Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Apr 1941

Vol. 25 No. 9

Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill, 1941—Committee and Subsequent Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas

On this section, I should like if the Minister would tell us why he adopted this scheme of a capital of £100. I mentioned this matter on the Second Stage and the Minister, in reply, quoted a paragraph from the majority report of the Banking Commission, the effect of which was that whatever form of organisation was adopted in similar cases, the State should not permit the public to hold any forms of non-repayable capital in the enterprise. The Minister said that that was a view which was directly contrary to the view expressed by me. I am quite unable to find any occasion on which I expressed the contrary view attributed to me by the Minister. I certainly did not express it on the last occasion in the Seanad, as the Minister will find if he reads my speech. I referred to the view expressed by Senator Buckley in which he thought that this project might have been worked by private enterprise, but I said that I believed in this case that that was not practicable. I am very definitely of the opinion that mixing the two kinds of organisation is unsatisfactory. I think it is much better that the State should accept full responsibility or that, on the other hand. it should be a private concern. I think our experience of companies which had some private capital but most of whose capital was owned by the State, has been rather unfortunate.

What I criticised, and still criticise, is this. When the State decides to work by means of a limited company instead of working the industry directly under a department, it ought to set a reasonably good example, and the practice of having companies with very small capital which borrow, in effect, all their capital is one which is undesirable, and one which, I think, is too often resorted to. There may be some excellent reason that I have not been able to discover, but I do not like the State to adopt that principle. It seems to me that it would be far better if the capital provided could be the capital in n normal business and if the borrowings were such as in an ordinary business. I am quite prepared to agree that it does not make a lot of difference, but it has the effect of making the public think that the losses are much greater in a concern of this kind than they are actually if viewed by the standard of ordinary business. For instance, when you start under private auspices, which I have already said I do not advocate in these cases nor do I think would be practicable, there is a public company and it is not infrequent that there are no profits payable for two or three years. The fact that there were no profits does not appear as a loss. Later on, it would be possible to make it up, if better profits were made.

The way that the Government are proposing to work this scheme provides that interest on what is really the capital—that is, the borrowing under the Act—will be charged right at the beginning and added on, even though there may not be any profits for the first two or three years. That makes the public think that the industry is not successful and right at the beginning it is showing a loss. I believe that has a bad effect in a matter of this kind. I am not criticising the method of having £100 capital, but I think the principle is bad and I would approve of it only in cases where the company is known to be a subsidiary of another company which is fully responsible. If the Minister will look at my speech, he will see that I certainly did not say— on the debate on the Second Stage— that I had disagreed with that view of the Banking Commission at any time. In fact, I do not disagree with it.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

If I misunderstood Senator Douglas—and, undoubtedly, I did, in view of what he has said—I should like to apologise and to correct my statement. I had the impression that he felt that, perhaps, some time this undertaking would be handed over to private enterprise and that the capital structure of the company should be arranged with that in view accordingly. On account of that impression—no doubt, an erroneous one— I referred to his statement in the terms which I used.

As to the justification for the procedure which we have adopted in relation to the capital structure, I should say that it has been devised in order that the proceedings of the company will come periodically under the review of the Dáil. If we had adopted the course suggested by Senator Douglas and had formed this company with a capital commensurate with the amount of expenditure to be undertaken, we should have had, first of all, to start off with a company having a nominal capital of £100,000. Having secured the agreement of the Dáil to a Bill in those terms, we could then have provided, by one single estimate, for the whole £100,000 capital to be invested in the company. Instead of adopting that attitude, we have formed the company with a nominal capital and made it entirely dependent upon an annual vote by the Dáil. In that way, as I have said, the operations of the company come up for periodic review.

Bearing in mind that this is a Government, enterprise, I believe that is a much better method of procedure than the one suggested by Senator Douglas. I do not think it has any of the disadvantages which Senator Douglas has suggested that it has. He has stated that we are likely to give the public a wrong impression as to the financial position of the company. I do not see how we should give the financial position of the company any worse appearance by acting in this way than that which it would have if the company had been formed with a capital of £100,000 and had to present a balance sheet annually, and in each of the development years had to show a balance on the wrong side. Under the present arrangement we shall have to show on the debit side of that balance sheet the repayable advances which the company secures from the Minister They will take the place of the ordinary share capital. On the credit side we shall have to show whatever income accrues to the company, and that, in the early stages, will undoubtedly be very small, if anything at all. As between the course which we have adopted and that which Senator Douglas has recommended, I cannot see, from a balance-sheet point of view, that there is anything to it except, perhaps, the mere fact that yon have a nominal capital of £100,000 and have an apparent investment of that capital in the company's business, while on the other side you have practically no income accruing. I think that procedure would tend to create an even more erroneous impression in the public mind as to the true state of the finances than the arrangement which we have adopted, as we shall have appearing on the debit side of the account only the amount of the repayable advances as they are actually made by the Minister for Finance.

It is quite true that if we did establish the company with a full amount of £100,000 as its nominal capital, we might arrange that this capital would only be paid up as and when called, and we might arrange that those calls would be for fairly small instalments on the shares, and be spread over appreciable periods of time. Perhaps that would be a more cumbersome way of attaining the same end. On consideration, I believe it will be seen that the scheme which we have adopted is the one which most nearly fulfils the requirements of the Majority Report of the Banking Commission, which asked, first of all, that when we were undertaking developments of this sort by means of companies registered under the Companies Act, the companies established should be under the statutory authority of the Oireachtas, and that their proceedings should be subject to periodic review. We have arranged for that, first of all, by financing the company in the particular way in which we have financed it here, and by arranging that the accounts of the company shall be presented to Dáil Eireann at the end of each year.

Mr. Douglas

I do not want to press the point any further except to say that I do not accept the Minister's point of view with regard to it. I have not got the report of the Banking Commission here. In any case, I would not attempt to read it to you, but I am very much surprised indeed to find the Minister thinks the Banking Commission advocated the formation of companies which would require to handle money running up to £100,000 and much more, on £100 capital. I admit it is over a year since I read the report, but I did read it, and I may possibly have overlooked any such indication. I will try to refresh my memory, but I doubt it very much. I do not accuse the Minister of anything more than misunderstanding. I think he knows that, and I appreciate what he said. At the same time, he is correct to this extent, that I did say I thought the time might come when some industries of this kind, if they were successful, might become entirely private and, if so, this form of structure would be unsuitable. I was following the remarks of Senator O Buachalla. But I am not in favour of a mixture of the two. My reading and understanding of the report of the Banking Commission was not that it said that all developments must be by the State, but that it said if they were to be developed by the State then they should be by means of statute and that there should not be private interest in them to the extent, at any rate, of non-repayable capital. With that I agree. I do not want to press the matter any further.

