Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 1972

Vol. 258 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Ballingarry Collieries.

Mr. Treacy

Today I asked the Minister for Finance a serious and searching question, pregnant with meaning and importance, concerning the future of one of the most important industries in my constituency, the Ballingarry Collieries. The question was:

To ask the Minister for Finance if he will state in detail the arrangements now made with the management of Ballingarry collieries for future operations; if these arrangements include measures to secure long-term security for all the employees and maximum production from the mines; and when measures of this nature will come into effect.

The Minister's non-reply was to refer me to an answer to a previous question which was of a totally different nature. I am not ungrateful for the part which the Minister has played in this delicate and protracted serious matter over the past 12 months. Nevertheless, the Minister should know me well enough to realise that I would not be fobbed off by an offhand and irresponsible reply of the kind which he gave me today.

The welfare of the miners in Ballingarry has been a cause of deep concern for a large number of people in County Tipperary and the adjoining counties for the past 12 months. That concern has been expressed in a very practical way on numerous occasions by the passing of motions by many of our local authorities, by the presence of public representatives from County Tipperary, County Waterford, County Kilkenny and other places at a specially convened meeting in Clonmel by our county development team, by the many representations which have been made to the Minister over the past 12 months, by delegations comprising Members of the Oireachtas, county managers and other important public people, and the trade union directly concerned in this matter which met the Minister and Taiscí Stáit, the State body who have been dealing with this matter. All our efforts have been directed towards the ultimate objective of saving the jobs of these 240 miners, which were placed in jeopardy because of the aftermath of the bank strike of 1970. We all know that, because of the serious financial difficulties of the company at Ballingarry Collieries, Thurles, the mines closed at Easter, 1971 and 240 men lost their jobs.

After long and protracted negotiations an arrangement was eventually worked out between the Minister, An Taiscí Stáit and the owners of the mine to provide a pretty substantial loan. The nature of the arrangements and the amount of money involved in this transaction I will leave to the Minister to outline. In any event, the modus operandi was to reopen the mines and put the people back to work. There was also the problem of meeting the cheques which had been dishonoured. I believe also there was attached to this agreement a stipulation that the Minister had the right to appoint two State representatives to the board of directors of the mining company at Ballingarry.

It took from Easter to Christmas, 1971, to finalise the legal transactions involved. In the meantime, the 240 men concerned were declared redundant. The majority of these men qualified for redundancy lump sums and the appropriate weekly payments in conformity with their years of service. After nine months anxiety, waiting and agitation the legal arrangements were eventually finalised. Then, with a flourish of trumpets, about the 23rd December, 1971, the Minister's Department announced that the problems in respect of Ballingarry Collieries had been very largely resolved. Cheques were being honoured and arrangements were being made for a resumption of work.

Government Deputies were quick to rush into print, seeking to convey to everybody in the area that they alone were responsible for this joyous news. The news was carried in the national daily papers and in the local papers in such a fashion as to leave no doubt in the minds of everybody that the problem had been resolved and that there would be an immediate resumption of work. Indeed, some of the papers wished the miners of Ballingarry "a happy Christmas". This very definite impression was conveyed by the newspapers and by the Minister's statement. We expected an immediate resumption of work at Ballingarry and the reinstatement of the 240 miners involved.

This was last Christmas. Seven weeks have elapsed since and so far there has been no notification of a positive settlement. There has been no resumption of work and no indication as to when a resumption of work will take place. We have reached another stalemate in this serious problem. This is something of an anti-climax to the impression created in the statement of Christmas week. The miners of Ballingarry and their families are more despondent and disillusioned now than ever before.

I have a right as a public representative, the Ballingarry miners have a right and this House has a right to know from the Minister what has gone wrong now and when the matter will be rectified. I understand that the owner of the mine now takes the view, to use the Minister's words, that substantial additional capital will be required before production can commence. Accordingly, plans for a resumption of work for the unfortunate miners have been deferred indefinitely. It is tragic that all our hopes should be dashed.

Most of the miners by now have exhausted their redundancy weekly payments and are on unemployment benefit. Stamps for this purpose are running out. These men will in a very short time find themselves on the dole. They will then be forced down to subsistence level and poverty and privation will be widespread among the 200 families involved.

In Ballingarry there is no alternative employment and we can, therefore, understand the situation there at the present time. I want to ask, therefore, whether the attitude of the owner of the mine in demanding or requesting substantial additional capital is in all the circumstances justified. If he is right, why was this need not foreseen by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his advisers in Taiscí Stáit, and what are the views of the Minister's directors in this company?

