He is not required to prove that. This is not some administrative gimmick that I or An Foras Tionscal or the Department engage in. It is a statutory provision which I might read for the Deputy. An Foras Tionscal, like any other organisation, must have regard to their terms of reference, particularly when these are laid down by statute. Section 2 of the Industrial Grants Act, 1959, as passed by this House, reads:
wherever the Board—
that is, An Foras Tionscal—
are of opinion that there are sound reasons why an industrial undertaking cannot be established or developed in the undeveloped areas and that the undertaking is, having regard to its size, character or the probable extent to which its products are likely to be exported, of exceptional national importance...
Then it goes on to say the Board may make grants.
The net point is that the Board must be of opinion that there are sound reasons why the industry could not be established in the undeveloped areas. While An Foras Tionscal must have regard to the Act in that respect, I can assure the Deputy they do not apply too rigidly these provisions to the proposals that come before them.
It is difficult to deal with all the comments made in the debate but I should like to deal with one in particular. It was made by Deputy McQuillan. I hope I am not very thin-skinned. I generally am not so far as Deputy McQuillan is concerned but in the course of the debate on Tuesday, as reported in yesterday's daily Press referring to criticism offered by his Lordship, the Bishop of Cork, on Government administration, the Deputy said—I quote from yesterday's newspaper report of the debate which reads:
The one churchman in this country who had his ear to the ground and criticised what happened was Dr. Lucey, but he had been sneered at by the politicians.
I think it is very wrong for Deputy McQuillan to make such an allegation. We must all realise that a member of the Hierarchy has every right to comment on economic affairs. I accept, as the teaching of the Church in this matter, the words of Very Reverend P.F. Cremin, D.D., J.U.D., Professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law of Maynooth in his address at the consecration of His Lordship, the Bishop of Clovne, in June, 1957, on the duties of Bishops.
Dr. Cremin then said, as reported in the daily Press of 10th June, 1957:
While it was not for the Bishops to say authoritatively what might be the best solution of a political problem, they were entitled to say whether any particular solution was contrary to the moral law.
He then went on to deal at length with the special teaching authority of bishops and continued:
That special teaching authority of the Bishops extended only to matters of faith and morals; it did not extend to matters in which there were no religious or moral issues, such as those of a purely political or economic nature. On these, of course, a Bishop might speak as an ordinary citizen, or as a student of a subject in question. But then any opinion he expressed could claim only such respect as attached to it because of the intrinsic value or the special competence which the speaker might enjoy. And people were free to assess its worth in the same way as they would an opinion put forward by any other individual with comparable qualifications to speak on the subject.
I continue the quotation:
But the Bishops' teaching authority did extend to whatever fell within the Church's proper purpose and mission, which was the salvation of souls. And so it extended to any matter of faith and morals, not merely to those matters which were purely or partly spiritual, but also to those which involved some religious or moral consideration, even though the matter in question in itself was such as would not ordinarily concern the Church's interest.
I do not think that any reasonable person in politics or outside them could object in any way to this statement. Early this month, his Lordship. Most Reverend Dr. Lucey, was reported in the Press as having said in his Confirmation address to the children of the parish of Rath and the Islands, County Cork:
West Cork wants no hand-outs from the dispensers of patronage in Merrion Square or elsewhere. It wants only justice, elementary social justice...
I believe that to dispense patronage is understood by ordinary people as to do something discreditable and I take it that in his reference to the dispensers of patronage in Merrion Square his Lordship means the Government. The Government try to carry out their functions in accordance with the law of the land and especially in accordance with the teachings of His Holiness, Pope John XXIII, as enunciated in his Encyclical, entitled Mater et Magistra without discriminating unjustly against any section or area.
It is only to be expected that the Government cannot satisfy everybody and it is only natural that they will be criticised. His Lordship has as much right as any citizen, and, perhaps, more in certain circumstances, to offer criticism. However, lest silence on my part would be construed as acquiescence, I, as a member of the Government who is also a member of his Lordship's flock, regretfully feel constrained to refer to the criticism I have just quoted, which, I feel, does not instil in the public respect for the civil authority. I am very sorry that it came from such an exalted source. I refer to that only because Deputy McQuillan raised it in the course of this debate.