Sir John Keane

I am not quite clear how this principle of Parliamentary control over public expenditure, on which the Minister is now standing, is carried out in the present Bill. Under Section 9, power is given to advance £100,000 to the company. Surely that is the end of the matter. When this Bill becomes an Act that money can be issued and then there is no further opportunity of rnising the matter in the Dáil. Or am I wrong? Has money got to be specifically voted?

Mr. MacEntee

If the Senator will pardon me for a moment, I would draw his attention to the relevant phrases in the section: "It shall be lawful for the Minister from tims to time"—which implies more or less periodically—"with the consent of the Minister for Finance to advance to the company out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sums (not exceeding in the aggregate £100,000) as the company shall require for the purposes of its business." That means that money must be advanced by a specific Vote.

Sir John Keane

I am satisfied with that. That meets my point.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

(2) The objects of the Company shall be so stated in the Memorandum of Association that the principal functions of the Company shall be:—

(c) to apply for and take such prospecting and other licences and such leases under the Act of 1940 in respect of coal (including other minerals ordinarily found in association therewith) elsewhere than in the Slievardagh Coalfield as the Company shall think proper and the Minister shall grant under the said Act and to exercise the powers conferred by such licences and leases respectively and to make marketable and sell the coal and other minerals got by the exercise of those powers.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (2), to delete paragraph (c).

I put down this amendment in order to test the real meaning of this Bill. It is called the Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill, and on the face of it, it would appear that Slievardagh was the district to be developed, but if I read sub-section (2) (c) correctly it really gives this company power to develop coal anywhere in the country, and for that reason I suggest the title is misleading, that the title would more accurately be—"A Bill to prospect and develop coalfields"—without any territorial de-limitation—"and to make divers provisions in respect of such company and for matters connected therewith." What is the object, I would ask the Minister, of setting up the whole matter in this, I suggest, misleading way? Would it not have been better merely to set up a company to develop coalfields without mentioning Slievardagh at all and give the company a free hand, as this Bill does, to develop any coalfields it likes, anywhere, or is there any subtle and occult reason for the way this matter is set out in this section? Of course, I may be wrong, but from information I have received, the whole enterprise, even if confined to Slievardagh, is highly speculative and I venture to suggest, with no restriction on its activities, the whole venture will be even more speculative.

Mr. Conlon

After listening to Senator Sir John Keane I have a different idea about what he meant in putting down the amendment, because I understood he proposed to delete one of the most important sub-sections in the Bill. He mentioned that the title of the Bill does not refer to anything outside Slievardagh Coalfield. Of course, the long title does. It is: "An Act to make provision for the promotion by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of a limited company for the development of the Slievardagh Coalfield and for prospecting for and developing other coalfields and to make divers provisions in respect of such company and for matters connected therewith."

But apart from that, I thought when I read the amendment that Senator Sir John Keane was afraid that the Minister might go forward too quickly and do something drastic in connection with the development of coal mines. I suppose he does not mean that now. In fact, from listening to the Minister's speech on the Second Reading, nobody would have any fear of that nature, because he seemed to me to make a not very enthusiastic speech in connection with the mines and minerals of the country. It was quite different from what we heard from him in years gone by, when he went around the country and deplored the fact that the Government of the day was not developing the mines and minerals of the country to the extent they should. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of his present followers state—I am sure be himself did not say it—that they proposed, if they got into power, to draw riches from the bowels of the earth and to have the surface of the land flowing with milk and honey.

The Minister's speech on the last occasion was, to my mind, rather pessimistic in regard to the whole affair. I do not think Senator Sir John Keane need have any fear that he is going to do anything drastic. The Minister was followed by a rather mournful statement by Senator Goulding. I am interested in this particular section, and I was prepared to oppose the amendment, if it were put forward, to delete it, because I had in mind one particular area that I think it might apply to. It happens to be an area in my native county, Roscommon, where coal has been worked for a number of years past, and worked successfully, by individuals. This particular area, Arigna, is in the County Roscommon principally; it also stretches into Leitrim and Sligo, and I understand that there are deposits of coal there amounting to between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 tons. In addition to that, I think it is a more suitable coal for domestic purposes in this country than the coal which may be obtained from Slievardagh. Because of that, I hope this sub-section may give the Minister and the company an opportunity of developing this particular area.

I am naturally interested in the area, in the first place, for the sake of the area itself, but, in addition, I think a very good and useful coal could be got for the country if the area were developed. I know it has been developed by a private individual, and he has made a success of it for a number of years. That being so, there ia no danger that any money would be lost on the project. In connection with the working of the mine at present, there is a pay-roll of about £400 per week. To the people who work in the mines, that is a very considerable thing. As well as producing coal for the benefit of the people of the country, it is also an advantage to the surrounding towns. If the company could see its way to open up other parts of the mines, which cover a fairly large area, and if there are 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 tons of coal in the area, this would be a very good time to bring forward the development, both in the interests of tho area, and in the interests of the country as a whole. I am glad that Senator Sir John Keane does not appear to be pressing this amendment.

Mr. MacCabe

I agree with the remarks of the last speaker, as I know a great deal about this area. I go further and state that the estimated amount of coal there is far in excess of what the Senator says. About 55 years ago experts from Great Britain came there and examined a range of mountains extending from County Cavan to Sligo, and their estimation then was that there was at least 100,000,000 tons of coal available. It was thought then that there would be a railway made from Arigna connecting the Midland Great Western, as it then was with the great Southern and the Great Northern Railways at Ballisodare. That would be a distance of 14 miles from the pithead. As we know, we were then under a foreign Government, and even though the experts came, and support was promised, it was not forthcoming. It is easily understood why it was not forthcoming —because it would be against their own interests to have coal produced here, as we were buying almost all our coal from Great Britain. But the people of that area, and the people of the Twenty-Six Counties as a whole, expected that when we did get native Government they would, undoubtedly, try to explore the minerals of this country. I am sorry to say that neither the last Government nor the present Government has done anything, as a matter of fact, to exploit our mineral wealth.

There is an area of 35 miles there which could very easily be explored. The people in the vicinity are quite willing to invest money, if they get any assistance from the Government or get expert advice to explain where work should commence. The drawback is the need of a railway of only nine miles. Surely it would be well-spent money to encourage the industry, especially in this emergency. It is not now it should be done, but three, five or 15 years ago. Had it been done then there would not be the present great outery as regards fuel for the winter. So much for that district. But we had in County Cavan another coal mine.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have allowed a discussion on one other coalfield besides Slievardagh, but if there is to be a debate en every coalfield in the country we would go very far from the present Bill. It would be well to keep the debate within the limits of the Bill.

