was absolutely necessary from that ideal. It is true that Deputy Lemass did say that in his opinion exploitation of resources of this sort by State enterprise is not the best and I absolutely agree with him. But he did not say anywhere, nor would I agree he suggested anywhere, that if you had a choice between the exploitation by a State company here, everything else being equal, and a foreign what shall I call it——

Mr. Sweetman

Combine might be the proper word.

Mr. de Valera

And a foreign combine that he would not choose the State enterprise.

Mr. Sweetman

He did.

Mr. de Valera

Only because things were not equal.

Mr. Sweetman

He did not.

Mr. de Valera

I will not be sidetracked by the Minister who will have a chance of replying later. I am saying that any Government of which I was the head, if it came down to brass tacks and if it had to choose between the two, assuming that everything else was equal, would choose the home State company rather than the foreign combine. I would choose the other, of course, if there were cases where it was proved that the foreign combine was able to do things that would satisfy the national interest better: that is all. It is a question of detailed examination to see what ultimately best serves our national interest. The question is this: Have we exhausted or did the Minister, before he took these final steps, exhaust all the possibilities that are there?

I say again that I believe that if the necessary inducements were there we could possibly get Irish capital. I am not saying any of these things of a certainty. I do not know. I, for one, as one of the trustees in the national interest here—we are now content to alienate this national property—would like to see that the alternatives had been fully examined. That is all that is really at issue.

Attempts by anybody on any side to make Party capital of this matter is quite beside the point. There is a by-election on. I suppose we will have people who will try to misrepresent every attempt that is made in this House to try and examine things in an objective way and on a proper basis. Such attempts will be misrepresented. I saw in the papers that we were opposed to the development of the Avoca mine.

Mr. O'Leary

It looks like it.

Mr. de Valera

How does it look like it? Did we not do all the practical work, from the very beginning, in connection with it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. O'Leary

For years nothing was done.

Mr. de Valera

Nonsense. For goodness' sake, do not use this House— which ought to be a House for deliberation—as a means for stupid propaganda.

Mr. O'Leary

Who is electioneering?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary must cease interrupting.

Mr. de Valera

We should serve the national interest by examining propositions on their merits.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy de Valera would be wise to address that remark to the Deputy who is sitting on his right, Deputy Aiken, in view of the speech which he made here yesterday.

Mr. de Valera

My remarks can be taken impartially as covering anybody who makes use of this House purely for Party propaganda purposes. We are discussing a matter of fundamental national importance. It is a question of how we may develop whatever resources we may have. Remember, there might even be a consideration why, in the long run, one should keep some of our mineral resources—I do not say these ones—in reserve to meet occasions such as we have had to meet in the last war, when alternative supplies from outside could not be got. I do not know to what extent considerations of that sort should be taken into account in dealing with the present matter but it is a matter in general that should be considered.

With regard to the whole fundamental question, our attitude is simply that we regard it as the taking of an important step. We only want to see that everything that it is possible to do to serve the national interest will be done. We are not opposing anything. All we are doing is endeavouring to satisfy ourselves that the propositions that have been put before us are the best in the national interest.

Later on, we will probably have an occasion for dealing with this particular project. Am I right in my assumption that we will have an opportunity of dealing specifically with the Avoca proposition? Will the House have an opportunity of dealing with it?

Mr. Sweetman

I presume the Deputy would be entitled to raise it on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. de Valera

But is no further legal sanction necessary?

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy's Government provided in the 1940 Act that the appropriate procedure was for the Minister to make the lease and lay not even the lease but a summary in a return on the Table of the House.

Mr. de Valera

I suppose that would provide an opportunity for anybody to raise the matter. The lease is valid without any——

Mr. Sweetman

There is no power of annulment, if that is what the Deputy means.

Mr. de Valera

That is really the question. I can see why it would be very difficult to have that. You cannot get to a certain point sometimes without having to enter into irrevocable commitments. That is a very good reason, then, why we should try to have all the details of this project which is the first and may be regarded, perhaps, as a precedent. The whole of this is closely associated with another question and that is the use of foreign capital in the industries of our country. Again, I think the same considerations should apply. We ought, before doing that, be satisfied that the home capital is not available and that the home skill is not available. If foreign capital comes here, the conditions under which it comes here ought to be carefully examined.

We are anxious to get foreign skill. We are anxious to get the enterprise which has been shown abroad, and the experience, into this country. However, in most of these cases the position would be very different from the position, for instance, of the Huguenots and others who came to this country. There you had people coming to this country with skill and settling here and becoming part of the nation. In the other case, what happens is this. Take Avoca as an example. What will happen is that you will have this skill brought in. Our people will be employed for a certain period. Once the national asset is exhausted, those people go away. Therefore, whilst we should be anxious, we should remember that it is not quite the case of getting people who bring in traditional skills and live in the country and afterwards become part of the nation and are of continuing value. Neither is it such a thing as happened when the Shannon scheme was introduced. There, you simply had the initial development of something which was going to continue. The water would continue to flow when the original engineers and the others had departed. However, it will not be like that in the case of mines. When the deposit is exhausted, that is the end of the enterprise. So much, then, for the fundamental question in this debate.

I come now to the immediate Bill. I think the Minister will not deny that what brought the Bill to a head and before the House was the need to make concessions in regard to this Canadian company. Naturally, it is expressed in wider terms. It does not refer to any particular company. The question arises: Are the concessions that are there the ones which are best in our interests and, at the same time, such as to induce either Irish capital or capital from abroad to be interested?

Deputy Lemass made certain criticisms of the Bill in his speech and I hope that his remarks will be considered carefully by the Minister for Finance. Two points arise: First, why should bedded minerals be excluded, seeing that coal in particular is one deposit which we should be most anxious to develop? I have not found out how long it is expected that our bogs will last when the peak or target of production set at present will be reached, but in a few years when that target is reached, how long will our present bog deposits last? Again, the answer is very different from what we heard some 40 or 50 years ago when we were told they could be operated for some hundreds of years at a stage of production sufficient to meet our needs and still not be exhausted.

I do not think that is the present position. I think exhaustion will come perhaps, within a generation, or even in a shorter period. Therefore, we should consider what native fuel we would have instead. I do not know to what extent it is possible to use more modern methods in regard to our coal mines, so as to utilise these narrow seams. I remember seeing where such narrow seams were used in other countries by being gasified, but at any rate it is obvious that capital for the exploitation of bedded minerals should be attracted just as much as in the exploitation of non-bedded minerals.

That is point number one. The other point is whether the method of allowing for what is the equivalent of depreciation—Deputy Lemass used a special word for it, in connection with the fact that, as you continue working, the available material is diminishing and at the end of the time, there is no asset for the company involved to exploit as the raw material on which it has been working is completely exhausted—is justified. Some tax concession in accordance with the rate at which the material was used up was accorded in Canada, as Deputy Lemass pointed to the Canadian method, and, at first sight, it would seem a better method than the method indicated in the Bill.

Our attitude is that this is the only occasion on which we can get a full discussion on this matter and we want all the facts in connection with it— what was done by the Minister to get other means of exploitation and why he was forced to adopt this particular method. We want to have all that explained. We also want to know as far as possible the terms on which the lease was made.

Mr. Sweetman

I gave those yesterday.

Mr. de Valera

We should have had them some time ago.

Mr. Sweetman

As a matter of fact, they were announced and if the Deputy had looked at the newspapers months ago, he could have seen that.

Mr. Deering

Judging by speeches of yesterday and to-day, one would think we should not go ahead with this matter. I think the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be complimented for taking this very desirable step and taking advantage of the fact that the mining experts from Canada are prepared to put down £200,000 for exploration.

Deputy Lemass gave his own reports, and, if these reports had been adopted, the mines would have been abandoned by now. Everything is in favour of going ahead and there is no point in adopting a dog-in-the-manger policy. We do not know when the atom bomb will blast the whole thing away and we might as well have a go, while we are still over ground—even though the miners may have to go underground. It is worth while developing Avoca, even if it is only for the employment content. I have just left a deputation which is trying to complete arrangements for a development of the harbour in Wicklow in connection with taking away ore for smelting. They will also have to get facilities from the Minister for Lands to get rid of the chaff or tailings of these mines which will probably add to the value of the land down there.

There is a good deal more to be found in the Avoca mines besides copper. I believe there are quite a lot of byproducts that would probably solve some of the difficulties of the Minister for Agriculture in regard to potash and many other minerals. Anybody who tries to put a spoke in the wheel, or put a damper on these developments, will come very badly out of this business. I think we should all give it the O.K. and, as I said before, the responsible Ministers are to be very much complimented. It is very well worth while for its employment content. We are all worried about unemployment and emigration and this may provide a solution for County Wicklow, and adjacent counties.