Twelve months have passed. How much longer must we await finalisation of this problem? May I ask also whether in all the circumstances it would not be right and proper to have a full, impartial inquiry? This can no longer be regarded as a private, domestic affair between the Minister for Finance and the owner of the mine. This has become a human problem, the source of a great social evil affecting an entire community for a radius of 30 miles around the Ballingarry area. It affects The Commons, Fethard, Mullinahone, Killenaule, and Callan, the entire hinterland from Thurles to Clonmel and on to Kilkenny. It is the people's money that is being used to rehabilitate this mine and the people have a right to know what has happened and what is now happening. I, as their representative here, do not intend to stand idly by or to remain silent. I will not allow the miners of Ballingarry to be made a political football or to be used as pawns in a callous and unscrupulous financial wrangle between the Minister and the mine owner as has happened during the past 12 months.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

Would the Deputy explain what he means by that?

Mr. Treacy

I mean this racket must stop.

Mr. Colley

Would the Deputy stop reading his statement and explain what he is saying?

Mr. Treacy

The Minister will not stop me. The ball is at the Minister's feet. A substantial loan has been granted and the intention of that was to put men to work. The Minister has an obligation to get those men back to work as a matter of urgency. I am aware that the mine owner has not been satisfied with the amount of capital which was furnished for the rehabilitation of the mine. He has repeatedly stated that the amount was inadequate, that double the amount would be required. I respect the view of the owner in this regard. He is obviously a very good judge of his own business and he deserves credit for having operated the mine successfully for a number of years when the State itself had failed.

On the other hand, this serious matter has been gone into in great detail by the Minister and his experts during the past 12 months. The two State directors are men of some importance and distinction. I understand one has very high qualifications in the field of finance and that the other has expertise in mining and exploration. A decision should have been made long ago adequately to fund this mine. It must be done now as a matter of urgency. There is also the question of the feasibility of taking over the mine. This cannot be ruled out particularly having regard to the large State subvention involved and the existence of the two State directors.

None of us can be accused of rocking this boat. This boat, so to speak, has been stuck fast during the past 12 months. There is no secret about the grant of loan involved. Unfortunately the mine has had more than its share of adverse publicity. The Minister has a duty to explain in detail what is happening. This bluff must end. We must decide now, without the slightest ambiguity, whether the entire Ballingarry community are to be safeguarded or wiped out. The miners of Ballingarry and their families have a right to know where they stand at this critical time. That is why I have taken the House to the Adjournment. I want the Minister to answer for the whole situation and I want him to place the responsibility where it lies, whether it be in his Department or in Ballingarry.

Mr. Davern

I raised this matter by way of question a week ago and I received my reply on Tuesday.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy was not here to hear the reply.

Mr. Davern

As the Deputy is aware, I was delayed on the road. Deputy Treacy is once again kicking around his political football, using the workers of Ballingarry for his own political game. We in the Fianna Fáil Party have made more efforts than anybody on behalf of the Ballingarry miners. We introduced countless deputations of miners, shopkeepers and others in attempts to have this matter brought to a head. We succeeded in having relief money brought to them before Christmas. Deputy Treacy makes little of the fact that the miners were paid one and a half weeks wages four days before Christmas. I considered this a very pleasant surprise for the miners. Deputy Treacy tries to make a skit of the efforts we have put into this. He said the workers are despondent. I do not agree with him. I may know the position better than he does.

Mr. Treacy

I have a fair knowledge of it. I have many friends there.

Mr. Davern

A fair but not a good knowledge. The people there are not despondent. They are quite prepared to await a decision. Deputy Treacy has called for an inquiry. That would further delay resumption in the mine. The Minister has stated he will consider further financial assistance. If so, how much is needed? Deputy Treacy wants to delay the matter further and is using it as a political football.

Mr. Colley

This very unfortunate incident began almost a year ago and as Deputy Treacy has said it took a very long period, nine or ten months, before the agreement referred to was arrived at. Deputy Treacy also referred to a number of deputations received by me, deputations very broadly based from the area. He will know from his attendance, I think he has a very accurate idea, that there was delay in the completion of the agreement. One thing is certain: there is no delay attributable to any official source.