Mr. MacCabe

I will confine myself to this area, and all I want to say is that money spent by the Government there would be well spent. I admit that there are two individuals, two private owners, there, and they are doing very good work, but they have only a share in a small part of this mine that I referred to, and I think the finances would not permit of their exploring every inch of it. I say that it is up to the Government to assist now, and to try to have it opened, and it certainly will be a good thing for the country, and it should get the support of everybody in the country, no matter what their politics or feelings might be. Everybody ought to assist in trying to explore the coal mines of our country.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that Senator Sir John Keane's fear—perhaps I should say I am glad of it—is unfounded, because, first of all, as Senator Conlon has explained, there is nothing misleading in referring to this Bill as the Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill. That, in fact, is the principal object of the Bill. The Bill also has subsidiary or secondary objects, which are set out in the Long Title, and, as the Seanad knows, it is the practice of the Oireachtas and those responsible for the technical drafting of Bills to give them an abbreviated Title for the purpose of reference. In this particular case the draftsmen thought it might be more convenient for the purpose of reference to give the Bill, as its Short Title, "The Slievardagh Coalfield Development Bill", because that covers the primary object of the Bill. There is the secondary object that, on the assumption that the company which will be formed to develop the Slievardagh Bill will have under its control, and at its disposal, the best technical advice which we can get in this country, it is natural that we should ask that company, from time to time, to investigate other propositions relating to the development of our native coal fields which may be submitted to us, and we have, accordingly, in the sub-section which the Senator proposes to delete, empowered the company to undertake as and when required by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, prospecting, under licences and leases, which would enable it to carry out such further investigations as it might will to undertake.

But the amount of money which can be devoted to these other investigations in any one year is limited by sub-section (1) of Section 12, which sets out that it shall be lawful for the Minister to require the company to prospect and examine any specified part of the Slievardagh coalfield for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and quantity of the coal, and other minerals, and the advisability of working those minerals by the extension of existing workings or of opening new workings, and for that purpose the Minister for Finance under sub-section (4) of this section is empowered to pay to the company in any one year not more than £3,000 to defray the expenses incurred in undertaking these investigations at the requisition of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. So I think it is quite clear from that sub-section that there is no intention on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance to launch into any grandiose scheme of coal mining development in this country under the guise of developing the Slievardagh coalfield. The power simply is there—and it appears to be both reasonable and convenient that it should be there, since this company would presumably have at its disposal experienced and expert persons—to ask the company to undertake these investigations and supervise them on behalf of the Minister. If, as a result of such investigations, it is found that other coalfields should be developed, then the Minister for Industry and Commerce would naturally come before the Oireachtas for powers to undertake that development or to induce other people, if necessary, to undertake it. So I think that Senator Sir John Keane has put down his amendment under a misapprehension. I ask him not to press it, because I think it is not an amendment that I could accede to, and I do not think it is one that the Oireachtas would be prepared to accept.

Mr. Douglas

Arising out of what the Minister has mentioned, do I take it that if, as a result of the first year of expenditure of under £3,000, another coalfield were found which could be developed, it would not be possible by going to the Dáil to pay a larger sum, and there would have to be another Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

There would have to be another Bill, relating to the specific purposes of developing that field. There would be another Bill which would stand on its own feet. It might be necessary even to provide a greater sum, or perhaps a less sum than £100,000. It would be entirely a new proposition and would have to stand on its own feet from the beginning, and be subject to critical examination by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Douglas

That is perfectly clear so far as any new scheme is concerned, but I presume that the same applies to the maximum provision of £100,000, that the Dáil could not increase it and that there would have to be a new Bill.

I quite agree as to that, but what I am not so perfectly clear about is this matter of the £3,000. I understood that that applied to the maximum provision, in relation to the £100,000 capital.

Mr. MacEntee

No, the position in regard to the £100,000 is that we believe that the sum of £100,000 will be ample to open the mine and prove its possibilities. If the possibilities of the mine are as great as some people think they are, it may be necessary to come and ask tor a further sum, but we should be in a position by that time to say, beyond yea or nay, what the position is, and what are the possibilities of the mine.

Mr. Douglas

Yes, but what is the meaning of saying "not more than £100,000," unless it means the bringing in of another Bill? Does it mean the bringing in of another Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

That is what I have said.

Mr. Douglas

I take it that the Minister means another Bill, as distinct from a Vote?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Sir John Keane

I put down this amendment really from the point of view of parliamentary procedure. I assume that the position is as the Minister says, and I have no doubt that the Minister's advisers are correct. but it seems to me that, according to this, people can go along and develop a mine anywhere.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, no.

Sir John Keane

Under the section, as I read it, there is power to prospect a mine elsewhere, or the State can go in and develop a mine in cases where private people might be unwilling to do so, but I do not see what provision there is made for the repayment of the money. In practice, I have no doubt that the people concerned will not go anywhere else, but, as far as I can understand, if there is a further development, another Bill will be introduced.

Mr. Foran

I should like to know why the sum of £100,000 is mentioned in the Bill. I have been reliably informed that there is a mortgage on this mine of £47,000.

Mr. MacEntee

We have nothing to do with that.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That does not arise in this connection.

Mr. Foran

I think it does, Sir.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have allowed mention, under this Section, of certain other matters, but I do not think there is any question of that particular matter.

Mr. Douglas

Yes, but there is mention later on.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Well, I presume that it can be put later on. Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Foran

I move amendment 2:—

In Sub-section (2), to insert the following new paragraph:—

(e) the said Articles shall provide that the rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment of the employees of the company shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made, or to be from time to time made, between the representatives of such employees of the one part and the company of the other part.

This amendment has already been put forward in the Dáil and was rejected by the Government. I understand that the attitude there was: "Trust the Government, and this will be favourably considered and pretty well looked after." The idea is that we should leave it to the Government, but, frankly, we cannot understand that mentality. Surely; if we are going to work this mine, those who are working there are entitled to the ordinary protection that every worker should get. We know the complaints that go on about procedure that has been adopted in other countries with regard to work in such undertakings, but, fortunately, this is a democratic State, and all members of a democratic State are entitled to protection in regard to working conditions. All that we are asking for in this connection is that the people concerned will have the right and the necessary protection to ensure a proper standard of wages and decent working conditions. In one of the greatest mining centres in the world, where they have trades unions, there are difficulties at the moment, and there are great quantities of coal involved.

In this case, I think it is essential that the people working in this mine should be assured of having fairly good conditions. It is essential that there should be good working conditions, particularly where there is a question of competition, and it should be remembered that if the jobs are not good you will not get good workmen. It is all very well to tell us that we should leave it to the Government, but some of us have memories of what Government promises have meant in the past. I could mention numerous instances of being asked "to leave it to the Government", but I need only mention the case of the Electricity Supply Board. In connection with that great undertaking we were assured, in this House, that the conditions there would be ideal as against wages paid and conditions of work in the case of a private employer, but we found that it worked out at a minimum of 29/- a week for adult workers, and that resulted in a very prolonged strike, the effects of which have remained to the present. The Electricity Supply Board, as a result, have recognised the importance of collective bargaining, and I suppose there is no undertaking in this country that has more harmony between employers and workers than the Electricity Supply Board. Some people may visualise an organisation of trades unions as being for disruptive purposes, and I understand that, in the near future, the Government intends to bring in legislation dealing with the matter of trades unions. I am sure the Minister is aware of it.