Mr. P. Brennan

In County Wicklow we are naturally all very anxious about the development of Avoca and I might say that, as far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned, we are happy that the day has arrived when Avoca can be developed on a commercial basis because I am fully convinced that, were it not for the Fianna Fáil Party, we would not have reached this stage.

I think it is very wrong for any members of the Government Parties to get up here and suggest that the Fianna Fáil Party is against the development of Avoca. It has been suggested by members of all Parties on the Government side that Fianna Fáil is opposed to this development. It is suggested we are sabotaging the development. That brings me back a few years because I remember in 1948 going to Avoca—not as a public representative —to a public meeting called as a result of a statement that had been made by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McGilligan, in the Dáil, when he was making his Budget statement. He had said that the moneys included in the Estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce—a sum of £85,000— for development work would not be devoted to that purpose. Following that statement, the people of Avoca became very anxious and called this protest meeting which was attended by members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and by upwards of 100 local residents and people actually employed in exploration work at Avoca.

If I remember rightly, it was suggested that a deputation should be sent to the Department of Industry and Commerce to put our case before the Minister, with a view to getting the Government to change its policy regarding Avoca. I understand that deputation was formed and met the Minister for Industry and Commerce. All this happened within a couple of weeks. The protest meeting was held within one week of the Budget statement and the deputation was sent, I think, the following week. The deputation was accompanied by a member of the Government at the time, the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and I think, by a member of the Seanad, Senator Sweetman. The net result was that the Government changed its mind. They decided that they would proceed with the exploration work. Unfortunately, it took them a long time to do so, because it was not until 1949 that that work was proceeded with on the same scale as had been intended by Deputy Lemass when he was preparing his Estimate for 1948.

Mr. Sweetman

Did the Deputy say that I was on a deputation in 1948?

Mr. P. Brennan

I said Senator Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

I was a Senator in 1948 and a Deputy in another part of that year.

Mr. P. Brennan

No, it was another gentleman who was a Senator that was on the deputation.

Mr. Sweetman

Accepted.

Mr. P. Brennan

Anyway, as far as this House and the people of Avoca are concerned, there is no doubt whatever about who are the people responsible for the development there, and no matter what is said by the members of the Labour Party, Fine Gael or anybody else, Deputy Lemass is the man who must and will get the benefit from the people down there.

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear!

Mr. Sweetman

Now, Ballingarry.

Mr. Davern

You did not give much chance to Ballingarry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Brennan.

Mr. P. Brennan

During the debate, the Attorney-General, Deputy McGilligan, intervened and tried to wangle out of it, saying it was not his intention to do away with this work, but he was quoted from the Dáil Debates by other speakers, and I do not intend to quote him again. He made certain references to other industries, and one of them was the milling industry. Deputy McGilligan is the last man in this House who should stand up and talk about flour milling, because in that very area we had two flour milling industries which were closed down when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. P. Brennan

He referred to the flour milling industry and I thought I would take the opportunity of reminding him that both in Aughrim and Rathdrum, quite adjacent to Avoca, a large number of men were put out of employment as a result of his efforts.

I have no more to say, except that I think that it is very wrong for anyone to try to misrepresent Fianna Fáil in this. We are very glad that the development is going ahead and will give good employment. The only thing that was asked for in the amendment was that details would be given here of the arrangement there between the Government and the Canadians.

Captain Giles

I do not like to see this developing into a dog-in-the-manger fight as to which side was responsible for the development of the Avoca mine. All we want to know is when the mines are going to be put working and when men will begin the job and money will be spent on these minerals. This is an important Bill. We are satisfied that there is not very much mineral wealth in this country, but what we have we should exploit to the utmost and find out, once and for all, the value of those minerals. We ought to be glad of every opening up and down the country. I have been for 25 years listening to talk of what is in Wicklow. First, we started with gold mines. Some members did very important work with gold mines in Wicklow and they turned out to be white elephants. I hope that the present mine will not turn out to be a white elephant.

I come from a county where there was great poverty and distress, around the Kingscourt area in Meath, and in Cavan. Fortunately for those two counties, a very important mineral wealth was found, gypsum, and it has transformed the whole picture of that countryside. Men were reared for export for years and now they are getting good wages for work in their own area. Let us hope that there will be a parallel to that in the exploitation of mineral wealth in Wicklow, and that Wicklow can be transformed like the Kingscourt area. We ought all to be very glad if we will have people working peacefully and prosperously there.

This is not the first time that foreign capital came in. For the past 25 or 30 years, we have been trying to start industries of all types, and every one of us knows that for ten years at the start of the industrial life of this country, we were exploited to the utmost by Jews and Gentiles from the ends of the earth, whose names we could not pronounce. They opened up tinpot factories of all types and got the swag. In some cases, they burned them out and in others, they cleared out with a good deal of Irish money. I hope that we will not see the like of it happening in our life again. Foreign capital, we see, is necessary because for 30 years we have been trying to get Irish capital to do this work and it has not come forward. Now a Canadian company is prepared to explore this wealth. What is wrong with that? I am quite satisfied that it is above board. If they were Jews from Palestine coming over, I could understand our being cautious about it, but the Canadians are as good a type of people as ourselves.

Mr. Briscoe

Are you sure they are not Jews?

Captain Giles

I should like to see British capital come in, if we cannot get our own people to do it. What we want to see is action and results. In the development of our natural resources, we should not be working at cross-purposes. We should not be narrow in our politics when it comes to the exploitation of our Irish resources.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy is being very liberal.

Captain Giles

I hope I am, because it is all to the good of the whole lot of us, whether a Fianna Fáil or an inter-Party Government, to explore and develop what little resources we have. I hope that we will get away from the narrow and bitter spirit. Deputy Lemass is an important ex-Minister of this House, a man of brains and abilities. If he had led off this discussion on a manly and honest kind of note and did not bring in all the cuts and twists he did yesterday, we might have had a very useful development in this debate over a few days, and it would be all to the good for Ireland. I hope that in future the ex-Taoiseach and his Minister will behave in a better way and not be looking across the House as if they were looking at anti-Irish traitors, knaves and slaves. They ought to realise that we are proud we were born in this country, and are as good as they are and as anxious to develop the natural resources of Ireland as they are. Do not think all the nationalism stands on one side of the House. I believe that the people in the Fianna Fáil Party are just as good as we are. All this narrow, mean politics of the last 30 years killed a whole lot of things. In cases like this, there should be no politics.

It would be grand to see the mineral wealth of Wicklow developed and hundreds and probably thousands of pounds paid in good wages, and our ships steaming across the water with the products of our own land. But it would be twice as grand if the big men on both sides came together for ten or 20 years and gave us peace, progress and prosperity. Forget all the dirty little bickerings of the last 30 years. These are things that we of the old Republican Army would love to see happen. We want to see an end of this bickering and working at cross-purposes. There is grand, great work to be done by big men on both sides, who can do that by burying their petty prides and jealousies and getting down to solid work.

The nation is crying out for action, and action is needed to stem the tide of unemployment and emigration. A change of government means very little in this country, unless we change our own minds and put first things first. We are glad here to have responsible people exploiting something. The people are crying out for more from us. In the name of heaven, let us remember that we came here trying to exploit the hills of Wicklow and other mineral development in our country, and we must not be at cross-purposes about it. It is high time to get things going, instead of listening to the talk that we have had here for the past three or four years. The people want to see work going on there to open up the minerals of Wicklow.

Is it not a grand thing to have an inter-Party Government who are determined to develop to the utmost extent the mineral resources of our country? Look at what happened in Kingscourt which was one of the most poverty-stricken areas in Ireland. Wicklow is fairly poverty-stricken and wants development and the resources there should be developed. Fianna Fáil should try to help in connection with that development, instead of endeavouring to score political points by asking who opened this or who closed that. We do not care two hoots. We want to see men employed in the mines.

We have been hearing about the minerals in County Wicklow for the past 30 years. Let us see if they are there, and now that we have an enterprising company coming from Canada, why should we kill it before it starts operating? That is what we are trying to do because we are too narrow and mean. We almost killed the Shannon scheme in the same way—that scheme which has brought new life to the country. The working of the E.S.B will transform the life of every one of us by eliminating drudgery.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill.

Captain Giles

Let the responsible men on the other side of the House be reasonable and honourable. They ought to realise that what we are doing, we are not doing in the interests of a Canadian company or any other company. We are using foreign capital because we have got to use it. I hate the idea of having to go outside the country to look for capital. I only wish that we could procure it at home.

