asked the Minister for Finance if he will agree to the immediate establishment of a public sworn inquiry into the closure of the Ballingarry Mines, County Tipperary in view of (a) the loss of jobs involved, (b) the amount of public funds already expended on the project and (c) the damage to the entire local community by its closure; and if he will make every effort to have the mines re-opened in the meantime in order to maintain the miners in employment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Tipperary Mine Closure.
70.
The decision not to provide further State assistance for Ballingarry Collieries was taken after consideration by Fóir Teoranta of an application for further financial assistance for the collieries. Following a careful examination of the position, Fóir Teoranta rejected the application as they were not satisfied that the mine had reasonable prospects of viability in the long-term. The matter was further considered as a result of representations made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce following the announcement that no further State assistance would be made available in support of the collieries. After a full review of all the factors, including the social and human considerations involved, it was decided that State support for the continuance of operations at the collieries could not be justified.
In the light of the foregoing, I am not prepared to agree to the establishment of a public sworn inquiry into the closure of the collieries. In view of the reasons which led to the closure of the collieries, I consider that resumption of production on the basis of State financial assistance would not be justified. I would like to point out, however, that Ballingarry has now been scheduled as a designated area under the Industrial Development Act, 1969, and that, in my view, the best interests of the people of the area will be served by concentrating on the efforts now being made to establish viable enterprises in the area.
The designation of "under-developed" to which the Minister refers applies for one year only—is this not so?
I believe that is so.
Is the Minister not aware that some most reliable reports of surveys carried out indicate that the mines can be made viable and profitable over the next 15 years? Is he not aware that the machinery is there, some of it new and very costly, and that the men are there? Is he not also aware that a recent advertisement, for which I understand the receiver was responsible, seeking to dispose of the mines clearly indicated that there were sales of the product? In all these circumstances would the Minister not re-consider his attitude?
I am not aware of any responsible survey or report which indicated that, taking all relevant factors into account, the future of the mines as a viable enterprise was assured. In fact, the contrary is the case. It is true that certain reports indicated viability for the mines on the basis of certain assumptions. For example, one assumption in one report — and it was not the only one —was that no employers' liability insurance would be paid and that no claims in that regard would be pressed against the collieries. I do not think anybody in this House would expect any responsible employer to engage on that sort of assumption to establish on paper that there was viability ahead for the mines. I am not aware of any report from any responsible area that would have the effect of showing that the mines had a viable future and in the circumstances there cannot be any question of reviewing the decision made. As I say, I think the best interests of the people of that area would be served by concentrating as far as possible on getting the benefits of the scheduling of the area under the Industrial Development Act, 1969. I might add, for the benefit of Deputy Treacy, who did mention the point that this is for one year only, that this can be very much to the advantage of Ballingarry. A permanent scheduling of Ballingarry could be far less advantageous than that of one year. This was our experience in another area which was scheduled for one year.
Could the Minister say whether in taking this decision the full social benefit of the colliery was taken into account or whether the decision was based on a narrow view of the purely private benefit in terms of the actual profitability of the company and bearing in mind the impact of this mine on the economy as a whole and its contribution, for example, in terms of the transporting of coal and the employment given, whether this broad view was taken and whether some kind of cost/ benefit analysis was carried out or whether the decision was taken purely on the profitability of the mine? Finally, would he accept that such assessment can be very fallible, as was seen in the case of the Avoca mine?
I do not accept the implication in the last part of the Deputy's supplementary question at all but perhaps he did not hear what I said in the reply, which was, that after a full review of all the factors, including the social and human considerations, it was decided, et cetera, et cetera. May I take it from the Deputy's question that he would be of the view that the mine should have been kept open with further State assistance?
What I asked the Minister was whether in fact a quantitative assessment was made of the social benefits.
The Deputy asked if these factors were taken into account. I pointed out to him that I said in the reply that they were. I am now challenging the Deputy to say which side he is on.
The Minister did not hear my question. What I am asking the Minister is——
I am asking the Deputy to say which side he is on. Is the Deputy afraid to say so?
Will the Minister answer the question?
I am putting it to the Deputy that the Deputy is afraid to come down on one side or the other? This would be of great interest. We now know where the Deputy stands. I do not know where the Fine Gael Party stand but we know where Deputy FitzGerald stands.
I asked the Minister to say whether a cost/benefit study had been carried out to quantify the social benefits. He has not answered that question. My answer to his question is that if I knew the result of such a study I might very well be in favour of it. If it was not carried out, how can I or anyone else know whether or not it should be kept open?
In view of the fact that we are now becoming a member of the European Economic Community, did the Minister give consideration to the tremendous benefits which could accrue to Irish mining, and Ballingarry in particular, arising out of our association with the European Coal and Steel Community and the Treaty in which we are now a partner? Did the Minister consider the tremendous boost that the reserve fund of the European Coal and Steel Community, which now stands at £65 million, could give to an important industry of this kind? Was it not the height of folly to close the mine on the advent of our joining this Community, when we could have availed of the fund and could have done something worthwhile to rehabilitate the mine or to provide worthwhile alternative benefits and further employment? Was this matter considered?
I believe all relevant factors were considered. I do not accept the phrase the Deputy used about the folly of closing the mine. I do not accept that.
Is the Minister going to answer my supplementary and say whether a quantitative analysis study was carried out or not?
There have been sufficient supplementaries asked.
Did the Minister discard altogether the benefits that could arise from the European Fund?
I said that all the relevant factors were taken into account.
Were they quantified?
In so far as there would be any benefit from the source the Deputy has in mind, this was taken into account. There is considerable room for doubt on this score. Let me say finally to Deputy FitzGerald that since we did get something like an answer, though it was a rather fence-sitting answer again from him, I suppose he is entitled to be told that there was a measurement made of the consequences of keeping open the mines and of closing them and of the social consequences in the area.
Will the Minister publish that so that we can see it and see its validity?
I do not think it is necessary.
Why not?
Everybody associated with this knows that the right decision was made and if Deputy FitzGerald were a bit closer in touch with what is going on he would know that.
I am simply asking why cannot we see the figures? If the Minister is so sure of his case, why can we not have them?
Question No. 71.