So far as that aspect is concerned, I do not think we need have any trouble, but, from a democratic Government such as the present Government claims to be, it is very strange that they will give assurances to the people who are going to exploit the national funds to the extent of £100,000, to the banks, the land owners and the people who have rights there. All those will be pretty well looked after, but when it comes to making provision for the workers, their claims are ignored. I suggest that this House in its wisdom to-day gave its opinion on what should be done in the matter of teachers in industrial schools. This House decided by a majority that these, teachers were inadequately paid, and voted accordingly. In principle there is really no difference between the case of the teachers and the case of the coal mine workers. They may be manual workers, but they are human beings just the same, and provision ought to be made to ensure that they will get a decent standard of living. I submit that this is the time to ask that provision be made for their rights, in common with every section affected by the Act. I hope that the House will support me in this amendment, and that, even at this stage, the Minister will see his way to adopt it.

Mr. Lynch

I second the amendment. I referred to it this day week and I think the Minister should tell the House the reasons why he demurred to the insertion of an amendment of this character. In other words, why is the precedent of the past now being discarded by the Minister? The provisions we seek to have inserted in this Bill have been placed in other Bills of a similar nature.

Mr. Douglas

Can you mention one?

Mr. Lynch

The Housing Bill, for instance.

Mr. Douglas

The same provision as this?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Lynch

I could mention the Cereals Bill and other Bills but there are two, at all events, where actual clauses were inserted to protect the workers' conditions of employment. I think he should tell us why this precedent, approved of in the past, is now being discarded.

Mr. Douglas

Before the Minister replies, I would like to say that I was rather disappointed with the speeches of Senators Foran and Lynch. I gathered from Senator Foran that he thinks there ought to be a trade union in connection with this coal mine. I completely and absolutely agree that there ought to be collective bargaining on the question of wages and conditions of employment. I believe that trades unions, very much like employers' organisations, are excellent bodies if they have wise and sensible leaders. Sometimes they have not. We have not been told how this amendment could possibly achieve what Senators Foran and Lynch hope for. I have read it, and I cannot see how it could be of any possible gain to them, but, at the same time, it would put them in the position into which no company ought to be put, a position in which they would be liable to pressure, under which conditions of work in this coal mine could be completely different from the Conditions of Employment Act and could not be governed by anything except what was agreed upon under pressure.

For instance, they might be forced to agree on hours which were not provided for in the standard law of the land. I am suggesting to Senator Foran that this particular amendment would not achieve what he wants. I have already indicated that I am not out of sympathy. I state without fear, and earnestly as an employer, that these matters can be better dealt with by commonsense arrangements between employers and workers. Where the Government is the employer, I prefer the same principle. It seems to me that there is something faulty in this amendment. Presumably, what is wanted, and what ought to happen, is that certain wages should be paid at the beginning. When you get a certain number of workers, some trade union will endeavour to recruit them, and then there will be collective bargaining. I would like the Minister to support me in this, that this being a limited company, even though it is created by statute, it will be in exactly the same position, as far as wages and collective bargaining are concerned, as any other company. In other words, the employees will not be civil servants, and there will be no possibility of their being treated differently from other classes of workers. If they are to be civil servants, there should be some other clause for fixing wages and conditions, because the ordinary trades union regulations would not apply to them. Putting in this amendment would not achieve anything. The employer might say that A and B have agreed to such-and-such, and that would be the end of it. Senator Foran might say they were Quislings, but the fact is that they would be "representative of employees", and you would get nowhere. I think it would be unworkable.

Mr. MacEntee

Let me say that my view as to the desirability of trades unions and collective bargaining is the same as that of Senator Douglas. I think they are essential for the protection of the workers, and I would not think of doing anything that would deprive workers of their rights in that regard. But it would be quite a different matter to write an amendment of this kind into this Bill, because you at once create a whole set of legal difficulties. Senator Douglas has referred to some of them, but what would be the position if you had one or two, or several groups, claiming to be representative of the workers?

Mr. Douglas

I think the Supreme Court would decide it.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid so.

Mr. Foran

Perhaps Senator Douglas would let the Minister make his own case. He has put words into the Minister's mouth.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not mind who makes the case.

Mr. Lynch

The case should not be made by way of reductio ad absurdum.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to continue.

Mr. MacEntee

The position is, first of all, you give certain people a statutory right that an agreement would be made only by them. It does not say who is going to represent the employees, or what sort of machinery you are going to set up to have their claims to representation authenticated. We know that one of the greatest difficulties we have in ordinary industrial activity is that, in many firms, you have three or four groups duly claiming to represent the workers. In consequence, you have had prolonged shuttings-down of industrial undertakings. This Bill is urgent. This company has an urgent task to do. The men entrusted with that task will be men in whose capacity I shall have confidence, and who, I believe, will have the same attitude as I have towards trade unions and employees, that the employees should be paid fair wages, get fair conditions of employment, and that they will recognise that it is necessary to concede these conditions in order that they may get ahead with the job with which they are entrusted.

I think it is unnecessary that a provision of this sort should be included in this Bill. Not merely is it unnecessary, but I think it would be greatly detrimental to certain other undertakings, and I would very strongly resist it. I would like to confirm the impression which Senator Douglas has. The employees of this company will in no sense be civil servants; they will have exactly the same rights as all industrial workers under the several enactments which have been passed for the improvement of industrial conditions in this country, particularly in recent years. They will be in no way disqualified or damnified, by reason of the fact that there is not in this Bill a provision, such as has appeared in other enactments, providing that fair wages and fair conditions of employment should obtain, and the reason why those provisions do not appear in this Bill is that they are unnecessary. In the case of the other measures to which the Senator referred, in every case either public money was being given by way of free grant or advance to private individuals whose activities were not going to be under the supervision of the Oireachtas, or else we were handing over to private industrial concerns large monopolies, as in the case of the Cement Act.

The Cement Act is a case in point. It has a clause providing that fair wages and fair conditions of employment shall obtain in the industry. That was because we were handing over a monopoly of the manufacture of cement to one concern. In handing that monopoly over for a term of years, certain conditions were attached prescribing that the cost of the article to consumers would be determined, amongst other things, by the cost of labour in the manufacturing processes, and it was found necessary to ensure that the labour costs would not be artificially kept down by a depreciation of the conditions under which labour was employed. For that reason, in order to provide against undue exploitation, it was necessary to insert the clause in that case.