For 30 years, we have protected Irish industry and enabled industrialists to become prosperous. They have thousands, if not millions, of pounds at their disposal. I wish they were big enough to come out in the open and invest that money in developing our mineral resources. If they did that, we would not have to look for foreign capital, but they want greater security and they stay behind a tariff wall. Let them come out from behind the tariff wall and invest their money in Irish undertakings and give the country a chance of developing its own resources.

When they are not prepared to come forward, we must get capital somewhere else, and I am proud that a Canadian company can come in and exploit our resources, since our Irish industrialists will not. I would not be ashamed of an English or an American company doing the same thing, because we want money to develop our resources and give wages to our people. We ought to cut out this bickering, narrowness and smallness in Irish political life. We are long enough at it. Our young people are longing for the day when they can get work at home. We ought to stem the tide of emigration.

Mr. Briscoe

The amendment before the House simply states that the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill until such time as the terms of the contract between the Government and this Canadian company is made available for us to see what is in it. Unless that contract is made available so that people can see what is in it and what it implies, we can only base our opinions on assumptions and calculations. I subscribed many years ago to the idea that for the development of our mineral resources which would have a very heavy labour content, it might be advisable to consider the employment of people for the winning of minerals from these mines of ours, and, having in mind the ups and downs of world prices in relation to these ores, that you would have, at first, a difficulty of some years working at huge losses and possibly other years working at very large profits.

When I first gave this matter some thought and consideration, lead was somewhere about £10 per ton. To-day, the price of lead is away above that. Taking lead as one of the items, it appeared at the time that, having regard to the then ruling wages, something between £50 and £60 would have to be spent to get a return of one ton, the equivalent of £40, which meant that we would have a loss and the loss would become bigger as you employed more people and produced more, but then there would possibly have been some way of subsidising the loss for the sake of giving employment, and, when world prices rose, you would have a means of repaying that, or building up a reserve. However, that is a particular approach.

Whatever the copper resources are in extent and amount, there is a final limit to what can be taken out and, at some time, depending upon the rate of development, we will entirely exhaust our resources in copper. Deputy de Valera, when speaking this afternoon, touched on this point. It is quite reasonable to understand and agree with. If we ourselves, not to speak of a foreign company, were to develop those mines and exhaust their resources in a matter of five to seven years, we would leave ourselves, after that period, entirely dependent on outside sources for our own copper requirements.

One has only to throw one's mind back to the last war to remember the difficulties that existed in this country in securing a sufficiency of copper for our own domestic requirements. Obviously, some of us feel that in that agreement some consideration should be given to the speed at which they are going to operate and the time limit, as far as the exhaustion of those resources is concerned.

Deputy Lemass yesterday drew his conclusions from the financial calculations apparently announced in the prospectus of that company when they were seeking the capital to work this concession. As far as one can understand those figures—I think the House must agree with the conclusions drawn by Deputy Lemass—it would appear that these people are going to exploit those resources at the quickest possible speed and they will operate them on the basis of amortising their capital, not in a period of 20 years, but in a period of four to five years.

Is the Government able to say that, so far as that aspect is concerned, adequate safeguards have been included in the agreement? If they are prepared to say that, why not show the agreement? Is it not obvious that, in an agreement of this kind, the more secrecy there is, the more suspicion will arise and it will be no use in time to come to say: "We told you so."

Deputy Giles, in his consideration of this aspect, has apparently certain objections to certain individuals doing this work, but he has less objection to others. I think he almost went as far as saying that he would be willing to welcome the British back to do this work.

Captain Giles

Before the bucks from Palestine anyhow. That is what I meant.

Mr. Briscoe

I know, and I do not think that is the proper approach at all.

Captain Giles

It is the proper approach.

Mr. Briscoe

What security is there for the nation that our resources will not just be exploited for sale at the present high price of copper in order to cash in quickly on the market? When Fianna Fáil was first starting the industrial development of this country, we used hear talk from this side of the House that we were merely inducing fly-by-nights to come into the country. If what is suspected as being the method of operation here is, in fact, the method of operation with regard to the financial investment and the profits envisaged, surely this venture can be described as something which, as far as this nation is concerned, is a fly-by-night adventure. That is one serious aspect of this matter. If the agreement has no provision to protect the country we may easily find ourselves in a short period of time with disappointed people who will lose their employment and a disappointed nation which will be dependent upon, as I said before, whatever price is demanded for shipment to us of this essential commodity.

We all want to see our mineral resources developed, first of all, in order to give employment and, secondly, in order to save the expenditure of money on bringing in from abroad what we can produce here ourselves, thereby narrowing our adverse trade balance. These operations are desirable and essential but they must be related to the general welfare and safety of the nation as a whole, not for a period of just a few years, but over a long period of years. I do not know why this agreement should not be laid upon the Table of the House. What other clauses are in it that it should be withheld? If this country enters into an agreement with another country, then that agreement is adopted by this House. Here we have a Department of State entering into a contract, or giving a concession on the basis of a contract, to persons outside this country.

Now, I am not so worried about the tax concessions. I think the time has come, indeed I think the time has passed, when Governments should consider tax concessions to people engaged in industry, particularly in an industry such as this. As Deputy de Valera said, why not extend these concessions also to those who are taking steps to develop our coal resources? I do not know how the Minister can controvert the conclusions drawn by Deputy Lemass on the financial aspect of the prospectus of this Canadian company. Remember, the project must be a very attractive one.

I saw in a paper a reference to the fact that these people sought money to the extent of their estimated requirements on the basis of their agreement and it appeared such an attractive proposition that their financial requirements were over-subscribed. From a business point of view it must, therefore, be a very attractive proposition. What more attractive proposition could there be than that people should be able to say: "We estimate there such and such a tonnage of ore, containing this and this percentage of copper; if we operate at this and this speed, not only will we finish the job in four or five years but you will get back both your invested capital and something like three or four times the amount you originally invested?" That is the approach one must make to this on the basis of examination from the other point of view. Consequently, I join unhesitatingly with those who framed this amendment. I support the amendment in toto. Unless the Minister is prepared to put this document in full before the House we have no right whatsoever to assent in the dark to an agreement which, in time, may show itself to be more dangerous to the nation than our making no effort of any kind to work these mines at all.

Mr. O'Hara

I welcome this Bill because I feel that it will have the effect, first of all, of focussing attention on the fact that we have some minerals in this country. Possibly this development will, at a later stage, lead to further development in other parts of the country, a development that is very, very sorely needed indeed. That is borne out by the fact that there are so many people flying from the land. One of the reasons for that migration is that we have not enough mineral development in this country. I agree we may not have minerals in abundance, but at the same time I doubt very much if successive Governments have done all they could have done to find out exactly what we have got.

It must be appreciated that a considerable amount of money is involved in any such development. There is also, as the Minister pointed out, a good deal of risk involved. A hard-headed businessman, who intends to sink a few hundred thousand pounds in something under the earth, naturally worries about his prospects of success; our people in particular seem to be very worried about investing money in such ventures. I believe that is one of the reasons why the present Minister for Finance and the present Government, reluctantly no doubt, were forced to go to the four corners of the earth seeking people prepared to come in here and invest their money in our mineral deposits. There are many wealthy people in the country; we can see that when national loans are floated. They are subscribed to very satisfactorily; and that is commendable. But national loans are, after all, gilt-edge securities. When it comes to taking a risk, our people are very, very shy; they are afraid to take a risk in their own country. The odd thing is that they are not a bit hesitant in sending their money across the water to have it invested there.

We, in turn, are obliged to enlist the aid of the foreigner in order to encourage development in this country. I do not think there is anything wrong in that and I have no doubt that the present Minister, like his predecessor, Deputy Lemass, will take all the precautions necessary to ensure, as far as lies within his power, that no undesirables will come in here. From that point of view, I think there is nothing wrong in allowing these Canadians to come in here. Nobody will ever convince me that we are all saints in this country and those who live elsewhere are all crooks. There are good and bad in every country in the world. It has been suggested that because these people are Canadians we should not welcome them here.

It is true that the Avoca mines down in Wicklow do not directly concern me. But I do not grudge development in that part of the country, a development from which the people in the area may benefit. It has been suggested by Deputy Lemass that at some stage these prospective promoters may pull out suddenly and disappear, having employed 400 or 500 people, and that that may create a certain problem for some future Government. As I have already pointed out, there is always a certain amount of risk involved in a venture of this kind, but we should be prepared to take that risk. If our own people are not prepared to take it and others come along who are prepared to take it we should welcome them and wish them well, giving them whatever assistance we can. The fact that 400 or 500 people would be unemployed in that area if the resources of that mine became exhausted would not be a problem of the type that any Government could not surmount. We have often had that type of upheaval in other industries and I am sure, if such a situation arises at a later date, although I sincerely hope it does not, that the Government of the day will be able to cope with it.