To refer to other matters that were raised, perhaps I might go on to the references to the cost of living which were made, in particular, by Deputy Cosgrave, that is to say, the cost of living as affected by price control or lack of price control. The policy of the Government is based on their view that competition is the most effective means of controlling prices. Deputy Cosgrave subscribed to that point of view in the course of his speech on the Estimate. It was also the considered view of the House when the Prices Act, 1958, was passed without a division. At the same time, I would not wish anybody to get the impression that the Government would be slow to invoke the provisions of this Act, if that were necessary. As Deputies know, the Act provides for the fixing by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of maximum prices for commodities where the prices charged are excessive owing to causes within the control of manufacturers or to undue labour costs and also where, by reason of the existence of restrictive practices, excessive prices are being or may be charged.
In considering manufacturers' prices regard must be had, of course, to variations from time to time in production costs. If production costs, including labour costs, increase, there must be a corresponding increase in the price of the product, unless an improvement in productivity helps to offset the burden of increased costs on industry.
Many of our industries are dependent on imported raw materials and the House will agree that I or the Government have no control over the import prices. Any significant increase in the cost of such materials must inevitably add to the cost of the end product. Similarly, significant increases in labour costs will inescapably be reflected in higher prices, if the wages increases won are not warranted by a corresponding improvement in productivity.
Deputy Corish referred to my references to the eighth round of wage increases and, fairly enough, said he did not want to read anything into them that I did not intend. He assessed what I said fairly well but, lest there may be any misunderstanding of what I meant, it was this: the eighth round was, as everybody knows, a status increase, in other words, an increase that made for a higher standard of living for the working population, and that is exactly what this Government and, I am sure, every member of the House wants to achieve. The greater the gains they can win in that respect, the more everybody will be pleased with the results. But, what I wanted to say and what I think I did say fairly clearly, is that we must have regard to the fact that wages increases as they occur must be matched by increased productivity, if we are to avoid increased costs. Otherwise, wages increases of themselves would produce that spiral we want to avoid of wages chasing prices. So that a policy in that connection which will advance the standard of living of our people in line with their productivity is the one that we all desire to achieve and the greater the increase on both sides in that respect, the greater will be our ultimate prosperity.
Deputy Cosgrave mentioned certain increases that were taking place in our cost of living. It seems to me that some of the recent increases must be attributed to increases in production costs. I am not saying that to lay the blame at the door of either workers or employers but we had achieved in the years from 1957 onwards relative stability in prices. There was that increase caused by the removal of some subsidies in 1957 but the February 1957 figure, before that, was 135 (base 1947=100); in August, 1957, the figure was 143. There was the immediate impact of the removal of subsidies. That figure fluctuated. It varied, but with relative stability right through 1958, 1959 and to early 1960, since when there has been a slight increase from 144 in February, 1960, to 154 in February of this year. We had been seeking price stability and we had achieved it fairly well but I hope this recent trend of increase in prices will again stabilise itself and that people who have secured increased wages will be able to enjoy the full advantage of them.
There were some references to our mining operations and, in particular, the operations at Tynagh. I should like to allay any fears that people might have that those who own land are in any way at the mercy of the mining operators. I should like to repeat, for the benefit of the people on whose lands mining operations are undertaken, what the position is—the legal position as far as prospecting is concerned and the rights and obligations of those on whose land prospecting is carried out.
Under the Minerals Development Acts of 1940 and 1960, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is empowered to grant prospecting licences whenever it appears to him that there are minerals on or under any land and that such minerals are not being worked or are not being worked efficiently. Section 8 of the Minerals Development Act, 1940, confers on the holder of a prospecting licence the right to enter on the land described in the licence and to carry out certain operations in search of minerals. These operations include borings, sinking pits, removing water from old workings and digging and removing reasonable quantities of the minerals for the purpose of analysis, test, trial or experiment. A prospecting licence does not confer on the holder any right to engage in commercial production of minerals.
The Acts provide that whenever damage to the surface of any mine or to mineral deposits or to water supplies or a nuisance is caused by the licensee exercising his rights under a prospecting licence the holder of the licence shall be liable to pay compensation for such damage or nuisance. The amount of compensation which should be paid may be agreed between the land owners and the licence holder, but in the absence of agreement, a procedure is available under the Acts by which the issue may be referred to the Mining Board which is an independent statutory body. Any person claiming to be entitled to such compensation may apply to the Mining Board to determine the amount of the compensation which should be paid and, on the hearing of the application, the person claiming the compensation is entitled to appear before the Board and be legally represented and to adduce evidence. The Board have discretion in regard to the costs of the parties in any proceedings.