On the other hand, in the case of the Sugar Company, where the whole of the ordinary share capital is held by the Minister for Finance, it was not necessary, because again if there was any question of unfair wages or unfair conditions the matter could be raised here in the House and the Minister could be made amenable to public. opinion for it. In this case, the proceedings of the company will come under annual review, and if the company, by reason of the fact that it is not paying fair wages or is not granting fair conditions of employment to its employees, falls down on the job, it will be subject not merely to criticism on the part of the Oireachtas, but to criticism on the part of the Minister. For these reasons, I think it should not be necessary to press this amendment.

Mr. Foran

I might remind the Minister that on former occasions Deputy McGilligan, who then occupied the position which the Minister now fills, uttered practically the same words and gave almost the same assurances as the Minister has now given in opposing amendments of this kind, but the results were pretty much the same as we then anticipated—low wages, unfair working conditions and incessant turmoil. The Minister should be more up to date, and should try to anticipate and obviate incidents of that kind. After all, £100,000 of the people's money is being invested or speculated in the exploitation of this mine. Every other interest involved will have its rights protected, and all the trouble and worry that Senator Douglas seems to anticipate will be got over so far as they are concerned. If the Senator read the amendment he would see that it merely suggests that a body elected by the people employed there will have the right to negotiate with those who will be in charge of the mine. Surely that is not too much to ask. It is no advance on, or no deviation from, conditions in modern industry. It is a perfectly natural right that the workers should have, and that should be assured for them. We are not asking for anything that is not an every-day concession.

The Minister gives us a harrowing picture of rival unions in competition, but I think that he mentioned before that he is taking steps to avoid such an eventuality as far as he can, an effort in which I thoroughly agree with him and in which I hope he will be successful. If he is successful, he need not visualise any trouble under that head. The people employed there will be largely responsible for the success or failure of this mine, and it is only reasonable that they should have some assurances on this point.

Senators here to-day were greatly concerned about the inadequate wages paid to teachers in industrial schools. Surely the people who have to work under the conditions which exist in a coalmine should also have a reasonable wage assured to them. I think the principle here is the very same as that on which Senators were so insistent in the case of the industrial school teachers, and I do not see how the Seanad could vote one way in the case of the teachers and another way in dealing with the people who will be employed to exploit this mine. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cummins

I think that in the interests of harmonious working in this very worthy project, the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment. What may happen is that there will be a rush to this newly-discovered Klondyke on the part of many people living at present under very poor conditions, and prepared to work for any wage that is offered to them. I do not suggest that any of those working under Government auspices at the mine will show any tendency to employ such men, but I have known cases in the past where such happened on Government contracts, and where men who had gone through very long periods of unemployment were prepared to work under the very worst conditions.

Although trades union conditions were supposed to be observed on the work, these people accepted much less than trade union conditions, and refrained from joining a union, with the result that some £22,000 a year went into the pockets of the contractor because the men had nobody to speak for them. They were not in a trades union, there was a rush for the few shillings that were thrown at them and poor work resulted in consequence. Then they went on strike but, without organisation, they were beaten. They had to resume work after some time like whipped curs because the unfortunate men had no one to speak for them. All right through the contract, the pockets of the contractors felt the weight of the gold that should have been in the hands of these workers. I do not anticipate a repetition of that in Slievardagh, but there is always the danger that it may occur. What Senator Foran proposes is that the men should have representatives either on the board of management or should have a body of recognised representatives set up by the workers themselves for consultation. I think it would be very wise to accept the amendment.

Mr. Quirke

I hope that Senator Cummins is right when he says there will be a rush similar to a new Klondyke, but the only worry I have is that there may not be enough men to cope with the job. I suppose there will be enough but, if Senator Cummins is serious in his statements, I am afraid he does not know the people of that part of the country. If he thinks that, when the mines are opened, the men will have nobody to speak for them, I believe he is wrong. The people in Tipperary are the greatest in the world for organising, whether for or against the Government, and they will have plenty of assistance.

Mr. Cummins

It is not only in Tipperary but in other parts of the country.

Sir John Keane

The amendment is an embarrassing and dangerous one, whether Senator Foran agrees with me or not, both to the management and to the workers. We have innumerable instances of these rival unions being set up and wrecking business through their rivalries. To try to bring all these agreements within the wording of an Act of Parliament would be dangerous and it would mean slowing down and endless trouble. The coal mines of the district at Castlecomer, although they have strikes, got along quite well. What possible safeguard is there in this amendment against strikes? None whatever. What end is to be attained by introducing this statutory embarrassment to free dealing between workers and employers? Senator Foran may think that my views are unsympathetic. Here is a business company in one of our rural counties. There are the agricultural and county council rates of wages and, so far as these workers are concerned, they are not going to do any more skilled work than the county council workers or the rural workers where these rates operate. There are not the usual dangers in this case that we ordinarily associate with coal mining. I understand that there is no fire damp and that there is no danger of explosion in anthracite mines.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to make a comment or two, in case this should be pressed to a division. I am in favour of the sense of the amendment and of the right of the workers to make a bargain collectively and to have people to speak for them, but I must confess, frankly, that I think that the labour approach to this whole problem is absolutely wrong. In fact, I think it is the wrong conception for all of us in this country that the workers must have their conditions written into every Act that goes through the Oireachtas, and that we must put them in a position that they can only get as much as is necessary to keep them alive because that is written into the Acts of the Oireachtas. It would be much better for the labour organisers to set themselves the task of fighting for the type of life where the worker will have what he is entitled to get, namely, enough to ensure him a decent existence.

Mr. Campbell

After the fight?

Mr. Baxter

There should be no fight about it. I suggest to the labour leaders that whatever may have been the position in countries like England or America, or highly industrialised continental countries, no fight is essential here and that it would be a wrong approach to our problems. I gathered from what the Minister has said, that the standard which would be set up in regard to conditions in these mines would be a good one. I cannot imagine that men would be put to work there under slave conditions. There will be a very big row if there is any conception of that sort of payment for the work to be dene. One of the first things that will happen is—although it may not be written into the Bill— that there will be a form of collective agreement between the responsible people on both sides. That ought to happen, and ought to happen without its being written into any Bill.