Furthermore, if we discover as a result of our experiment on this occasion in having this Canadian company develop the mines, that there is something wrong with the agreement—that is what this House is for, to put these things right—the Ministers can come in at a later date with some amending legislation to deal with any irregularities that arise. It does seem strange to me on the subject of developing the mines that the first thing we should start worrying about is that we should exhaust the resources right away. It is foolish to start discussing that at this stage before we find out what is the extent of the resources.

I welcome this Bill because it is an attempt on the part of the present Government to have employment provided for our own people in our own land and I only hope that that type of venture will be spread to different parts of the country and particularly to the congested areas. When people say that we have not very large mineral resources in this country—and I hold that view myself—in the main I think we can say we have done much to find out exactly what we have.

We are not under native Government for such a long time, but nevertheless I think the present Government should tackle the problem of having further surveys and further experimental work carried out in various parts of the country, particularly in Connaught and in my own County of Mayo, where you have a considerable area of poor quality land and the most emigration. I would ask the present Minister, therefore, to direct his attention to the neglected areas of the West and, if possible, to have further surveys carried out there to see what we have in the way of minerals in the Ox Mountains and other mountains there. If we do that we will be doing a good day's work. Even if we must go to faraway places to get these experts and to get people with money to do the work, we should not be afraid to do it and we should not stand up in this House to blame any Minister who is doing his best to further such projects.

Mr. MacEntee

The sole purpose of this amendment is a very simple one. It is to secure publication of the agreement which has been made for the exploitation of the Avoca deposits. It seems to me that that is just ordinary common sense. There is no question of denying to the Government or anyone else whatever credit may attach to the fact that, after 15 years of exploration work and investment of £500,000 in this mine, we have proven that there are deposits which are commercially workable.

I have said that the purpose of the amendment is to secure publication of the agreement. I think the Irish people are entitled to that and the members of this House are entitled to it. There would have been much less confusion running through this debate, many fewer unfounded statements made, if the document had been tabled for both Houses of the Oireachtas and were available for consultation in the Library and for reference purposes here during the course of this debate. We would not have heard, for instance, Deputy Giles talking about these people being brought in to explore the body of ore which exists in Avoca. That exploration was begun very many years ago and it was financed largely by the Fianna Fáil Government as it existed from 1941 until 1954. The development was continuous in face of very great difficulties, difficulties in securing plant, difficulties in de-watering the old deposits, difficulties above all in securing the requisite technical personnel.

The work which we were doing and the efforts we were making did not meet with universal approbation in this House and when there was a change of Government in 1948, as you have heard, one of the first things done was to suspend the operations which were then in progress in Avoca. I will not say that that was done in any malevolent way. Naturally, a mining venture is a highly speculative venture and if the Minister for Finance of the time wanted to take stock of the situation and see what was involved, I think that, as Minister for Finance, he was entitled to do that. But nobody is entitled to come here and denigrate the Party and the Government which were responsible for initiating this project, which resumed operations after they had been interrupted and pressed them through until their judgment had been vindicated and there was a proposition which could be offered to mining experts anywhere in the world with the certitude that it would be accepted.

What we are really concerned about now, at least those of us on this side of the House who have been associated in any way with this project, is that, having, as I have said, put 15 years' hard work into the project in the face of great discouragement, having invested over £500,000 in it when the exploitation of the mine—as distinct from the exploration—is about to begin, the Irish people will derive the greatest possible profit they can out of the investment which they have already made. I think that is a simple matter of business. When we ask, therefore, that we should see with our own eyes the details of the agreement which will regulate the future development of this mine, let nobody challenge us and say that we are opposed to this development. We are not opposed to it. If we have one regret, perhaps it is that the same opportunities as were made available to foreign mining companies were not made available to our own people and that our own people did not have an opportunity to invest their savings in this venture. They might not have availed of it, but surely they were entitled to have a chance at it as well as the people in Canada or the United States. That is all that is involved in this debate and some of the speeches I have listened to from the opposite side of the House were quite unreasonable. The speech that Deputy Giles made just now was not as unreasonable as that made by Deputy O'Leary to-day or by Deputy Desmond and the present Attorney-General yesterday.

We are not approaching this Bill in any quibbling or crabbed way. We are glad that the speculation which we made, that the operation which we initiated, has at long last, after the passage of a great number of years, and the expenditure of a great deal of public money, been fully justified. For that we are not going to claim too much credit. If we had not succeeded we would have been blamed and we would have heard people talking about the extravagant capital programme of Fianna Fáil. We would have been told that we had spent £500,000 as we were told, when we made an investment in the National Stud, that we had spent £250,000 unreasonably. We should have had to bear the burden. Thank goodness, our speculation has been justified and we will be very happy, when the mines are going, to know that it was this progressive and enterprising Party that initiated the whole matter.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett)

I congratulate Deputy MacEntee on his very astute attempt to extricate the Opposition from the position they have placed themselves in, not alone in this House, but in my constituency. Everybody in that constituency knows that this amendment is down here to prevent the work being carried on.

Mr. Lemass

That is not true at all.

Mr. Everett

All my life I have advocated that something should be done in Avoca to provide employment for the people there and I never opposed Deputy Lemass or Fianna Fáil in any efforts they may have made to provide that employment. I am glad that after all these years our work is going to be justified despite the fact that Deputy Lemass and his organisation put out a letter under the name of Deputy Brennan immediately after a speech I made at the Chamber of Commerce knowing that my lips were tied and that I could not reply to it. Deputy Lemass knew that there was no lease for the mines and Deputy Lemass had no scheme to prepare any such lease. We could not develop these mines if there was no lease but, while we were negotiating with the landlord for the lease, we got pumps from America so that when the men, in their operations, came along to the level of the river they would not be compelled to leave the shaft empty and go to sink another shaft.

We provided these pumps while we were negotiating with the landlord to get the lease so that we would have some rights to the place in which we were spending the money of the Irish people. If we had had no lease do you think the Canadians would have signed that agreement?

I do not dispute Deputy Lemass's statement that this Company was over-subscribed in Canada. A party of journalists was over here and I informed them of the development that could take place in this country if we had the money. I have since had a letter from one of them boosting up Avoca and pointing out that there is plenty of money in Canada to develop the mines of Ireland. I think the Opposition should congratulate us on our enterprise and that they should try to make a success of the job and help us to prove to other people that they can invest money in the mines of Ireland.

Deputy Lemass at one time was very much in favour of private enterprise, as he is reported in column 112 of the 1947 Debates. Here is a private enterprise and why is there objection to it? Deputy Lemass himself did everything he could to try and get Irish people to invest their money in the development of certain industries and what success did he have? I have heard statements made here to-day about people going to America. When Deputy Lemass went there I was delighted and I hoped that he would succeed in arousing interest and enthusiasm for this country in America. I must say it is a very small thing to try to take advantage of any Minister when he is doing his best in the interests of his country. No matter what Deputy Brennan may say the people of County Wicklow and of Avoca will realise that the Opposition have endeavoured to prevent 500 men from being employed in Avoca.

Mr. de Valera

Because we want to see the details of the State contract, we want to prevent people from being employed!

Mr. Everett

You are getting full compensation for any money expended on this scheme and you will have 500 Irishmen employed on it.

Mr. Briscoe

For how long?

Mr. Everett

I trust that every Deputy in this House, no matter to what Party he belongs, will give this scheme his full support. We have heard enough about who started it and who is and who is not responsible. As I said, I do not condemn Deputy Lemass or the Opposition, who were then the Government. Money was provided to try to create employment in the development work. I am glad that, as a result of the expenditure of that money, employment can be provided. I hope that not alone will Avoca be a success but that there will be many other ventures in other parts of the country. My sincere wish is that the people who invest their money in this way will get some return and that that will encourage others to engage in this work so that so many men will not be forced to cross to other countries to work for the very foreigner that people object to coming in here with his money. It is better that our people should work in their own country than that they should go to other countries and work for foreigners. I welcome the Bill. I regret that the Opposition have put down an amendment to oppose it.

In the interests of my constituency, which I have represented for well over 30 years, I am delighted that we have some hope for the future. I do not worry who may get the praise so long as my constituency will reap the benefit of the first work.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I do not propose to delay the House. This matter has been discussed at length. This Bill tends to attract foreigners to this country with a view to developing our mineral resources. I am particularly interested in this measure because I come from a constituency which has more mineral resources than possibly any other in this country. When we were governed by foreigners, mass employment was given in the development of those mineral resources. In my immediate neighbourhood hundreds of people were employed up to the outbreak of the first World War in the production of barytes, copper and so on. Unfortunately, since native Government took over the affairs of this country, no such employment has been given, despite the many appeals of the people and their representatives to successive Governments.