There is no secret about the arrangement made. It provided for the payment of a total sum of £280,000, made up as follows: £83,000 to meet wage cheques which had been referred to drawer, £32,000 payments due to the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare, £80,000 towards the purchase of a new plough and £85,000 for general working capital. As has been referred to, the money in respect of wage cheques was paid out before Christmas and an announcement was made that the arrangement had been completed, that this money was being paid out and that it was expected the mine would resume full working very shortly.

I indicated today in the House that I was disappointed with the situation which has now developed and I also indicated what the problem was but perhaps I could elaborate a little further and say that the position is that it is now the best part of a year ago since the then financial position of the company and the projections made were available to my Department. In the meantime the mine has not been operated, it has just been maintained. Until the loan agreement was concluded we could not appoint anybody to the board. As Deputy Treacy has said, Taiscí Stáit did appoint two people to the board. Those two gentlemen, and I agree with Deputy Treacy that they are eminent and competent in their field, on their appointment to the board, went into the affairs of the company and they, in conjunction with the other members of the board, but they in particular—I suppose it is understandable that I would pay particular attention to the opinions of those people—expressed the view that the provision for general working capital included in those figures I have mentioned would not be sufficient and that the likely result was that if they started operating they would have to come back in a very short time looking for further working capital.

This is a position with which I personally am not in the least pleased or impressed but the fact is that we could not get information about what the actual situation in the company was, other than the almost year old situation and projections, until we appointed these people to the board. It is not a situation that I wished to see occur but it has occurred and arising out of it an assessment is being made now of what additional working capital will be required. I have done what I can to ensure that that assessment is made as quickly as possible but I am assured that it will be at least a few weeks before we can get that assessment. When we get it we will then have to consider where we go from there.

It is my view that the situation in regard to this mine, the implications of its closure and the investment which has already taken place by the State, are such that we will ensure, within all reasonable limits, that this mine will reopen just as fast as we can ensure that it will reopen. Like Deputy Davern, I do not think that to call at this stage for, to quote Deputy Treacy, "a full and impartial inquiry" is a very helpful suggestion. If Deputy Treacy thinks, when the mine reopens and is in full operation, that there is some matter that requires investigation, by all means let him make his case at that stage but at this stage what is required, in particular what is required by the miners of Ballingarry, is to get the mine reopened, not to be having full and impartial inquiries. That is not what they are interested in. They want to get the mine reopened and that is what I want.

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

Mind you, they are and I know it to be so.

Mr. Davern

The Deputy knows his own hacks.

Mr. Colley

Is Deputy Treacy seriously suggesting to the House that the miners of Ballingarry are more interested in "a full and impartial inquiry" which would clearly be a matter that would stretch out for a considerable time——

Mr. Treacy

They want the facts.

Mr. Colley

——rather than opening the mine? Surely any practical man wants to get the mine opened and get these men back to work and at that stage if anybody wants to say anything about an inquiry let him say it but the immediate and important priority is to get the mine opened and get the miners back to work. Let us get our priorities right. As far as this side of the House is concerned that is our priority. Deputy Treacy may have another priority and he is welcome to it. The miners of Ballingarry can rest assured that the priority on this side of the House is to get the mine reopened as fast as possible.

Mr. Treacy

They have been "resting assured" for a long time.

Mr. Colley

I want to point out too, that while I do not like interrupting a Deputy I did, in ample time, when Deputy Treacy still had plenty of time available to him, ask him to explain what he meant by the statement he made which was a repeat of a statement he made today and which I understand from Deputy Davern was a repeat of a statement he made in his constituency recently. That was where he referred to "an unscrupulous and callous game between the Minister and the mine owners". I asked him to elaborate on that and I asked him in time, long before his time was up, and it is very noticeable that he did not avail himself of that opportunity. I think anybody who is interested will know why he did not avail himself of that opportunity and why he made his allegation which he is not prepared to elaborate on, explain or substantiate.

I want to make it clear that the position as far as I am concerned is that I personally have, as I said today and I repeat, been very much involved in this matter from the time it came to my notice and I intend to continue to involve myself personally in it. I think it is a very serious matter for that area. I have indicated in my actions and attitude since the trouble developed my willingness and the willingness of the Government to do everything possible to ensure the reopening of this mine. That attitude has not changed and that attitude will not change. The position is as I have outlined it and I repeat that the priority on this side of the House is to get the miners back to work. Then if Deputy Treacy, or anybody else, wants to talk about an inquiry let us hear all about it then if he has something to say.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10th February, 1972.