I am looking at this question as a man from the country, not as an employer of labour nor as a representative of industrial or financial institutions, nor as a representative of the workers, as Senator Foran and his colleagues are. I am sure the leaders of the Labour organisation must deplore it when they see rather ugly and disturbing strife between the groups of workers and their leaders as to who really is entitled to represent them. That is bad for the workers' organisation. If, at the start of this enterprise in Tipperary, there is to be a dispute as to whether John Lewis or someone else is to lead the workers there, that would be bad for all. I should not liks to see that and feel it would not be helpful to the success of the enterprise. It would create prejudices as to the possibility of development.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Quirke that the people who go to work in these mines will not be afraid to work and will give a decent return. At the same time, I believe they will not be afraid to fight for a decent wage and a standard compatible with their labour. A man must get enough to live —and have a little extra. We can take it from the Minister that it is his view that it is only possible to work this enterprise there when it will give such conditions to the people who work it as will provide for a really decent standard of living. I interpret that as the Minister's point of view. In my judgment, labour leaders from now on would be far wiser to fight for conditions of life which would be accepted as a matter of course by the Oireachtas and by the people of the country, and which it would not be necessary to have written into any Act. They would be assured then that any men going to work for employers would be paid decently—I do not mean extravagantly, but reasonably well—and would get away from this sort of struggle between employers and employees which has been the bane of people in industry of both classes in other countries, and which has to a great extent created the kind of world in which we are living to-day. I would like to support the principle embodied in this amendment but, frankly, I doubt from what I have heard from both sides, that labour will get all they want. I doubt if it is the most efficient way to try to get it. There should be a new approach to that question of labour and employees in the future here. It would not be a bad place to start.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Campbell, Seán P.
• Cummins, William.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• Madden, David J
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• Tierney, Michael.

Níl

• Brennan, Joseph.
• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Johnston, James.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Campbell and Cummins; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.

Amendment declared lost.

Sections 5 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Minister at any time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance to waive altogether or to postpone for such time as he thinks proper the payment of any particular half-yearly instalment payable by the Company under this section.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (3), after the word "Finance" in line 24, to insert the words "and subject to ratification by Dáil Eireann".

The purpose of this amendment is to try to check the tendency of the Parliament to lose practical control over the expenditure of public moneys. The Minister has told us in this respect that this Bill contains one protection in that all money to be advanced to this project is to be voted by the Dáil. Is the Dáil ever going to know if these sums of interest are waived? I know no specific machinery by which Parliament is informed if interest is waived. Power is given and it can be exercised purely administratively without the knowledge of Parliament. The object of this amendment is to ensure that when money interest is waived the consent of the Dáil shall be obtained. Otherwise, the control over public money is largely illusory. I do not know if the House is generally aware of the large sums of money that are being sunk and, I would suggest lost, in various State enterprises. I have been reading just now the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Account. Unless I am wrong, a sum of £155,000 has been sunk in the Lullymore Peat Fuel enterprise which has now gone into liquidation. So I think some protection of this kind is most necessary.

Mr. MacEntee

I gathered from Senator Sir John Keane's speech that what he is concerned about is the remission of interest.

Sir John Keane

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, the section is concerned solely with the repayment of advances to the company, and the particular sub-section which he proposes to amend relates only to the powers of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Finance to waive altogether, or to postpone for such time as he thinks proper, the payment of any particular half-yearly instalment by the company under this section. I think there are two points about which we ought to be clear. We are not dealing with interest but with the repayment of advances, and the question is whether the amendment which the Senator proposes to insert here would make, not merely the waiver of the half-yearly instalment but the postponement of the half-yearly instalment subject to ratification by Dáil Eireann. Well now, I think that the Senator will appreciate that in the early stages of this company, before it has reached the profit-earning stage, it would be pointless to ask the company to repay moneys which had been advanced to it by Dáil Eireann, because it could only repay such money by getting further advances from Dáil Eireann.

Mr. Douglas

I think it is the Oireachtas is in this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. Well, the Oireachtas, for the purpose of making grants of money, as the Senator knows, is Dáil Eireann, because any claim so made would have to be included and confirmed by a Money Bill, and I think the powers of the Dáil in that regard are not likely to be challenged.

Sir John Keane

The Minister suggested, I am afraid that the amendment was put down under a misapprehension. I intended the amendment only to refer to the waiving of interest.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister in his statement said "subject to the ratification of Dáil Eireann." I understand that Senator Sir John Keane's purpose is to see to it in case of the possibility of having to postpone the payment of interest that the Dáil would have control. What I would like to know is when the company does not pay the interest due at the end of a given six months, the procedure for letting the Dáil be aware of it and giving the Dáil an opportunity for considering it. The Minister might be able to clear that point and waive any amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

The position in relation to the whole question of the company's finances and obligations is covered by Section 16 (2) which provides that the balance sheet and profit and loss account—first of all the balance sheet shall be furnished to the Minister—shall be drawn up in such a manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct, and that it shall contain a summary of the capital, assets and liabilities of the company, which of course would include all liabilities for interest, together with such particulars as would disclose the nature of such liabilities and the manner in which the assets were arrived at, and that a copy of it shall be laid before Dáil Eireann within one month fron the time such balance sheet and profit and loss account are furnished to him. It seems to me that this will give the Dáil and the Oireachtas full information, but apart altogether from that we have the position that any waiver of any sum due by this company whether by way of interest or repayment of an advance would undoubtedly come under the notice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General who would, I am sure, mention the fact in a note to the Appropriation Account and draw the attention of the Public Accounts Committee to the matter, and it would then, in due course, be brought by the Public Accounts Committee to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister's statement does, to my mind, show that any failure to pay the interest at a given moment will have to be notified to the Minister, and the means of that being done is one that the Dáil has provided for. But the Minister previously used the phrase, "subject to ratification of the Dáil."

Mr. MacEntee

That is the term of the amendment. The amendment provides for ratification.

Mr. Fitzgerald

There is no provision then for ratification by Dáil Eireann.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Only that anything laid on the Table of the House can be raised.

Mr. MacEntee

Can be raised, and the moneys advanced. Naturally the Minister would have to accept responsibility in the House for any remission of interest which he might make.

Mr. Douglas

It seems to me it is quite impracticable to put into a Bill a proviso that if, as is almost certain to happen, certain instalments of the half-yearly repayments are not repaid, he would have to hold up the company and do nothing until you got the consent of Dáil Eireann. Personally, I think the whole section is—I do not know the exact word to use—I should say, misleading. The company has £100 capital and £100,000 loan and is going to pay back, not the capital, but the £100,000 loan, in half-yearly instalments in such time as the Minister shall determine.

Mr. MacEntee

No, no.

Mr. Douglas

This is a question, not of £100,000 capital, but of £100,000 loan, and there is no question of paying back the capital until such time as the Minister for Finance will determine.

Mr. MacEntee

No. The plain truth of the matter is that the Government do not know what is the amount of capital required, and they are going, by way of loan, to advance this money. I do not think that what Senator Douglas suggests would be done, and I should be amazed if it were to be done in that way.

Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Sir John Keane

No, Sir, I am not pressing the amendment. I have been impressed by the discussion, and I think that it is not right that the Minister should allow this matter of the reduction of advances to be postponed indefinitely, or to allow the interest on the advance to mount up indefinitely. Apparently there is no provision for the writing off of liabilities as a bad debt, which would be the practice in ordinary commercial undertakings. The matter of financial control, perhaps, is not quite appropriate in this connection, but I think it arises more or less on all this question of financial control. Perhaps it is a matter that should be more appropriately raised on the Finance Bill, and therefore I do not propose to press this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

(2) The balance sheet and profit and loss account to be furnished as aforesaid shall be drawn up in such manner as the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, shall direct, and such balance sheet shall contain (in addition to any matter required by such direction) a summary of the capital, assets and liabilities of the company, together with such particulars as will disclose the nature of such assets and liabilities, and the manner in which the value of the assets was arrived at.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (2), line 4, page 7, after the word "liabilities" to insert the words: "the amount of interest remitted on State advances."