The consensus of opinion is that out of our own resources we cannot undertake that work. It is said, and possibly with some reason, that we are incapable of undertaking that work. Let us face up to the facts. We have these resources. We are not able to develop them. If we can get outside people, Canadians or others, to develop them for us and give us the technical advice and employ Irish people, we should welcome them. I would very much like to welcome them in West Cork. I hope this measure is a national one and is not confined to Avoca. While there are, undoubtedly, mineral resources in County Wicklow, there are also mineral resources in other parts of the State and it is the duty of every member of the House to do his best to attract people to this country in order to give employment in developing its resources.

It is very narrow-minded on the part of Fianna Fáil to oppose a measure which they know cannot but do good for the people. What harm can come from this measure? Fianna Fáil were in office for 20 years. They never did anything about developing these mines.

Mr. MacCarthy

That is wrong.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

During my lifetime, I have not seen any man employed in the mines in West Cork. I have gone into this question fully with a number of people, particularly the elderly people, who formerly worked in these mines and earned what where then regarded as very reasonable incomes. The position is that we have failed to develop these resources. We must face up to that fact. I welcome the initiative of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, in trying to interest foreigners in the development of our mineral resources. I feel sure that every impartial member of the House and every broad-minded Irishman and every man who has the country's interest at heart welcome Deputy Norton's visit to America with a view to getting Irish people there interested in affairs at home and with a view to getting their help, financial and otherwise, for these projects.

I do hope that when these concessions are granted this Bill will be implemented on a national basis and that the Government and every future Government, conscious of their responsibility to the Irish people, will have surveys made of all those areas that for the past 30 years have been listed for survey and about which nothing has so far been done.

With the present world prices of minerals that we have in such abundant measure here, nothing but good can come from this measure. I believe it will help the national economy and will help to create employment for people who formerly had to go over to John Bull to earn a livelihood. I wish the Minister every success with this measure which, I believe, will have national advantages.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

This debate, which has extended over yesterday and to-day, has roamed not merely far away from the Bill but even far away from the amendment. The matters that were discussed were not all by any means relevant to mining or mining enterprises, but I propose in my reply largely to confine myself to remarks that were made in regard to mining and mining enterprises rather than to enter any wider sphere.

Deputy Lemass, in opening the debate, turned, in the first instance, to the Bill itself. In respect of the Bill he made two comments, two criticisms. In the first place, he suggested that it was entirely wrong in any way to draw a distinction between bedded and non-bedded minerals. He suggested that there was equal risk, equal difficulty in the mining of bedded minerals to the risk in the mining of non-bedded ore deposits.

Mr. Lemass

And the same need for incentives.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not interrupt the Deputy, except when he misquoted me.

Mr. Lemass

I am only putting the Minister right.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass was there for 19 years and, during the whole of that period, did he ever do anything to provide incentives, by way of tax concessions or otherwise, for bedded deposits? He could make the case, and I freely give him this point, that in respect of non-bedded deposits he was, perhaps, waiting for the results of the Mianraí exploration to go a certain distance before he considered the non-bedded question. But he, and Deputy MacEntee, as his Minister for Finance, during a long part of their period of office were perfectly capable, with all the information that is available to them to-day, to deal with bedded deposits if they were so minded, and for Deputy Lemass to come in now and suggest that there was a crying need for legislation of this kind in regard to bedded deposits is to show nothing but what I might rather crudely describe as sour grapes.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Fianna Fáil Party were not prepared to consider this type of incentive for the mining of bedded or non-bedded ores. Deputy Lemass has tried to pretend that there was no distinction between the bedded and the non-bedded deposits and the difficulties involved in their mining. The position is perfectly clear. We had some discussions yesterday, for example, about the cost involved in the erection of the concentrator—a very substantial cost with which I shall deal later. In regard to coal there is no such cost; when coal is mined it has not got to be treated in the same way as non-bedded ores.

Mr. Lemass

It has to be treated and it should be treated. That is what is not being done.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy knows perfectly well that in relation to bedded deposits there is an entirely different method of manufacturing required once you get down under the ground. In regard to the bedded minerals you have not got to invest the same type of very heavy capital that is necessary for the non-bedded ores. The Deputy told me yesterday that I was talking from a text book when I suggested there was a fair case in respect of the different breaks in the veins of non-bedded deposits. Frankly, I would prefer to accept the views of the geological experts on that and the geological advice that I have obtained is quite clear and quite categorical on the distinction between bedded and non-bedded ores. The same expenditure is not involved at all in the mining of the bedded ores as is necessary for the non-bedded minerals.

I am not a geologist and neither is the Deputy but what I have given is the best expert opinion that can be obtained in this country and I prefer to accept that rather than the ex-parte statement of Deputy Lemass yesterday that I was wrong when I suggested bedded deposits did not peter out in the same way as non-bedded minerals. The facts in relation to our bedded deposits are simple: they do not require the same capital expenditure and particularly do not involve the erection of the same early plant as the deposits for which this Bill caters. In addition, there is nothing known to-day in respect of our bedded deposits that was not known during the period in which Deputy Lemass was Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I do not agree. Our coal deposits have never been properly exploited.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not say that. I said there is nothing known to-day that was not known when Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee were on this side of the House and when they had the opportunity of dealing with the matter in this way if they were so minded. It is nonsensical for Deputy Lemass to say that he is now minded to do something which he was not minded to do during his period of office. Deputy Lemass suggested in relation to the proposals in this Bill for the measure of tax concessions that a more appropriate method would be to accept the Canadian system. I do not know whether the report I have seen of the Deputy's speech yesterday contains an inaccuracy or not but he is reported as saying that the Canadian people were estimating on the basis of 30,000,000 tons.

Mr. Lemass

13,000,000.

Mr. Sweetman

I take it that is a misprint, but without any question, taking either figure, the amounts that the company which has taken the lease of Avoca would have to pay would be substantially less than Deputy Lemass's proposal. He is at the one moment suggesting that we should not give this lease to the Canadian interests and at the same time suggesting that we should give tax concessions that would be more favourable to them than the proposals included in this Bill. The Deputy can take it as certain that I have worked out the figures, not to-day or yesterday, but at the time that I was considering the proposals with the intention of producing this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Are the Canadians mentioned in the Bill; is this Bill confined to them?

Mr. Sweetman

I am not talking of the Canadians mentioned in the Bill. I am talking about the disreputable effort Deputy Lemass made yesterday to suggest two diametrically opposed things in the same speech.

Mr. Lemass

I spoke of the Bill as a tax measure without mentioning Avoca.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy certainly did not do that. He did the exact reverse of doing that. As a tax measure in respect of non-bedded ores I feel that the thing that is necessary is to provide that we will get people interested in the very heavy initial capital expenditure that is necessary to deal with these minerals. I think the best way of doing that and the clearest way of doing that is the way provided in this Bill. Deputy Lemass said yesterday that he did not approve of the method we have adopted here and that he would prefer the Canadian method, but he did not give the Canadian method accurately. The Canadian method is not to give three free years but three and a half years free and in addition to three and a half years free to give in perpetuity an exemption of one-third from taxable profits. That has not in any way got anything to do with depreciation of the assets. It is a grant in perpetuity for mineral workings of a discriminatory rate of tax of two-thirds of the tax that would otherwise be chargeable.

Mr. Lemass

Is it not called the depletion allowance?

Mr. Sweetman

It is called a depletion allowance but it has nothing to do with depreciation.

Mr. de Valera

It means depreciation of the total asset.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not. It is, in fact, a discriminatory rate of tax for mining enterprises by which they are taxed at only two-thirds of the rate payable by other industries and that rate is granted in perpetuity. I do not think that is what we want here. I think what we want here is something that will induce people to examine the possibilities of such Irish mineral resources as there may be, not on a concession in perpetuity but on something that will urge them to go into this business. That is why the Bill has expressed in the first instance that it must be within a period of three years from April 6th next and that the work must be started. I want to ensure that there will be a method of getting the initial very heavy capital expenditure in the manner that is provided in this Bill. I have not any doubt whatever that the method that is provided here is a better method for our circumstances than the Canadian method to which Deputy Lemass referred yesterday.

