asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the total amount guaranteed and advanced by the present Government for the development of Wolfhill Colliery, the dates and amounts paid, and the conditions, if any, under which every such sum was guaranteed and paid; what amount, if any, was repaid and the date of such repayment; what security is held for the money still outstanding, and what amounts of the total sum guaranteed and advanced by the Government since the date of the first advance was paid out for (a) salaries and wages, (b) machinery and stores, and (c) royalties; also, the average number of men employed from the date of the first advance up to November 30th, 1924, and total output of coal for same period.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - WOLFHILL COLLIERY.
The present Government has guaranteed the sum of £50,000 for the development of the Wolfhill Colliery, this amount being advanced by the National Land Bank, which received 100 debentures of £500 each charged on the Company's property as collateral security. The advances were made as and when required from the 5th September, 1923, until the end of July, 1924; including a sum of £25,500 paid by the National Land Bank to the National Bank on the 30th October, 1923, in repayment of an advance made by that Bank to the Company on 2nd February, 1922, on the guarantee of the Provisional Government. Of the latter amount £25,000 represented capital and £500 accrued interest.
The conditions under which the Government guarantee was given were that the Company should lodge debentures with the Bank to the amount to be advanced.
It was represented to the Government that the money was required for the installation of modern machinery, etc., and for meeting losses on working until the company was in a position to work at a profit.
No repayment has ever been made of any of the sums advanced.
The security held for the money outstanding is the debentures charged on the company's property.
No figures are available as to what amounts of the sums guaranteed were paid out for (1) salaries and wages, (2) machinery and stores, and (3) royalties; but according to the documents available in the Department of Finance, it appears that the following sums were spent on the purchase and erection of machinery and road-making in the mine. Year ended 31st March, 1922, £10,502; year ended 31st March, 1923, £6,051; 14 months, ended 28th May, 1924, £2,793; total, £19,346 apart from a sum of £1,500 approximately spent on the miners' huts and the manager's house. During the same periods the losses in working were respectively, £25,647, £17,813, and £14,539, totalling £57,999.
No exact details are available in my Department as to the average number of men employed in the period stated in the question, but it is understood that the figure is less than 170.
The only figures available in the Department of Finance as to output of coal, are as follows:—Year ended 31st March, 1922, 15,163 tons, of which 9,899 tons were disposable commercially, the remainder being waste or used in the boilers in the mine; year ended 31st March, 1923, 14,835 tons, of which 7,931 tons were disposable commercially; eight months ended 28th May, 1924, 13,000 tons, of which 7,926 tons were disposable commercially.
In addition to the above advances, an advance of £12,000, free of interest, was made to the company by the Commissioners of Public Works in respect of the price of coals contracted to be supplied by the Company to the Commissioners. The contract was for the supply of 20,000 tons at 30/- per ton. As security for the advance the company charged their property with repayment of the advance. Only 7,000 tons were delivered under the contract, but the advance was cleared, taking into account the freight charges.
Is the Minister in a position to assure the House that all the money advanced for the development of the Wolfhill Colliery was actually spent upon that particular work? Or is he in a position to give details of the losses referred to in the answer he has given to show that such is the case, and that the money has not been used or set aside for any other purpose but the purpose of actual development.
I understand there was a sum of £10,000 which was not so applied owing to defalcations by employees of the company.
Was that on the workers' side or on the management side?
I do not think it was on the workers' side. They would have no opportunities on their side.