Here, again, is another form of informing Parliament of the question of non-remission of interest. Possibly, the Minister might tell me that there is no obligation to remit interest, and that the matter of remission is an outstanding liability, but I suggest that it would be wiser to have it stated here, in so far as interest may be remitted. Whatever may be set out in the balance sheet, I think that it is very important that the Minister for Finance should be able to set out a form of account in such a way that Parliament can clearly see what advances are outstanding and what interest is being paid. As I said before, with the increasing liabilities that the State has undertaken in regard to commercial or pseudo-commercial enterprises, it is most important that all these things should be set out clearly.

Mr. M. Hayes

Surely, there is a certain amount being set out here. This company, we may assume, will be working on a loan, and it will be expected to repay that loan out of profits —not out of the capital advanced, but out of profits.

Mr. Douglas

Yes, out of profits.

Mr. M. Hayes

No company would be expected to pay out of its capital, and would only be expected to pay out of its profits. If this company does not make a profit, it cannot be expected to pay back, and it is like the case of a child who builds a house of bricks which can be blown down by a mere breath of wind. If the company makes enough profit, the Minister for Finance will get whatever profit there is, but if it does not make a profit the people will be taxed further to pay for this matter.

Mr. Douglas

That is a question for the Minister for Finance.

Mr. MacEntee

This Bill would not appear to be so bad as some Senators think it is if they would only bear in mind what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I likened the company to a development or exploiting syndicate, or a combination or company formed preparatory to establishing a more permanent undertaking. When people set out to undertake or to develop a mining venture, they do not know, in the first instance, whether it is going to be a success or not. No matter what advice they have, or no matter what money they may have at their disposal, or no matter what money they may have spent in prospecting the field, they do not know what may be the result of the development of the field. Once they have decided that the field is worth developing, they then go in for serious mining operations and do exactly what we have done here, and that is, subscribe a small amount of capital at the beginning in order to finance the initial operations of the syndicate, and then advance more money as required to open up the field and prove the truth of their preliminary conclusion that the field was worth operating.

When they have opened up the field and proved that it is worth developing, commercially, then there is a reconsideration of the position of the syndicate, and it may happen that the syndicate, having proved that the field is worth while, may make the question of further finance a matter of a public issue, or else transfer the operations to another concern which may be prepared to undertake the fuller exploitation of the mine, with a view to securing for the people concerned, not merely the repayment of the original investment but what might be a handsome profit.

That is what is being provided here. The Minister for Finance has to deal with any one of various contingencies that may arise in connection with this venture. If the venture does not turn out as well as might be expected, then the Minister for Finance is in the same position as anybody else in such a plight, and must write off the loss. If, on the other hand, the venture should turn out to be a success, and if it should-surpass his expectations, he has a much more valuable property than was thought likely, and he may be able, without charging an unduly high price for coal, to sell that coal in competition with coal from other sources of supply. He will not have a monopoly, of course, but he would be able to sell the coal at a reasonable price in competition with other coal supplies.

You have a very efficiently operated coal mine in Castlecomer, and another efficiently operated coal mine in Arigna, and this coal will have to sell in competition with the produce of these mines as well as coal from the other side of the water. If the undertaking turns out to be much better than our expectations of it are, and if as a result of selling coal at the ordinary competitive prices here, this company is able to make a substantial amount of profit, then it is open to the Minister to decide whether he is going to take that profit in the form of dividends or whether he is going to put the company in a stronger financial position internally by asking it to repay to him some part of the original capital invested in the company by way of repayable advances. The Bill merely empowers the Minister for Finance to do what appears to him to be best in the circumstances of the company at any particular time. We should all like to see the Minister for Finance in that position, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance are bound by the Constitution, and they can exercise powers of this kind only when they have been conferred on them by Parliament. The Minister for Finance has to get power to make the advances, and he has also to get power to dispose of those advances in the way that seems to him to be the best in the particular circumstances of any particular time. That is the reason why Section 16 and some of the other financial provisions are in this measure.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Sir John Keane, I should like to say that I am fully in accord with his point of view, and so far as I am concerned, I will ensure that the report of this company and the balance sheet and profit and loss account are presented in a way which will give the fullest possible information to the Oireachtas. That, too, is the view of the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance, and the Bill has been drafted from beginning to end in such a way as will ensure that the fullest information is given to Parliament in this matter.

There is just one further point before I sit down. Senator Sir John Keane, speaking to an earlier amendment, referred to the position of the Lullymore Bog. It is not correct, first of all, to say that Parliament was not aware of the amount of money that had been invested or, if you like, sunk, in Lullymore, because, first of all, the Lullymore project was floated as a private enterprise. Private interests put in a large amount of capital. The balance of the capital was raised under trade loan guarantee and the amount of the guaranteed loan was reported to Parliament in the normal way, quarterly or half yearly, so that at the outset the Oireachtas knew the extent of the guarantee. When it was found that the moneys provided under the guarantee were, according to the promoters of the concern, insufficient for the purpose, then a different procedure was adopted, and, instead of providing additional finance by further guarantees, the finances were provided out of voted moneys.

Over two or three years, I think in practically every year it was necessary, the money was voted by way of supplementary estimate, which called the attention of the Dáil specifically to the fact that money was being voted for this particular purpose and having been voted by the Dáil on a Supplementary Estimate, it appeared, of course, in the ordinary Central Fund Bill for the year and came, therefore, under the notice of both Houses of the Oireachtas. In fact, to my own recollection, the further investment of public moneys was severely criticised in Dáil Eireann. I think that the Senator has been under a misapprehension if he thinks that the Dáil was not fully informed as to what the position of affairs was at Lullymore Bog.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister rather alarmed me. When we were discussing this question last week I said that I was supporting this Bill purely on the grounds of the general emergency and the uncertainty of fuel supplies, and I think that he indicated, as a sort of upper limit, that we could lose £100,000. When the Minister compares it to what you might call a prospecting company—I know there are companies formed to prospect certain places and when they discover the gold they float a further company——

Mr. Douglas

They do not limit themselves to a £100 maximum.