These were the only two criticisms of the Bill itself that were made by any Deputy in the House during the course of this debate. The rest of the debate centred on the amendment that was put down in the name of Deputy Lemass. I must confess I was rather amused to find the Fianna Fáil Front Bench contradicting itself so often in the course of the last couple of days. Deputy Lemass opened the debate and said that he did not think Mianraí Teoranta should do this work. Deputy Aiken dithered as to whether they should or not. Deputy Derrig came along and said Mianraí Teoranta should do the work. Deputy Childers came along to-day and went as near as he dared to suggesting that this was a good Bill and that the amendment was a bad one. Deputy de Valera, after many platitudes, suggested that the amendment was for the sole purpose of seeking information as to what had happened. Deputy MacEntee came along and became even more pianissimo—in fact so pianissimo that those of us who know Deputy MacEntee in this House were rather at a loss to recognise the Deputy MacEntee we knew.

The members of the Opposition to-day have been trying to get themselves out of the jam into which they got themselves yesterday. At any rate, it is a good thing that they realise where they were travelling yesterday. I gave yesterday to this House all the details that were in any way relevant, as far as I could see, to the discussion —or, to be more strictly accurate, to the amendment.

Mr. de Valera

Why not give us the document to the agreement?

Mr. Sweetman

But why did you not put the amendment down in the words you meant? If you wanted to see the agreement, why did you not put it down in that form? Is the Deputy not capable of drafting an amendment to mean what he intends it to mean—or did he want to have it both ways and be able to say afterwards that the amendment said something else?

Mr. de Valera

Read the amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

Did the Deputy want to be able to say at a later stage that it meant something entirely different? Deputy de Valera himself—from what he said to-day—did not, I think, recollect what they had done, what they had said, when they were in power and when they were in charge of these matters. The position was laid down quite clearly in the Minerals Development Act, 1940, as to what should be done.

Mr. de Valera

Before the Minister continues, would he give us the terms of the amendment?

Mr. Sweetman

Does the Deputy not remember what was in the amendment?

Mr. de Valera

We want the House to hear it.

Mr. Sweetman

What the Deputy's amendment says is "... until it has received and approved...." It did not ask for the agreement to be tabled. It asked for something entirely different. The intention of Deputy Lemass, when he was starting off this debate yesterday, was not to take the line that was taken to-day— the line that merely the terms of the agreement were desirable. There were plenty of other ways to get that. The fact is perfectly clear, however, that the record of the statutes shows what was intended that the Government should do in relation to these commercial propositions.

I said yesterday and I repeat—and, to be fair to Deputy de Valera, I think that in his speech to-day he acknowledged that it was so—that it would be quite impossible for any Government to carry on commercial negotiations if these negotiations had to be carried on in the full glare of publicity and that the appropriate thing to be done was what was provided in the Act—that a return should be made of the various leases made under that Act.

Mr. Lemass

That has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Sweetman

In case anybody had any doubt about that, in case there was any question of anybody wondering whether the return should be yet on the Table or not, I quite specifically and quite deliberately gave yesterday not merely the information that was visualised in the preparation of that statutory return but, in addition, any other information I thought might be of the slightest use to any Deputy on either side of the House in considering this matter.

People talk as if this lease that was made in respect of Avoca came out of the sky. Everybody knew, particularly everybody in this House, that it was intended to make commercial arrangements in respect of Avoca and that Mianraí Teoranta were endeavouring to get commercial interest to come into this mining enterprise. It was stated this time last year—I shall deal with the method used in a moment—but, in case there should be any doubt that there was any secrecy about the matter may I quote what the Tánaiste said on the 23rd March, 1955, as reported at column 516 of Volume 149 of the Official Report? He was dealing with the Supplementary Estimate and, in the course of his remarks, he said:—

"For some years past Mianraí Teoranta have been conducting a scheme of exploration on mineral deposits at Avoca, County Wicklow. The aim of the scheme was to establish the existence at Avoca of sufficient quantities of copper ore of a grade suitable for commercial development. This aim has now been achieved and negotiations are at present going on with a number of mining concerns to see whether they will be interested in undertaking the development of the deposits. It is too soon to say, at this stage, whether satisfactory arrangements can be made for development by a commercial concern but preliminary proposals have been received from one company of international repute."

Mr. Lemass

Not this one.

Mr. Sweetman

I know. I suggested to Deputy Lemass and the Opposition that, if they were in any way sincere in the suggestions they made in this House yesterday, that was the time when they should have made their view clear to the House. That was the time when a responsible Opposition which did not merely wish to cause trouble and difficulties in regard to commercial exploration would have made it clear that they had a view. That was the time when as an Opposition—as they would have been perfectly entitled to do—that view should have been put in public. That was the way in which—and I repeat the words in spite of the amusement of Deputy de Valera—a responsible Opposition would have approached the problem rather than in the irresponsible way in which they approached it, saying different things at different times yesterday.

Mr. de Valera

It would be very interesting to hear the Minister——

Mr. Sweetman

As I said a few seconds ago, we heard here yesterday various comments from different members of the Opposition as to the manner in which this development should be carried through. Deputy Lemass, fairly enough, stood up yesterday to his previous utterances. In reply to a question by me, he answered that he did not approve of Mianraí Teoranta undertaking this work. That is clearly not merely the view of Deputy Lemass but was the view of the Fianna Fáil Government, and it is on the record beyond any question again and again and, as I told the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking earlier to-day, he cannot now at this stage take up the position that he did not understand what his responsible Minister was stating as the view of the Government in previous times. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass would like me to quote statements he made in 1947——

Mr. de Valera

Quote my statements.

Mr. Sweetman

I thought the Deputy, particularly in the case of Deputy Lemass, was the real archangel of collective responsibility. Does he now renege on his own Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce? I do not know whether Deputy Lemass wishes me to go back on those statements, or whether he will accept that those statements which he made in 1947 made it perfectly clear when he was speaking as the representative of the then Government that when exploration work had gone to a certain stage Mianraí Teoranta should get out of the job and further development should be dealt with by private enterprise——

Mr. Lemass

Or——

Mr. Sweetman

I did not say "or". If Deputy Lemass does not accept that he said this was his view, I will read the quotation. I think he does accept that this was his view, and I think he will also remember that, in 1947, when there was a question of coming to this House for money for Mianraí Teoranta, he went to particular pains to explain how international enterprise was able to operate over a series of workings and had not got, so to speak, all its eggs in one basket, and that that was one of the reasons why it was impossible to visualise the commercial development of Avoca as a single entity. If the Deputy wants the reference——

Mr. Lemass

That is not in dispute. The only question I raised here is: Did you make a good agreement about Avoca with this one company?

Mr. Sweetman

If Deputy Lemass wishes to make that point, I am perfectly prepared to meet it, but I want to know what is the view of the Opposition as a responsible Opposition, because I hear one view from Deputy Lemass, a different view from Deputy de Valera and a different view again from Deputy Derrig. It is perfectly clear to me that they are all putting different views on the records of this House in regard to this matter, because they cannot agree among themselves.

Mr. MacEntee

The effect of a coalition?

Mr. Sweetman

The effect of the Coalition in respect of Avoca is that we have produced something.

Mr. Lemass

You have not produced it here.

Mr. Sweetman

In the last six months——

Mr. MacEntee

You are very proud of the baby, but afraid to let us see it.

Mr. Sweetman

We have produced in the last six months far more interest all over the country—not merely in Avoca—in the development of Irish minerals, such as they may be, than there ever was at any time during the 19 years——

Mr. Lemass

There was never a price of £400 a ton for copper before.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass—I am going to come to the agreement itself—gave us a great many figures yesterday in regard to the price of copper. It is not the price of copper to-day that matters in relation to these deposits; it is the price it is likely to be in, shall we say, 1958.

Mr. Lemass

Quite right.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass sets himself up as being a prophet in that respect.

Mr. Lemass

I quoted the prophets.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass gave me many quotations yesterday of figures based entirely on present-day prices. He mentioned, I think, the British Metal Corporation at one stage. I have here more quotations which show that the people in the metal business themselves are not prepared to estimate what the price is likely to be for a period any distance ahead. It is quite nonsensical, stupid and misleading to suggest that one can start to plan a commercial enterprise dealing with copper on the basis of present prices when it must be on the basis of long-term prices that the enterprise will show a profit or will not.

Mr. Lemass

Prices may be higher.

Mr. Sweetman

They may be higher; they may be very much lower. If Deputy Lemass was paying any attention to it at the time, copper took a big drop last autumn at one stage, because I think at that time people thought there was about to be more production. The fact is that no matter where you go, you cannot get anyone with any knowledge—I do not mean somebody who is merely prepared to chance his arm—to give a firm opinion of where copper prices are likely to be in a couple of years' time. All the figures the Deputy quoted yesterday were based on the present prices of copper. If I may just take one, the Metal Bulletin of the 7th of this month:—

"To take the obvious case to-day, is it not at least as reasonable to look on the current high price of copper as foreshadowing the indispensable part copper may play in the expanding world of to-morrow, as to regard it as a temporarily inflated level which will be corrected in due course by growing supply?"