I may add that an applicant for a prospecting licence is required to satisfy the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to his character, financial standing and technical qualifications. It is the general practice to require companies applying for prospecting licences, unless it is known that the companies are of high standing or have assets in the country already, to deposit certain sums with the Minister in advance of the issue of prospecting licences. This is a safeguard to ensure that funds will be available to meet claims.
I have spelled that out in detail because Galway Deputies have approached me. Deputy Hogan O'Higgins has put down a number of questions and Deputy Millar and Deputy Carty have come to me about the feelings and the fears of the land owners in the Tynagh area. For that reason, and so that they may be able to appraise their constituents of their rights in the matter of prospecting licences, I have gone into the matter in detail.
There is, of course, a subsequent operation. If the prospecting indicates that mining operations would prove possible, then the prospector or anyone else is entitled to apply for a mining lease. In that event the State makes an agreement with the lessee and ensures in that agreement that all interests are adequately safeguarded. Apart from that being ensured in the lease, the Mining Acts of 1940 and 1960 make adequate provision for such safeguards. Again, if compensation is not agreed upon between the owner of the minerals, in this instance, and the mine operator, the matter is referred to the Mining Board, and in this case the compensation is usually paid out of the royalties from the earnings of the mining operator from the operations themselves.
Of course, surface owners come into the reckoning here, too, and, again, when mining operations are engaged in, the surface owners have their remedies against the mining operator, remedies which are safeguarded by legislation. As the House knows, there are two types of mining. In open cast mining the operator has no choice. If the minerals are on the surface he has to get them by open cast methods and if they are deep down he has to mine deep. Deep mining is the one that causes the least disturbance to the land holder. Open cast mining creates the difficulties to which Deputy Crotty referred.
I should like to say that I have had a number of consultations with representatives of the National Farmers' Association who represent the farmers in that area. I had arranged to see the President of the N.F.A. on Tuesday of this week but by reason of the Estimate being taken I had to postpone the interview which will take place in a matter of days. As a result of that meeting, and, perhaps, whatever other activities are being undertaken in the Department, I hope to resolve the difficulties of the farmers in that area sooner or later.
A suggestion was made that some Irishman was not getting as much assistance as a Scotsman who previously worked a mine in the Castlecomer area referred to by Deputy Crotty. The facts are that an Irish group took over from the Scotsman and a technical assistance grant of £2,400 was promised, of which £600 has been paid. The grant was related to 50 per cent. of the cost of certain work carried out by the company, the Firoda Collieries. Last October, a shaft was erected and since then the Geological Survey Office has been unable to certify, because of flooding of the shaft, the amount of work done on which a further instalment of the grant could be paid. The company have been told that they will have to clear the shaft before the Geological Survey Office can assess the amount forthcoming, and I think the ball is more or less at the feet of the company at this stage. I think that gives Deputy Crotty the information he requires.
There is another major matter to which I should like to refer. To an extent, I am anticipating a question put down by Deputy Byrne, originally for today but postponed at his request to next Wednesday. I did not intend to refer to the nitrogenous fertiliser factory in Arklow and, in particular, its location but two Deputies, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy P. Brennan, referred to it yesterday in the House. Each gave his unequivocal approval to the site and told the House that represented the feelings of the people of the area.
As the House knows, there has been adverse criticism in the Press of the site involved. I should like to say that the closest possible consideration was given to this matter before the site at Shelton Abbey was ultimately selected. Shelton Abbey is not only a building. It is a townland, and a fairly extensive townland. I think I do not have to say that it is located in the Arklow Valley which is a rather restricted area in any event for industrial location.
Selection of Arklow in the first instance was dictated by the decision to use pyrites as a raw material for the production of the nitrogenous fertiliser. Pyrites is a native raw material and there is an obligation on us to use native raw materials in so far as they can be economically used. I stress the word "economically" in particular relation to the production of fertiliser. Pyrites is produced commercially higher up in the Avoca Valley. It can be brought by pipe line to a factory that wants to use it, in the region of the neighbourhood of the mining operations.
It was, from the economic point of view, necessary to locate the factory in the Arklow area and the available sites in Arklow were examined. Reasonably enough, those sites were very restricted. There was the site now decided upon; there was the portion of the site in the possession of the St. Patrick's Copper Mines which is used as a spoil dump by the mine; and there was the ground at the harbour which has since been suggested by the Earl of Wicklow as suitable. Each of these sites was very closely examined.