Mr. Fitzgerald

By floating their company on the public, they may raise £10,000 for the exploration of it. They then issue a prospectus to the public. We are handing over £100,000 to this exploratory company. The Minister's statement seemed to me to suggest that when they have spent this £100,000 digging in the earth, they may come up out of the hole again and tell us what they have seen. They might easily say they would require £500,000 to go on with the development. I do not think it would be an ordinary governmental method to proceed to float shares. If they come up with one of these glowing reports, we might find ourselves more or less committed to further expenditure. You are more committed than ever to it than if you had not stated at all that that was the extent to which you would carry the subsidisation of this enterprise. I would like to feel that in this emergency, recognising the enormous uncertainty as to fuel, we are simply putting up £100,000, realising that we may be burying it in the earth, and that we will not get a penny of interest on it. As the Minister presented it it looked as if you are spending £100,000 in the bowels of the earth and then permitting the company to come up looking for more.

We know that once it is started you will have glowing reports, pressure will be brought to bear on Ministers, and there will be vested interests created in the district such as labour and so on. By taking this initial step, we may be committing ourselves, if we are not careful, to the provision of an unnamed sum in the future. I regard this Bill as giving £100,000 to this company to enable them to undersell competing coal mines. The Minister referred to Castlecomer. It seems ordinarily to be assumed that ordinary business has operated at Castlecomer mines without subsidisation as the coal was more apparent and more abundant, and, possibly, more profitable in Castlecomer than in this mine.

We must recognise that over a very long period no interest will be paid on this £100,000 and, therefore, we may have a situation in which this company will have to be competing with Castlecomer and Arigna. Castlecomer is the one I am most interested in because I know it. If coal was more economically produced in Slievardagh under a subsidy it should really be possible to undersell the Castlecomer product. I should like to feel that a fair price for coal would be recognised, and that the Government should see if they can sell at a price that will make a profit, because if they sell at a loss, they close down the mine. But, if it is going to be in competition with Castlecomer, then the taxpayers in the Castlecomer area will have to be taxed to subsidise another undertaking and to injure their own business. I do not think the Minister would have brought in this proposal had it not been for the present emergency, but, if we are going to have other vested interests clamouring at the Government and its representatives to advance them further money, then I would regret that I supported it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Douglas

On Section 16, I have handed in an amendment for the Report Stage. The section says, and I think it is a drafting mistake, that a copy of each balance sheet and profit and loss account shall be laid before Dáil Eireann. Now, the money is provided by the Oireachtas. When money is being provided by way of Votes, we will have an opportunity of discussing them, because they will come to us, although, according to the Constitutional provision, we can do very little except offer advice. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce was Minister for Finance, and he will, no doubt, remember a period in which offering advice was practically useless. But, if he reads the history of the Seanad, he will find that a great deal of advice offered in an earlier day was taken. The position is this: the Oireachtas provides the money, but the returns are to be submitted to Dáil Eireann. I know, of course, that anyone can see what is on the Table of the Dáil. My point is that anything that is laid on the Table can be discussed by way of motion.

If it is not laid on the Table of the Seanad, and that there is no money voted for it in that particular year, I think we would be ruled out of order if we tried to discuss it. In the case of most Bills in which I have raised this point in the past few years, the matter has been put right and I think in this case the Minister will agree that the accounts should be placed before each House of the Oireachtas. My proposition does not confer any power other than the power to discuss them. However, I shall raise the matter on the Report Stage.

Sections 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 1.

Amendment not moved.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take the Report Stage now.

Mr. Douglas

I move the following amendment:—

In page 7, Section 16, sub-section (4), line 12, to delete the words "Dáil Eireann" and substitute therefor the words "each House of the Oireachtas".

I take it that it will be unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments which I advanced on the Committee Stage.

Mr. MacEntee

The position in regard to this matter is that there has been a diversity of practice. The Industrial Alcohol Act did not provide that the accounts should be laid on the Tables of both Houses. It provided that accounts should be submitted to Dáil Eireann only. The Tourist Traffic Act provided that they should be submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas. There is, I think, not very much practical point in the question as to whether they should be submitted to one House or both Houses since the accounts would be available to both Houses, nor would the fact that the accounts are submitted to one House only preclude the Seanad from discussing the position of the company on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Douglas

I think it would not be possible to discuss it if there was no money voted for it that year.

Mr. MacEntee

That is so; but I think we may assume that, until the project has justified itself, or has been abandoned, money will continue to be voted each year up to the limit of £100,000. When that limit is reached, should it be necessary to vote further moneys another Bill would be required, and the matter would come before the Seanad in the same way as the principal measure has now come before it. The point I am coming to is that if we accept this amendment—and I am not very strongly against it—it means that the Bill must go back to the Dáil.

Mr. M. Hayes

To-morrow.

Mr. Douglas

I would press the Minister to accept the amendment, because we must assume that there will be some point when this company will go on without getting annual votes. Otherwise, it will be a complete fiasco. I have looked into this matter, and I am satisfied that any discussion in regard to the company would be ruled out of order if the returns were not placed on the Table of the House. I have watched this point in regard to other Bills. I think I was away or ill when the Industrial Alcohol Act was going through, but there were other Bills in regard to which I raised the same point, and it has always been conceded.

Mr. M. Hayes

I think the practice has been diversified, but perhaps the Industrial Alcohol Act was passed in a moment of enthusiasm, when the Minister and his colleagues did not want a Second House, and before they had an opportunity of seeing what immense value a Second House would be, and what it could contribute by way of assistance in financial and other matters.

Mr. MacEntee

May I assure the Senator that the Industrial Alcohol Act was passed in 1938?

Professor Johnston

We had only just begun to exist then.

Mr. M. Hayes

The thing was not then ripe, and it had not manifested its full bloom. The Tourist Traffic Bill evoked such discussion here that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was impressed with the vitality and the usefulness of the Seanad. It does seem absurd that you should have to get the money from the Oireachtas, but that you should not have to submit the accounts to each House of the Oireachtas.

The Minister is quite right in saying that if the accounts were submitted to Dáil Eireann any member of the Seanad could go into the Library and get them; but it is much better, if the Seanad is part of the Parliament, that it should be so recognised, and that the accounts should be submitted to both Houses so that a discussion could be initiated on that separate matter rather than having it raised amongst a number of other matters on the Appropriation Bill. I think the Minister might accept the amendment. Whatever delay it may involve, he would be in the rather unique position of bringing an amendment from this House to the Dáil which he was prepared to accept.

Mr. MacEntee

If the House feels very strongly on it, I am not prepared to stand against it. I have, however, to attend in this House to-morrow, as Senator Baxter wants me to be present at the discussion on his motion. As Senators are so insistent I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration," put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Sir John Keane

I should like to ask the Minister to consider one matter. This is an emergency measure, and I hope that in any discussions he has with the company he will ask them to take the line of bringing up the coal as quickly as possible. There will, no doubt, be experts there who will have to carry out many detailed examinations, but I think the coal should be brought up out of the surface mines as quickly as possible by utilising the large volume of unskilled labour which will be available, even at an uneconomic price. I hope the Minister will put that matter before the company as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 3rd April.