Last year, when I put down an amendment somewhat of this nature, Deputy Russell came to my assistance. I am glad to be able to return the compliment now. We hear these days, and correctly so, that one of the most vital needs to any increase in the standard of living is an increase of productivity. Unless we succeed in increasing productivity in every aspect of our national economic life we shall not increase our standard of living. The sooner we all face that situation and realise and accept it the better.
It seems to me, therefore, that it should be axiomatic from that to say that any mining operation should be carried on by the most efficient method. For certain mines, underground working may be the most efficient. For others, open cast mining may be the most efficient. I suggest it is wrong that we should have the deterrent against open cast mining that exists at present by reason of the fact that it does not qualify for the tax relief. The Minister is entitled to say I did not include it when I was introducing the Bill in the initial stages. That is perfectly correct. When we were introducing these two Bills in 1956 we were to a large extent pioneering inasmuch as we were attempting to see how far tax inducements of this nature would assist the drive for greater production.
I never suggested then and I do not suggest now that the measures we then introduced were the be-all and the end-all of the matter. We did not suggest in any way that they were complete, that they were perfect or that they were the last word. I concede to the Minister that, in many respects, he has improved the measures since then. Experience has shown that it is desirable to extend and to amend the provisions we then started out on. That is inevitable.
Whenever anybody in any walk of life starts something new he never gets it right the first time. As experience accumulates one sees the necessity to expand, to correct, to amend. We are all agreed that in present circumstances we must increase productivity. This is one of the ways in which it must be done. It would be quite wrong to endeavour to induce a person to win minerals by underground mining if in fact open cast mining were the correct method.
It might well be that, to win certain minerals, open cast mining would be less expensive and more efficient than underground mining but that if it had to suffer income tax open cast mining would be more expensive than the underground mining. To leave the position as it is would mean that in such circumstances the person concerned, because of the tax provision, would probably win the minerals underground even though it was not the most efficient method but because the underground method carries a tax concession it is slightly cheaper than the open cast method.
That is a bad thing to do in the national interest. It will not improve our overall economic position. Apart from all that, I think we are all clear that the type of mineral wealth we have is virtually everywhere a rather low grade mineral. If it were a high grade mineral we would not have had to introduce the tax concession in 1956 to induce people to mine. We have only low grade deposit in practically every mineral if not in every mineral. That being so, it is even more desirable that we should endeavour by every possible means to ensure that the minerals are won by the most efficient method.
I appreciate that a case may be made—I think it is a spurious case— that in the open cast method a person is better able to foresee the results than in underground mining. I admit frankly that that case was made to me in 1956 and that I was somewhat influenced by it. But, thinking it over, and with the experience before me now of what has happened in the interval, particularly in relation to Avoca, the important thing to consider is not what lies before the person in the production end but what will lie at the marketing end.
Whether you work underground or open cast, the elements of the cost of production of your mineral can reasonably be foreseen. Modern methods enable us to plot the way in which a seem of minerals runs. There is not the same element of speculation as to what will be at the other end of the tunnel.
The Minister and his Party have always used the argument, in relation to Avoca, that they have found everything that was there and that its development thereafter was not a hazard. The Fianna Fáil Party always used that argument when they wanted to claim credit for what was done at Avoca. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If that is so in relation to the present day, then the methods of assessing the field of minerals, the run of the seams and the percentage of ore in them are so accurate that there is not the same difficulty and chanciness in doing underground work as there was before.
I think that the Minister should accept this amendment because it is becoming clearer every day that, at the present-day prices of minerals on the international market, our deposits are of a nature that will be marginal at all times. They will not be won unless there is quite a considerable inducement because of their marginal nature. The gamble in relation to a mining venture in Ireland is not so much a gamble as to whether the minerals are there but as to what is likely to be the price of the minerals when they have been brought to the processing stage for sale.
A case might be made, perhaps, if we were considering open-cast mining under, say, some of the really fertile soil. The Minister could then say, I think, that the difference between underground working and open-cast working was that the fertile soil remained there in the second case and would be of national use during the process of working the minerals. We all know that is not the case in regard to any minerals of any consequence in Ireland; they occur either on the sides of a mountain or hill or on ground that is virtually useless for anything else except possibly for planting but even that is doubtful. Certainly, the usefulness of the ground beneath which underground workings are carried out is so trifling as not to warrant consideration.
I think Deputy Russell's amendment is a good one; just as I thought my own amendment was a good one last year. I did not check the exact wording but I think it is virtually the same. I press the Minister very strongly, first in the interests of productivity, secondly, in the interests of getting out the minerals and also to satisfy the sentiment there is in this country about mineral production. There has always been a sort of sentimental feeling that "there's gold in them thar hills". I am not suggesting that there is gold but there are other minerals to be won and we should all like to see such minerals as may be there produced. Any inducement that can be given towards that end should be made available.
Very often in these cases, the reason a Minister does not give away on an amendment like this is that he feels he is giving away some revenue. I do not think the Minister is giving away any revenue in this case. He can circumscribe the relaxation in favour of open-cast mining to make sure it does not include any salvage working, if that is what he is afraid of. Unless he gives this concession for open-cast mining in relation to the minerals visualised by Deputy Russell in putting down this amendment we shall not have that work at all. The minerals will remain there and, even if found, will not be won and the consequent employment for the people who would be engaged in this work will not be made available. If our minerals were of such a high grade that we could be satisfied that they would be won without the inducement offered in this amendment I could understand the Minister resisting it. That is not the case. The fact is that as we all know, as the Minister knows and as everyone who studies any of the reports knows, such minerals as are available are of a very marginal ore percentage. They are so marginal that if the price goes down at all there is a danger of a complete stoppage of operations.
I do not believe there is any justification for believing that any single mineral would be found in Ireland in such a way that experts on the subject would tell us that a variation in the cost of production or a variation in what they might find at the end of the tunnel is not what deters them from going ahead with the job. What deters them is the price of the finished product. For copper, it may be £200 today, £240 next week, £300 a fortnight afterwards and back again to £175 three months after that. That is what puts the element of gamble into mining. That is what, above all in Ireland where our ores are low grade, acts as a deterrent to development. I think it was to offset that deterrent that the Bill was originally introduced by us in 1956 when the concessions were first given. The concessions have proved themselves in the three or four years since then; they have also been improved in that period by the Minister and the Minister would be wise to add to that improvement now by allowing open cast mining this concession.