The spoil dump location would be quite unsuitable as the dumped material was so soft that it would be unable to bear any buildings whatever. The harbour site, portion of which is the property of the Earl of Wicklow, was found to be unsuitable for many reasons. In the first place, it was too small, the acreage being something like 20 to 25 acres. The requirements of the nitrogenous fertiliser factory are 40 acres. Therefore, it would not supply nearly sufficient space to accommodate the proposed factory and of course it would not provide space for the expansion of the factory itself and for the establishment of subsidiary industries that are likely to follow by reason of the production of ammonia on that particular site.
As well as that, the harbour site is low-lying and is partly in a swamp. Very substantial filling would be required and that filling would have to be brought a considerable distance. In addition, the other foundations are very poor and would require an exceptional amount of piling work as the subsoil consists mainly of fine sand and estuarine silt not capable of supporting the type of roads it would have to bear without expensive piling which would have to be brought down to bedrock, a total of 64 feet.
I should like to explain in this connection that the site may be suitable for other forms of industry but in the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers, there is compression machinery which is placed on the floors which must be separated from the building itself by a quarter of an inch or half an inch in order to avoid the effect of vibration on the building. The machinery generally is very heavy and the extent of piling required would be so expensive as to endanger the economy of the whole operation.
Apart from that, this site is a difficult location from the point of view of transport. A road connection would have been possible only if a level crossing were possible at the northern end of the Arklow bridge and would require the removal of one or two houses. That may not be a big consideration but over and above that, the particular location, if anybody is familiar with it, is really difficult from the traffic point of view. The county manager would object to any greater extensive use of the roadway because even in ordinary times, and particularly at tourist times, this is a bottleneck, a narrow bridge coming from the northern side of the town to the town itself.
In the case of the existing site, that would be avoided because the site is beside the Avoca River which runs immediately beside the railway and road which leads to Gorey. The traffic to the factory and from the factory bearing the nitrogenous fertiliser to the southern parts of the country would be able to by-pass Arklow town itself, with the making of a road from the factory, which is some distance from the harbour, to join the Dublin road on the other side. That means traffic going northwards and north-westwards would be able to avoid the town. I can assure the House that that is essential because in this respect there are several other matters that are important. The cooling water necessary and the parties themselves would, if the harbour site were selected, have to be taken over very much longer distances and the high tension power supply would have involved difficulty because of the proximity of houses and the adjacent tourist amenities which were developed recently at substantial cost to the local authority, with the assistance of Bord Fáilte.
Deputies may be familiar with this very desirable amenity which is beside the harbour where they have extensive recreation grounds, a swimming pool and lagoon for boating. If the site were at all suitable, the factory would have to be established up against that amenity. However, to come back to Shelton Abbey. It has the advantage that the factory would be screened from public view and what I think is important, and which should allay the fears of those people who are apprehensive about the location of the factory there, it can be screened and will be screened from Shelton Abbey itself which, as Deputies know, is now a forestry school.
Shelton Abbey looks towards Arklow town. In front of it is a long meadow possibly half a mile in length and very extensive in acreage. It bears away to the right towards the river and it is in that corner of the site that the factory will be established, a considerable distance from the forestry school. There will be a line of trees and possibly, if necessary, an embankment which will be landscaped which will seclude the factory from the house. The road on the other side, which will be quite near the factory and which is quite a scenic road, is already so covered by trees on the factory side that even the highest chimney the factory will erect will be invisible from the road.
I want to assure everybody that the gravest consideration was given to the selection of the site and it was proved after close examination that this was the only site available. As well as that, not only is it suitable from the point of view of location, but it requires the minimum of development work. Test boreholes showed that the subsoil consisted of coarse gravel, cobbles and boulders and piling work would be limited only to the very heavy structures and be limited piling at that, such as for compressors and other heavy machinery. As well as that, the fuel oil necessary can be brought from the harbour to the site by pipeline.
I also want to say that the authorities and interests who might in any way be affected, or who ought be consulted, were consulted and Bord Fáilte are quite happy about the location of the factory on this site. I hope what I have said will allay any fears in those people who have doubts about the location of this particular site and that the House will agree with what has been expressed by local Deputies as the feeling of the local people themselves. They consider it a very suitable site and it will not be an obstruction to any aesthetic view at all.