The two views put in contrast to each other are there and I am not prepared to say which of those views is the correct one. What I am not prepared to say is that the enterprise is the cast-iron certainty that Deputy Lemass suggested when he was discussing the matter here yesterday——

Mr. Lemass

The Toronto investors thought it was.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not know anything about Toronto. I do, however, know this: from the very day that it was made known that Mianraí Teoranta was anxious to seek out commercial people who would interest themselves in this venture, this was the only proposition that had any real national advantage, and I know that nobody, no group of Irish people, unfortunately, interested themselves in this enterprise in the slightest. Neither, so far as I am aware, has any group of Irish people interested themselves since last September in any mineral deposit that was not being operated before that. The plain fact of the matter is that this is not a type of business to which our people are accustomed.

Deputy MacEntee a few minutes ago —Deputy Lemass put me off the track when I was going to correct him— chided a Deputy for referring to exploration and said exploration was finished with. If Deputy MacEntee were here yesterday, he would have heard me refer to the fact that it is not finished and that this company is to spend £180,000 at least, and perhaps £450,000, of its own money on further exploration.

Mr. MacEntee

Mianraí Teoranta has proved that 13,000,000 tons of ore are there. That is a good beginning.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not going to take away from the value of their work. Mianraí Teoranta has proved 13,000,000 tons, but any company that was going to induce the commercial interests concerned would have to do a good deal more exploration work before they could certainly bring it to commercial development. That, I think, is an obvious and self-evident fact.

The plain fact of the matter is that the terms which I made clear yesterday and had been given some months ago by the Tánaiste to the newspapers and that were published in the December Trade Journal, if the Deputies opposite wished to look at them there, are clearly terms that in respect of this speculative and risky enterprise are to the national advantage. All of us are quite clear that if we could get Irish people to deal with industry here, it would be preferable to getting foreign capital to do it, but all of us on this side of the House are equally clear that if Irish people have not got into a particular Irish industry and will not show any interest in going into that industry it is preferable that we should get people with foreign capital and foreign know-how to come in and do that work rather than that the work should not be done.

Mr. Lemass

Hear! hear! Everybody agrees with that.

Mr. Sweetman

If one could take anything from Deputy Briscoe's speech to-night, it is that Deputy Briscoe would prefer that the minerals should remain in the ground unexploited. The Deputy said that he would prefer to see them remain unexploited.

Mr. de Valera

With certain reservations.

Mr. Sweetman

Everybody knew in this country that these deposits were available for private commercial exploitation. Mianraí, in pursuance of a direction given, advertised in the trade journals appropriate for this type of work, the results of their probing exploration. Mianraí, as agents of the Government, got from those advertisements various inquiries. Some of those inquiries were from firms of international repute. Some of them were from firms of repute merely in the country where they operate. Unfortunately, no such inquiry at all came from any interest in this country. I think in any event that the reason for that fact, that we got no result or no answer or no interest here, is the extent of the capital that it was going to be necessary to risk in a highly speculative venture.

Mr. Lemass

Of course. That is right. It would have to be organised.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy cannot have it both ways. The fact is that no interest was shown here. The fact is that even if interest had been shown, the people concerned would have had to get some of the technical assistance from abroad. They possibly felt that the real way to get the best out of that technical assistance was not that those people would be utilised, if I may say so, as hirelings, but that they would be the people putting their own risk capital into it, assisted, of course, if they wished, by flotations in any other way.

Mr. de Valera

What is the objection to looking for Irish capital in the matter?

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy de Valera can listen, I hope, as well as everybody else. I trust he heard me say a minute ago that there was no interest shown by any Irish person in this concern.

Mr. de Valera

That was in operation, but what about the provision of capital? Why was it not——

Mr. Sweetman

I am coming on to that now. I want to stress, and must stress to this House, that there is still a large stage of exploration work to be done, and that that exploration work is certainly going to cost £180,000 and may go up to cost up to £450,000. It is only when that work is completed and concluded that we can then say with certainty that commercial development is going to be a proposition for anybody. The effect of that is that you are going to need to expend on that perhaps up to £450,000, that, on the erection of the concentrator, it will cost £1,500,000, and the question of plant and so forth at the mines will cost another £750,000. That is £2,250,000 that way, plus the additional £180,000 certain, in the first instance, perhaps £450,000.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister reconcile those figures with those published by the Canadian firm themselves?

Mr. Sweetman

Certainly. They are the same figures. Definitely.

Mr. Lemass

They said that they were investing £2,000,000.

Mr. Sweetman

They are quite definitely the same figures. The position is perfectly clear, and is, as I said yesterday, that they are bound to invest £180,000 on exploration work. The Tánaiste and I have satisfied ourselves beyond question—if the House wants to know, by bank certificate— that that money is available for the Irish company in the bank and, in addition, if it is necessary to go on with further exploration up to £450,000, again we have satisfied ourselves that that money will be there. And it is after that, and only after that exploration is completed, that the obligation comes to invest an additional £1,500,000 in the concentrator and £750,000 in the plant necessary to go with the mines.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister has confused me a bit. Perhaps it is my fault. I would like to know is the whole thing off, or how much is off, if the further exploration is not regarded as satisfactory. What would the position then be?

Mr. Sweetman

I explained that yesterday and thought that the Deputy understood me. What I said yesterday was quite clear. The company are bound to spend £180,000 in further exploration work. They may have to spend up to £450,000 in that work. When that exploration work is completed, then if the commercial development is warranted—and in respect of whether it is warranted or not there is a clause for independent arbitration— the erection of the concentrator and the installation of the plant operates. If commercial development is not warranted, then there is the right to surrender the lease. I made that quite clear yesterday.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Minister reconcile that with the fact that they have already issued stock to the extent of 8,500,000 dollars?

Mr. Sweetman

I presume they believe that the exploration works are going to be successful.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely.

Mr. Sweetman

But that does not in any way affect the fact that there will be at least £2,750,000 or much more likely over £3,000,000 necessary to do this job that way.

Mr. MacEntee

The fact of the matter is that it is not at all as speculative a proposition as the Minister is trying to lead the House to believe.

Mr. Sweetman

Undoubtedly it is a speculative proposition.

Mr. MacEntee

But not to the extent the Minister is holding it out to be.

General MacEoin

Why did not you go ahead?

Mr. MacEntee

Just for one misforfortune. The wrong Government happen to be in power now and, as usual, they are taking over where we left off.

Mr. O'Donnell

The house that Jack built.

Mr. Sweetman

I should like to know why Deputy MacEntee did not interest himself in this proposition if he now thinks it is so wonderful since he moved to the other side of the House.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy MacEntee was the first man to introduce a Bill for the development of Avoca in 1941, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Sweetman

The plain fact of the matter is that the development of any mine depends on the price ruling for the mineral at the date upon which the extraction of the mineral would be in view. Deputy Lemass has committed himself to one view on that and the trade is not prepared to commit themselves quite in the same way as Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Lemass

The American investors will.

Mr. Sweetman

That is their business. I think at least that it would be better not to try and lead the Irish people in the way the two Deputies are trying to lead them—that the proposition is certain to be a cast-iron success.

Mr. MacEntee

We have not said that.

Mr. Sweetman

It would be entirely irresponsible for anyone to do that.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister ought to be more responsible and not suggest it is being done when it is not being done.

Mr. Sweetman

It is certainly being done and with the Deputy's full knowledge and approval. The fact is that this is a speculative enterprise of a sort of which I, personally, do not think there would have been any possibility whatsoever of getting any group of Irish interests together to deal with it.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister must never have heard of Mexican Eagles. The Irish people are always out for a speculation.

Mr. Sweetman

It is a rather extraordinary thing, if the Deputy is right at all, that there would not be Irish people interested in this. There has been no inquiry at all by Irish interests in respect of the other copper deposits.

Mr. MacEntee

There are no mining concerns in Ireland.

Mr. Sweetman

That is exactly the point. There are no mining concerns in Ireland and this is a job that needs the experience of a mining concern. The only alternatives available to this Government were to do what Deputy Lemass has agreed is not the right thing to do, namely, to get it done by State enterprise with all the risks and all the loss that would involve or do the sensible thing and advertise publicly and get the best offer that was available in the national interest and accept that offer.

Mr. Lemass

Or a combination of both.

Mr. Sweetman

If any Irish Government, on doing that, had acted in the way Deputies Lemass and MacEntee suggested that we should have acted, then what would we have done? We would have guaranteed to any Irishman who put his savings into this proposition that we were satisfied it was bound to turn out a good thing.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Sweetman

The proper way to do it was the way we did it—advertise throughout the world and to the trade that these facilities were there; that there was an opportunity for people with a knowledge of this particularly risky and speculative job coming in and examining the position and that many of them with world wide reputations came in and examined it.

Mr. MacEntee

What objection was there to this company issuing a prospectus in Ireland in the same way as they issued it in Canada and inviting Irishmen to invest in an Irish mine?

Mr. Sweetman

The Canadian company were the best offer we got in the national advantage.

Mr. MacEntee

Why did they not ask for Irish capital?

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps the Deputy might contain himself. If what is wrong with the Deputy is that he is bursting with annoyance that he has not got some savings invested in this concern and if he wants to invest in it I will ask the promoters, but he will have to take the risk. The situation is quite clear. There was no other alternative open to the Government except leave the minerals in the ground or get somebody who knew their business, who knew how to run a mine of this sort, who knew the risks, who knew how those risks could be overcome, who knew exactly the type of concentrator, who knew the type of boring that would be required, who had the reputation behind them which would enable them to get the funds necessary for this business and who would be able adequately to assess what the additional exploration required would be and who would be enabled in this way to get for us something that we could not get out of the ground ourselves.

There was not any other possible alternative open to the Government. Under the terms of the lease which I disclosed yesterday the lessees pay us back, if it comes into commercial development, all the money that the State expended on the exploration— £542,000. That is the amount assessed and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as being the correct figure. Under this lease the company are bound to pay us royalties graded on profits. Incidentally, I might add that we are rather lucky to get those royalties.

Mr. Lemass

The usual device is a tonnage royalty paid whether there are profits or not.

Mr. Sweetman

The reason development did not go on for 1948-1949 was that the previous inter-Party Government were taking the steps that Deputy Lemass had not taken to make sure that the State were the owners of the minerals and entitled to get the royalties.

Mr. Lemass

A mere formality which could have been completed.

Mr. Sweetman

But, apart from that, there were other people——

Mr. Lemass

That is childish. That was a mere formality which could have been completed at any time. That is what the Mining Board was for.

General MacEoin

You were the dictator.

Mr. Lemass

That is the worst argument offered yet for shutting down the mines.

Mr. Sweetman

It is a pity the Deputy did not take steps to make sure who owned the minerals before he started to explore because, otherwise, he would have been exploring something which the State had no right to explore.

Mr. Lemass

Is that the policy for the future? There will be no exploration until the ownership of the mine is established.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy cannot get that to wash. The plain fact of the matter is he knows that during his time there was a bad slip-up, a slip-up which was corrected during the previous inter-Party régime. This company is bound, as I was saying, to pay royalties to us on a percentage of gross profit when it goes into commercial development. On that basis I think that this is a proposition in which we —and when I say "we" I say it in the sense of all the Irish people—will not have to put up any more money for further exploration, or take the risk of putting up money to build a concentrator, or pay £750,000 for additional plant, and so forth. Here is a proposition from which we will be able to get a royalty, if everything goes well, and in which we do not lose if things go wrong. I think this is a good bargain for the Irish people. I think it is a bargain of which the Tánaiste has every reason to be proud.

The debate widened from this slightly to the extent of a petty gibe by Deputy Aiken at the Tánaiste. I did not hear that gibe myself, but I want to describe it now as a particularly dirty piece of national sabotage at the moment. Deputy Aiken said yesterday: "It strikes me as strange that Mr. Norton, who used to threaten to put anyone who invested a shilling in Irish industry behind the thickest jail walls he could find should be going around America and Canada"—Deputy Aiken must know that the Tánaiste said no such thing.

An Ceann Comhairle

From what is the Minister quoting?

Mr. Sweetman

I am quoting from to-day's "Pravda", Sir, otherwise the Irish Press. Deputy Aiken must know the Tánaiste never said any such thing and that remark can only have been made yesterday by Deputy Aiken in an attempt to dissuade people, with whom the Tánaiste is in negotiation, from bringing capital in here for the formation of additional Irish Industry.

Mr. MacEntee

What did the Tánaiste say about the jail wall?

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy is too lazy to look up the quotation, I am not going to help him.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister should look it up himself.

Mr. MacEntee

So the Tánaiste did say it.

Mr. T. Lynch

He did not wish all the ships at the bottom of the sea.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Aiken was being deliberately mischievous as, indeed, I think was Deputy Lemass when he made his speech some months ago on the subject of Avoca and when he put down this amendment. He did not merely want to see the details. Some of them had been published already. The remainder I gave yesterday. He was anxious to muddy the water because he was disturbed and sorry that he was not over here to make as good a bargain in relation to the extraction of these minerals, the extraction of which will give good employment, if it is a commercial proposition, and will at the same time ensure that we will be able to get back the finished and refined product, should we require it, to the extent of 50 per cent. and will most certainly assist in easing our balance of payments problem. But it will do something else, which I believe is equally important: it will set a headline and show that there may be some prospect in Irish minerals which will quicken and stir interest in these minerals, not merely here but elsewhere. If it does that it will be well worth while.

The effect of the tax concessions in this Bill is to make it clear that all those things must be done in a reasonably short time and I think that is a proposition of which the Dáil should heartily approve.

Mr. Lemass

Before the amendment is put, I would like to ask this question for the purpose of testing whether or not the Dáil should be asked to vote on the amendment: will the Minister say has this agreement been signed?

Mr. Sweetman

I said yesterday it was dated 3rd January.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister say whether the objection to its publication is on his side or on the side of the Canadian Government?

Mr. Sweetman

I have not asked the Canadians. I have merely fulfilled the statutory requirements in advance by giving the Deputy certain information. All that will be included in the statutory return for which he provided.

Mr. Lemass

If the agreement has been signed it may not now be altered —is that the position? Therefore, the mere submission to the Dáil could not have any effect on the agreement.

Mr. Sweetman

That is the legal position certainly.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister inquire as to whether there is objection to the submission of the details of the agreement to the Dáil by tabling it in the House?

Mr. Sweetman

There were objections taken, I think, by the Deputy when he was Minister to tabling leases of that nature.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister will appreciate that there is a difference between leasing mining rights under the 1940 Act and the lease of a mine in which the State has already invested £500,000. There surely is a substantial difference. If the Minister tells me there is objection on the Canadian side to the publication of the agreement, that is the end of it.

Mr. Sweetman

There is no difference in the case of Slievardagh, and the Deputy adopted the same procedure there; he endeavoured to sell it to private interests. The position was exactly the same; it was a mine.

Mr. Lemass

But the details of the sale agreement were given to the Dáil. There was no question about that.

Mr. Sweetman

Afterwards, in the return.

Mr. Lemass

In 1947, they had not been sold at all. We had not even got a buyer.

Mr. Sweetman

They were given in the return. As I say, I have given more than will be in the return.

Mr. Lemass

But the return only relates to the leasing of mining rights. What is involved here is the leasing of a mine, which is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Sweetman

The leasing of minerals.

Mr. Lemass

The leasing of a mine already established and working.

Mr. Sweetman

There never was a mine established or working, and the Deputy knows that.

An Ceann Comhairie

This seems to be a repetition of the arguments.

Mr. Lemass

It was worked for nine years before 1947. It was worked for sulphur. That work has been going on for ten years at least. There is a mine there. It was just after the war that the idea of exploring for copper, as distinct from sulphur, was taken on.

Mr. Sweetman

There was no mining done in this mine since the war and the Deputy knows that. As a mine, it was closed.

Mr. Lemass

But it was working as a mine before that. I certainly will not press this amendment if there is objection by the Canadian interests to the publication of the agreement. If the objection is not on their side, then it is a different matter. If the Minister will tell me that he will ask them whether they are agreeable to the publication of the agreement, I will be satisfied so far as the amendment is concerned and will keep my comments on the Minister's proposal to the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Captain Giles

So the Deputy will go down the mine?

Mr. Lemass

I was down the mine.

(Interruptions)

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it the amendment is being withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister inquire whether there is objection on the Canadian side?

Mr. Sweetman

I can see great difficulty in creating that precedent in respect of these leases. I am prepared to go this far with the Deputy: I will consider it.

Mr. Lemass

That will satisfy me. I certainly would not press the amendment if it was likely to cause delay or difficulty in regard to Avoca.

Mr. Sweetman

The statutory obligations were fulfilled anyway.

Mr. Lemass

That relates to the leasing of mining rights. That is not what is involved here at all.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy is mixing up a mining lease with a prospecting lease.

Mr. Lemass

I take it there would have to be a control of manufactures licence here?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 23rd February, 1956.